Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,520
But the UK want to sell. The UK can lower their standards to be able to buy more from those countries but that doesn't really help.
EU standards are higher but the UK couldn't sell beef to the USA because of BSE for example; Geography will always play a major part. Whichever country you look at the major part of the trade will be with their closest neighbours.
What does India want from the UK that they can't buy from their nearer neighbours, this is the question,with cheaper transport and production costs.
While I agree with a lot of what you say Paul, the UK will live or die by its services rather than goods trade.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
12,649
Location
Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Aka Paul the Pogba
While I agree with a lot of what you say Paul, the UK will live or die by its services rather than goods trade.
Yes, in a way, exports of services are 45% of total exports and 55% are goods. Not prioritising a services agreement with the EU in the trade discussions is surely a little worrying.
No idea where the UK are heading. Getting more suspicious of Johnson, if that is possible, as time goes on and he's surrounded himself with idiots.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
9,285
The Australian deal is a minor thing but once the UK start buying it then the checks from the EU will increase and apart from the UK farmers not being able to compete they won't be able to sell either.

Saw Ian Blackford (SNP) in the UK parliament saying the UK need 200 such deals to make up for the EU. He's wrong , 200 more deals like this and the UK are finished. They need one less deal like this.

The worry is what will Liz Truss do next. Like Finneh she seems to think that granting tariff free access to the UK is a good thing, although not for the same reasons. Couldn't be more wrong.

You're right it will take time but if they carry on doing similar deals it will be (even more of) a disaster.

Best thing for the UK would be to lock Truss in a cupboard and find Johnson's shady links to China.
Agriculture industry in the UK employs only 1.5% of the total workforce and represents 0.61% of the economy. You are debating mice nuts.

In the agri sector the big 5 items are Dairy, Wheat, Poultry, Beef and Pork. These are not largely the agri items that will be imported from Australia. They'll represent some of it but it will be fruit, wine, fisheries and grains that will be had. And there'll be plenty going back the other way.

Guaranteeing a cheap source of food for the UK isn't a massively bad move. Tariff free is a fair argument.

It's Aussie businesses that will suffer more than UK based ones once goods and services start to move the other way. They'll lap up cheaper Toorak tractors (Range Rovers), Jags and Aston Martins. Match your cheap wine to those industries.
 

UweBein

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,988
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
feck me, it's like the book of Job. They'll still vote Brexit even if you destroy their farm and smite their kids.
if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

That's the spirit, I guess.
 

Krakenzero

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
79
Supports
Santiago Wanderers
Hello everyone! I've been reading this post for about 2 years and recently I got access to post in this forum.

I would like to thank the posters that have been willing to have the same discussions over and over again with the same posters with varying lines of argument, in order to expose the very discernible fact (not only now, but 5 years ago as well) that this was a very bad idea and that people in the UK (and some colaterals like Ireland) will suffer the huge consequences as well.

I'm not from the UK (or the EU for that matter), but I have found myself absorbed (for the lack of a better word) witnessing this extremely slow motion car crash for the last couple of years, and I still haven't processed very well how a country made a decission that is the sociopolitical/economic equivalent of deciding that, in a race against other countries, the best way to win is to keep hitting yourself in the crotch with a baseball bat while running. I understand that it's a mixture of a bunch of very ambitious people with no scruples, an increasingly corrupt and coward governing party, an increasingly inept and out of touch (while also coward) opposition party, an immensely misinformed electorate and a very vague (and also misinformed) feeling of pride and nostalgia for "the good old days" across the population. Anyway, this will be one for the ages and will probably be studied for generations to come, so we better get into it.

Maybe I sound the wrong way while writing this: obviously, the situation is terrible and the -usually poor- people is already facing the consequences. I'm sorry if that's the case, English isn't my native language and, as I said before, this is one of these situations when you just can't look away even when you want to. Anyway, the first step to recovery should be to admit the problem, and if the government isn't willing to do so then the job falls in the hands of the electorate. Will they be up to the task? How to make it work?

Sorry for the long post, I've been here a lot of time reading and learning from all of you and just wanted to say hello and thanks. I'll try to participate if I can.
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
2,607
Supports
Barcelona
A lack of political will is by far the biggest barrier. Given that most of these "standards" are specifically designed to prejudice poorer countries in favour of the bloc.
So health and, environmental reasons (among other reasons) are designed not to protect our health and environment but to go against poor countries. I am sure they used also the mad cows to revisit what was feeding to the cows also to feck the poor countries too

Your arguments are beyond ridiculous.
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,034
So health and, environmental reasons (among other reasons) are designed not to protect our health and environment but to go against poor countries. I am sure they used also the mad cows to revisit what was feeding to the cows also to feck the poor countries too

Your arguments are beyond ridiculous.
If you think governments and politicians across the planet don't regularly use health, safety and environmental reasons to increase taxes, rules, regulations, curbs to their freedom etc then I'm unsure how you'll be convinced. That's literally just politicians being politicians.
 

UweBein

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,988
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
..... Anyway, this will be one for the ages and will probably be studied for generations to come, so we better get into it.

.....
To me it seems that the explanation is already there.
There is or has been a rise in nationalism. (Not only in UK, but across all of Europe). Opponents often label it as racism, but I am not sure whether I agree.

One thing that seems to be clear now (and it wasn't ten years ago) is that especially the poorer classes of society did not profit in the same way from the UK being an EU member. Also the same classes had to experience the negative effects of immigration like competing for the same jobs, appartments, public spaces, sharing the same schools etc. If you live in a nice neighbourhood in Hertfordshire you can pretty much detach your reality from these negative effects, but it's not the same for people with a lower economic mobility and strength. Probably, there has been a feeling of helplessness among a significant share of the Brexit voters (who on the basis of economic impact probably should not have voted for Brexit), so they regarded the Brexit vote as a kind of last exit possibility. Of course the campaign captured these underlying issues quite well and showed these voters a possible path. (It won't work of course, because at the end it is a problem in the internal social structure. The negative effects of Brexit might even counter any positive effects like higher paid low income jobs because prices will rise or the next Spain holiday becomes more expensive. )

Specifically in Britain, you can probably blame Blair quite a bit for this development. He was just looking at the positive effects of immigration which are undoubtedly there, but these effects are not solely positive.

And you can blame BoJo & co all you want, but we are witnessing similar approaches across Europe (Hungary, Poland, Italy, France are the obvious examples; Spain ruthlessly pushing back on illegal immigration, the CJEU declaring push-backs as legal, Denmark trying to restructure "problematic" neighbourhoods, the German left has suddenly discovered the disproportionate burden of immigration that the economically poor have to deal with.) The major difference is the anti-EU approach which was chosen in the UK. That worked in the UK because there has been an anti EU theme for many decades in the UK, which was exploited for the referendum.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
49,572
Maybe some of the rich Brexiteers might start getting antsy when fancy restaurant stop being able to serve them food. They didn't care much about seasonal working in farming but that's out of sight, out of mind. Or it was just a question of getting our lazy young people to do some manual labour, it'll do them some good, teach tham the value of a hard day's work. This one strikes closer to home and doesn't quite land with the usual tropes. And as much as they'll want to deflect to furlough, it's kind of obvious how much restaurant staff came from the EU in the first place...

A Michelin-star restaurant has said it will no longer open at lunchtimes due to a shortage of staff.

David Moore, the founder of Pied à Terre in London, said he decided to halt the restaurant's lunchtime menu to "preserve" his depleted workforce.

"If I slog them to death, in two weeks' time, I won't have a restaurant," he told the BBC.

Mr Moore is the latest of several hospitality business owners to raise concerns over staff shortages.

"You struggle through everything that we have had to struggle through with Covid, and then you come back and you get another kick in the teeth," said Mr Moore.

As the UK economy emerges from the effects of the pandemic, several industries have reported shortages of staff, with UK job vacancies hitting their highest level since March 2020.

The hospitality sector has been hit harder than most, having to cease trading during lockdowns and operating under tight restrictions.

It has led to many staff being placed on furlough, which has prompted some to leave the profession. Industry body UK Hospitality has said waiting staff and chefs are in particular demand.

Restaurateur Mr Moore said 800 people applied for a receptionist role in November 2020, but he received just seven responses when he re-advertised for the role three weeks ago, and no-one showed up to an interview.

He said higher wages were "still not getting the eyeballs" on advertisements.

"I don't know anybody who is not looking for a kitchen porter," he added.

Mr Moore said Brexit was "definitely the biggest" factor behind staff shortages, and he said the "heartbeat" of the hospitality industry was "young kids" coming from abroad to work in restaurants and bars to gain life experience and new skills.

"[The government] don't realise the huge commodity we have that they have excluded us from, that keeps this industry moving more than anything else," he said.

He said before the pandemic, just three out of his 30-strong workforce were British. His restaurant currently has 12 staff.
 

Dans

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
26,009
Location
Oberbayern
To me it seems that the explanation is already there.
There is or has been a rise in nationalism. (Not only in UK, but across all of Europe). Opponents often label it as racism, but I am not sure whether I agree.

One thing that seems to be clear now (and it wasn't ten years ago) is that especially the poorer classes of society did not profit in the same way from the UK being an EU member. Also the same classes had to experience the negative effects of immigration like competing for the same jobs, appartments, public spaces, sharing the same schools etc. If you live in a nice neighbourhood in Hertfordshire you can pretty much detach your reality from these negative effects, but it's not the same for people with a lower economic mobility and strength. Probably, there has been a feeling of helplessness among a significant share of the Brexit voters (who on the basis of economic impact probably should not have voted for Brexit), so they regarded the Brexit vote as a kind of last exit possibility. Of course the campaign captured these underlying issues quite well and showed these voters a possible path. (It won't work of course, because at the end it is a problem in the internal social structure. The negative effects of Brexit might even counter any positive effects like higher paid low income jobs because prices will rise or the next Spain holiday becomes more expensive. )

Specifically in Britain, you can probably blame Blair quite a bit for this development. He was just looking at the positive effects of immigration which are undoubtedly there, but these effects are not solely positive.

And you can blame BoJo & co all you want, but we are witnessing similar approaches across Europe (Hungary, Poland, Italy, France are the obvious examples; Spain ruthlessly pushing back on illegal immigration, the CJEU declaring push-backs as legal, Denmark trying to restructure "problematic" neighbourhoods, the German left has suddenly discovered the disproportionate burden of immigration that the economically poor have to deal with.) The major difference is the anti-EU approach which was chosen in the UK. That worked in the UK because there has been an anti EU theme for many decades in the UK, which was exploited for the referendum.
But the poorer classes did profit, immensely. They are now only just realising what they have lost - case in point, Wales, to where millions in European Regional Development Fund money flowed during the EU membership to invest in infrastructure and more, money which will not be replaced by London. Why they ever thought that this wouldn't be the post Brexit scenario is beyond me (probably they didn't think is the answer to that one).
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
49,572
Hello everyone! I've been reading this post for about 2 years and recently I got access to post in this forum.

I would like to thank the posters that have been willing to have the same discussions over and over again with the same posters with varying lines of argument, in order to expose the very discernible fact (not only now, but 5 years ago as well) that this was a very bad idea and that people in the UK (and some colaterals like Ireland) will suffer the huge consequences as well.

I'm not from the UK (or the EU for that matter), but I have found myself absorbed (for the lack of a better word) witnessing this extremely slow motion car crash for the last couple of years, and I still haven't processed very well how a country made a decission that is the sociopolitical/economic equivalent of deciding that, in a race against other countries, the best way to win is to keep hitting yourself in the crotch with a baseball bat while running. I understand that it's a mixture of a bunch of very ambitious people with no scruples, an increasingly corrupt and coward governing party, an increasingly inept and out of touch (while also coward) opposition party, an immensely misinformed electorate and a very vague (and also misinformed) feeling of pride and nostalgia for "the good old days" across the population. Anyway, this will be one for the ages and will probably be studied for generations to come, so we better get into it.

Maybe I sound the wrong way while writing this: obviously, the situation is terrible and the -usually poor- people is already facing the consequences. I'm sorry if that's the case, English isn't my native language and, as I said before, this is one of these situations when you just can't look away even when you want to. Anyway, the first step to recovery should be to admit the problem, and if the government isn't willing to do so then the job falls in the hands of the electorate. Will they be up to the task? How to make it work?

Sorry for the long post, I've been here a lot of time reading and learning from all of you and just wanted to say hello and thanks. I'll try to participate if I can.
:lol: that's a very insightful summary from an outside perspective, far more nformative than the endless back-and-forth you referred to! Cheers for sharing.

If you think governments and politicians across the planet don't regularly use health, safety and environmental reasons to increase taxes, rules, regulations, curbs to their freedom etc then I'm unsure how you'll be convinced. That's literally just politicians being politicians.
Of course, that's not what he's arguing against. Yes politicians use those reasons for those policy choices. The fact that those policy choices are designed to do what you claim is the point of contention. If you don't even recognise the leap then yes the conversation is unlikely to go very far, but not because he has an odd starting position.
 

UweBein

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,988
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
But the poorer classes did profit, immensely. They are now only just realising what they have lost - case in point, Wales, to where millions in European Regional Development Fund money flowed during the EU membership to invest in infrastructure and more, money which will not be replaced by London. Why they ever thought that this wouldn't be the post Brexit scenario is beyond me (probably they didn't think is the answer to that one).
They did, but they also had to live with and experience the negative consequences of it in a more direct way. That's what I'm saying.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
12,649
Location
Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Aka Paul the Pogba
Agriculture industry in the UK employs only 1.5% of the total workforce and represents 0.61% of the economy. You are debating mice nuts.

In the agri sector the big 5 items are Dairy, Wheat, Poultry, Beef and Pork. These are not largely the agri items that will be imported from Australia. They'll represent some of it but it will be fruit, wine, fisheries and grains that will be had. And there'll be plenty going back the other way.

Guaranteeing a cheap source of food for the UK isn't a massively bad move. Tariff free is a fair argument.

It's Aussie businesses that will suffer more than UK based ones once goods and services start to move the other way. They'll lap up cheaper Toorak tractors (Range Rovers), Jags and Aston Martins. Match your cheap wine to those industries.
If farmers go out of business in the UK it won't be going the other way. If the UK imports meat from Australia they won't sell any to the EU. The fisheries will be soon out of business. Wine is pennies and by the way Jacob's Creek which is owned by a French company. The UK already sell cars to Australia but the volume of business is so small it's peanuts. Australia trade mainly with countries which are close to them. The transport costs will kill any possible gains; fresh food can't be sold, it goes off.

Aussie businesses are rubbing their hands while China are causing them problems.

If the UK continue to have deals like this with tariff free access they won't have any industry at all. Then what are you going to sell?

So fisheries going, farmers going, services going, fruit and veg soon, steel next, then tourism , car sector, engineering, where does it stop?
The UK dumping ground for the world and no jobs.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
50,118
Location
France
people that are in the market for Aston Martins, Jaguars or Range Rovers aren't affected by tarrifs particularly when Australia doesn't really have a comparable industry so this market is already filled with exports.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
12,649
Location
Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Aka Paul the Pogba
Hello everyone! I've been reading this post for about 2 years and recently I got access to post in this forum.

I would like to thank the posters that have been willing to have the same discussions over and over again with the same posters with varying lines of argument, in order to expose the very discernible fact (not only now, but 5 years ago as well) that this was a very bad idea and that people in the UK (and some colaterals like Ireland) will suffer the huge consequences as well.

I'm not from the UK (or the EU for that matter), but I have found myself absorbed (for the lack of a better word) witnessing this extremely slow motion car crash for the last couple of years, and I still haven't processed very well how a country made a decission that is the sociopolitical/economic equivalent of deciding that, in a race against other countries, the best way to win is to keep hitting yourself in the crotch with a baseball bat while running. I understand that it's a mixture of a bunch of very ambitious people with no scruples, an increasingly corrupt and coward governing party, an increasingly inept and out of touch (while also coward) opposition party, an immensely misinformed electorate and a very vague (and also misinformed) feeling of pride and nostalgia for "the good old days" across the population. Anyway, this will be one for the ages and will probably be studied for generations to come, so we better get into it.

Maybe I sound the wrong way while writing this: obviously, the situation is terrible and the -usually poor- people is already facing the consequences. I'm sorry if that's the case, English isn't my native language and, as I said before, this is one of these situations when you just can't look away even when you want to. Anyway, the first step to recovery should be to admit the problem, and if the government isn't willing to do so then the job falls in the hands of the electorate. Will they be up to the task? How to make it work?

Sorry for the long post, I've been here a lot of time reading and learning from all of you and just wanted to say hello and thanks. I'll try to participate if I can.
Very good summary.
You have an advantage that your mind has not been corrupted by the British politicians nor the British media. Keep it that way.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,599
Sorry for the long post, I've been here a lot of time reading and learning from all of you and just wanted to say hello and thanks. I'll try to participate if I can.
Don't worry, they will love you to bits on this thread, definitely preaching to the choir.:rolleyes:
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
12,649
Location
Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Aka Paul the Pogba
To me it seems that the explanation is already there.
There is or has been a rise in nationalism. (Not only in UK, but across all of Europe). Opponents often label it as racism, but I am not sure whether I agree.

One thing that seems to be clear now (and it wasn't ten years ago) is that especially the poorer classes of society did not profit in the same way from the UK being an EU member. Also the same classes had to experience the negative effects of immigration like competing for the same jobs, appartments, public spaces, sharing the same schools etc. If you live in a nice neighbourhood in Hertfordshire you can pretty much detach your reality from these negative effects, but it's not the same for people with a lower economic mobility and strength. Probably, there has been a feeling of helplessness among a significant share of the Brexit voters (who on the basis of economic impact probably should not have voted for Brexit), so they regarded the Brexit vote as a kind of last exit possibility. Of course the campaign captured these underlying issues quite well and showed these voters a possible path. (It won't work of course, because at the end it is a problem in the internal social structure. The negative effects of Brexit might even counter any positive effects like higher paid low income jobs because prices will rise or the next Spain holiday becomes more expensive. )

Specifically in Britain, you can probably blame Blair quite a bit for this development. He was just looking at the positive effects of immigration which are undoubtedly there, but these effects are not solely positive.

And you can blame BoJo & co all you want, but we are witnessing similar approaches across Europe (Hungary, Poland, Italy, France are the obvious examples; Spain ruthlessly pushing back on illegal immigration, the CJEU declaring push-backs as legal, Denmark trying to restructure "problematic" neighbourhoods, the German left has suddenly discovered the disproportionate burden of immigration that the economically poor have to deal with.) The major difference is the anti-EU approach which was chosen in the UK. That worked in the UK because there has been an anti EU theme for many decades in the UK, which was exploited for the referendum.
A lot of the Brexit vote came from places like that, who weren't touched much by immigration; it was the thought that some foreigner might come and play cricket on the village green.
 

Dans

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
26,009
Location
Oberbayern
They did, but they also had to live with and experience the negative consequences of it in a more direct way. That's what I'm saying.
I suspect that within a few years when they realise that London is not ponying up a damn thing, those folk will happily exchange letting in a few hard working immigrants for some money to fix up their shithole areas.
 

Dans

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
26,009
Location
Oberbayern
If farmers go out of business in the UK it won't be going the other way. If the UK imports meat from Australia they won't sell any to the EU. The fisheries will be soon out of business. Wine is pennies and by the way Jacob's Creek which is owned by a French company. The UK already sell cars to Australia but the volume of business is so small it's peanuts. Australia trade mainly with countries which are close to them. The transport costs will kill any possible gains; fresh food can't be sold, it goes off.

Aussie businesses are rubbing their hands while China are causing them problems.

If the UK continue to have deals like this with tariff free access they won't have any industry at all. Then what are you going to sell?

So fisheries going, farmers going, services going, fruit and veg soon, steel next, then tourism , car sector, engineering, where does it stop?
The UK dumping ground for the world and no jobs.
But who cares! Boris has just done an unparalleled deal! Unparalleled indeed. Such a fraud.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
12,649
Location
Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Aka Paul the Pogba
But who cares! Boris has just done an unparalleled deal! Unparalleled indeed. Such a fraud.
Actually I was just looking at the CPTPP agreement which is Truss's next mission.
This is according to the British government going to bring another £12bn in business by 2030. Wow.

What that fails to mention is that most of it is with Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam all of which the EU (including the UK if they had stayed) already had an agreement. The only one of any consequence that was missing from the CPTPP was Australia (which was still tiny). Australia and NZ are in talks with the EU.

How do brexiteers buy into all this BS?
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
9,285
If farmers go out of business in the UK it won't be going the other way. If the UK imports meat from Australia they won't sell any to the EU. The fisheries will be soon out of business. Wine is pennies and by the way Jacob's Creek which is owned by a French company. The UK already sell cars to Australia but the volume of business is so small it's peanuts. Australia trade mainly with countries which are close to them. The transport costs will kill any possible gains; fresh food can't be sold, it goes off.

Aussie businesses are rubbing their hands while China are causing them problems.

If the UK continue to have deals like this with tariff free access they won't have any industry at all. Then what are you going to sell?

So fisheries going, farmers going, services going, fruit and veg soon, steel next, then tourism , car sector, engineering, where does it stop?
The UK dumping ground for the world and no jobs.
Ownership means nothing, most scotch whiskeys are owned by Mexicans. It means nothing, country of origin is where it counts.

The UK sells cars at a premium because they have to pay import costs. Removal of that beings down the cost of UK manufactured cars vs European. As someone who has actually lived in Australia and works as a manufacturing consultant I'm probably better placed than you to actually understand it on the ground. Sending a container to Australia from the UK is about £3500, I know because I recently did it.

Aussie businesses are not rubbing their hands as much as you think, not in the sectors where you think they're going to kill UK industry like agriculture, I'm not sure where you're getting that information.

By the way, next time you buy a banana, mango, avocado, or any other tropical fruit remind yourself that fruit is perishable and then ask how you're buying it in Northern France. That's a ridiculous statement from someone that says they work in logistics because most logistics people will be aware of how fruit is transported internationally.


www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/may/10/foodanddrink.shopping6