How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

bluethrunthru said:
try telling that to those who are affected and have yet more paperwork that they didn't do before despite a promise that nothing would change and I think you'd have trouble persuading them
Click to expand...
But arguments like this can be applied to literally any form of regulation. On the flipside how do we benefit instead from being in the EU which is a regulation creation machine? Regulation that was previously generated by the EU can now be binned if we really wanted to so businesses could benefit. Isn't this an advantage?

One example, the EU has recently forced phone manufacturers to harmonise their charging ports to USB-C. This has a cost implication because the rest of the world does not force such a rule upon phone makers. Apple for example must therefore now make a phone that is specific to the European market and there's a cost implication to that.

The EU on this issue has increased regulation and increased business costs. I'm not saying that they were wrong to do it because harmonised chargers are great but it will have a negative impact on business.

So do we prefer deregulation or regulation? Or is it more that we prefer deregulation when it suits the anti-Brexit narrative but actually we mostly prefer more regulation because well that's what the EU exists to do?
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Not sure that is a good benchmark for success.
Click to expand...
It isn't but then the government/Parliament had to negotiate what is best for the UK and if what they negotiated is shite then it's 100% their fault.

I still maintain that all the fault lies with Theresa May, her critical failure was caving to party pressure to start the timed process to leave whilst she had no idea about what she was going to negotiate. She then lost her already slim majority and lost all authority in Parliament and couldn't ever enact a deal anyway.

The documentary Storyville, Brexit: Behind Closed Doors is great and it follows European politicians during the negotiations. It shows that the European side was just as reactive and there was friction between them and what they wanted. They however used the chaos in our Parliament to their advantage and I do wonder how different it could have been.


 
inbetween said:
But arguments like this can be applied to literally any form of regulation. On the flipside how do we benefit instead from being in the EU which is a regulation creation machine? Regulation that was previously generated by the EU can now be binned
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that?

Anything made here and exported into the EU has to comply with EU regulations. If they change just one thing then we cannot export to them until we apply the changes to ensure compliance.

If we open new markets we will have to comply with their regulations. So if you are making a washing machine here and export to Holland and now Australia you have two separate sets of regulations you must comply to so that doubles what you have to do with all the knock on costs.

We are now what we were told we would no longer be - a vassal state - beholden to the worlds rules. A rule taker with no say in how those rules are set. We dined at one of the best seats at the table of the worlds biggest trading bloc to looking for scarps on the floor in the corner
 
inbetween said:
But arguments like this can be applied to literally any form of regulation. On the flipside how do we benefit instead from being in the EU which is a regulation creation machine? Regulation that was previously generated by the EU can now be binned if we really wanted to so businesses could benefit. Isn't this an advantage?

One example, the EU has recently forced phone manufacturers to harmonise their charging ports to USB-C. This has a cost implication because the rest of the world does not force such a rule upon phone makers. Apple for example must therefore now make a phone that is specific to the European market and there's a cost implication to that.

The EU on this issue has increased regulation and increased business costs. I'm not saying that they were wrong to do it because harmonised chargers are great but it will have a negative impact on business.

So do we prefer deregulation or regulation? Or is it more that we prefer deregulation when it suits the anti-Brexit narrative but actually we mostly prefer more regulation because well that's what the EU exists to do?
Click to expand...
Because a lot of "EU regulation creation" was initiated by the UK to ensure our standards were met by others. So our businesses could sell stuff with no question in the rest of the EU.
 
inbetween said:
the government/Parliament had to negotiate what is best for the UK and if what they negotiated is shite then it's 100% their fault
Click to expand...

That's predicated on the premise that a non-shite Brexit was possible. It wasn't. All options were different colours and shades of shite.

The "if only we'd done it properly" brigade are in denial of this.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Do you really believe that?

Anything made here and exported into the EU has to comply with EU regulations. If they change just one thing then we cannot export to them until we apply the changes to ensure compliance.

If we open new markets we will have to comply with their regulations. So if you are making a washing machine here and export to Holland and now Australia you have two separate sets of regulations you must comply to so that doubles what you have to do with all the knock on costs.

We are now what we were told we would no longer be - a vassal state - beholden to the worlds rules. A rule taker with no say in how those rules are set. We dined at one of the best seats at the table of the worlds biggest trading bloc to looking for scarps on the floor in the corner
Click to expand...
But that's precisely the problem, we're relinquishing our entire regulatory system in favour of one specific system, a system which we only actually bother with 50% of the time. The difference between those systems is actually quite small anyway and that's why the impact has been so small so far.

I mean bloody hell If you're a car manufacturer then it isn't like the UK will now put 2 wheels on cars instead of 4 or not put seatbelts in cars. The first thing we did after leaving is transcribe most EU law into UK law so we're already by default compliant so there is today very little impact if at all in terms of regulatory differences.

I'm not massively interested in the supposed great benefits of harmonised regulation because ultimately I subscribe to removing regulation where possible. No business is hoping and praying that all regulation will become the same with Europe when it already is. This is why Airbus made a lot of noise about Brexit and now it's done and actually less impactful they're suddenly quiet and don't really give a toss.

By the way, I am not against the idea of an EU, I just completely refute that a monster like the EU must exist. I would wholly support a much smaller EU that is run by member states and that's it. The Europeans however have decided otherwise and that's probably because Europe and specifically Germany was a disaster zone post-WW2. The EU is after all the ultimate expression of a German focused trade and regulatory system.

I however don't support an EU flag, I don't support the need for an anthem or the EU national and political identity. I don't support that we must send an unelected EU 'head of state' to global events. Ursula von der Leyen is now called the most powerful woman in the world and she has never been elected to her role by any electorate.

I do want free trade and I even want freedom of movement but the EU as an institution comes with unnecessary evils to me, things I wholly disagree are necessary or even beneficial to us. We shouldn't join something that we fundamentally disagree with just because we want an easy life let alone something that improves GDP by 0.61713%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
inbetween said:
But arguments like this can be applied to literally any form of regulation. On the flipside how do we benefit instead from being in the EU which is a regulation creation machine? Regulation that was previously generated by the EU can now be binned if we really wanted to so businesses could benefit. Isn't this an advantage?

One example, the EU has recently forced phone manufacturers to harmonise their charging ports to USB-C. This has a cost implication because the rest of the world does not force such a rule upon phone makers. Apple for example must therefore now make a phone that is specific to the European market and there's a cost implication to that.

The EU on this issue has increased regulation and increased business costs. I'm not saying that they were wrong to do it because harmonised chargers are great but it will have a negative impact on business.

So do we prefer deregulation or regulation? Or is it more that we prefer deregulation when it suits the anti-Brexit narrative but actually we mostly prefer more regulation because well that's what the EU exists to do?
Click to expand...
The apple phone charger thing makes no difference It will apply to the UK regardless because these global companies will include the UK in a product aimed at the European market.
 
inbetween said:
But that's precisely the problem, we're relinquishing our entire regulatory system in favour of one specific system, a system which we only actually bother with 50% of the time. The difference between those systems is actually quite small anyway and that's why the impact has been so small so far.

I mean bloody hell If you're a car manufacturer then it isn't like the UK will now put 2 wheels on cars instead of 4 or not put seatbelts in cars. The first thing we did after leaving is transcribe most EU law into UK law so we're already by default compliant so there is today very little impact if at all in terms of regulatory differences.

I'm not massively interested in the supposed great benefits of harmonised regulation because ultimately I subscribe to removing regulation where possible. No business is hoping and praying that all regulation will become the same with Europe when it already is. This is why Airbus made a lot of noise about Brexit and now it's done and actually less impactful they're suddenly quiet and don't really give a toss.

By the way, I am not against the idea of an EU, I just completely refute that a monster like the EU must exist. I would wholly support a much smaller EU that is run by member states and that's it. The Europeans however have decided otherwise and that's probably because Europe and specifically Germany was a disaster zone post-WW2. The EU is after all the ultimate expression of a German focused trade and regulatory system.

I however don't support an EU flag, I don't support the need for an anthem or the EU national and political identity. I don't support that we must send an unelected EU 'head of state' to global events. Ursula von der Leyen is now called the most powerful woman in the world and she has never been elected to her role by any electorate.

I do want free trade and I even want freedom of movement but the EU as an institution comes with unnecessary evils to me, things I wholly disagree are necessary or even beneficial to us. We shouldn't join something that we fundamentally disagree with just because we want an easy life let alone something that improves GDP by 0.61713%.
Click to expand...

Yeah its just HALF of all exports eh? We will just accept all the rules from the multitude of the other 50% because why? Oh I see those are rules that are ok because they are NOT the EU.

And btw von der Leyen is elected. The electorate elect representatives to the EU Parliament - people like Nigel Farage - and one of the jobs they are charged with is they vote on their behalf to get a leader.

The only people who voted for Starmer or Sunak at the last GE were the people in their constituency. Everybody else voted for an MP. That MP then elects a Party Leader or if their side won the PM.

Anyway seems quite nice today, sunny and blue skies, you enjoy your Sunday Mail and have a good day
 
bluethrunthru said:
Yeah its just HALF of all exports eh? We will just accept all the rules from the multitude of the other 50% because why? Oh I see those are rules that are ok because they are NOT the EU.

And btw von der Leyen is elected. The electorate elect representatives to the EU Parliament - people like Nigel Farage - and one of the jobs they are charged with is they vote on their behalf to get a leader.

The only people who voted for Starmer or Sunak at the last GE were the people in their constituency. Everybody else voted for an MP. That MP then elects a Party Leader or if their side won the PM.

Anyway seems quite nice today, sunny and blue skies, you enjoy your Sunday Mail and have a good day
Click to expand...
Ursula von der Leyen has never been elected to her role by an electorate, she was elected by European politicians who are indeed elected but they're part of factions who will always predominately elect through political nepotism.

The biggest faction in the European Parliament is the EPP and guess which faction Ursula von der Leyen is part of? Guess which faction the last president Jean-Claude Juncker was part of? Guess which faction predominately represents the whims of Germany? Guess which faction the UK had zero representation within....?

And yet I must accept that this charade is some amazing thing? Pft, do me a favour. It's a total waste of time and resources and Farage's attendance was the ultimate representation of that.
 
inbetween said:
I do want free trade and I even want freedom of movement but the EU as an institution comes with unnecessary evils to me, things I wholly disagree are necessary or even beneficial to us. We shouldn't join something that we fundamentally disagree with just because we want an easy life let alone something that improves GDP by 0.61713%.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, it's fine and a good thing to have that discussion.

But why not do that without pretending facts aren't what they are? EU membership is very significant economically. If you think it's worth it, fine, make your case, but instead you try to argue it's not important, entirely without evidence.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Fundamentally, it's fine and a good thing to have that discussion.

But why not do that without pretending facts aren't what they are? EU membership is very significant economically. If you think it's worth it, fine, make your case, but instead you try to argue it's not important, entirely without evidence.
Click to expand...
I just don't see anything in the economic figures that show that it's very significant. I can just tell you that as a fact today total GDP is the highest that it has ever been. According to the IMF we're also set to grow faster than the rest of Europe this year so for the millionth time where is the significance shown? Obviously there are a random set of studies but I can't take them as gospel when those same people have quite simply been consistently wrong.

I see the EU as a political behemoth of waste and excess, it has no place in the modern world where Europe needs to be less political and instead focus on being more agile and competitive. The EU has not served Europe for decades, I mean half the continent hasn't even recovered from 2008. The Spanish and Italian economies are still smaller today than they were in pre-2008! The EU and ECB tried to destroy Greece after 2008 and Greeks rejected their 'support' in 2015. It isn't a rosy picture by any stretch.

We would obviously be better off in the EU if the EU reformed and actually started to behave like what you're saying is important which is basically just a trading bloc of nations but that isn't on offer. At no point does a federalised superstate need to come into this. Giving up the UK entirely to become the 51st US state would be highly beneficial economically but obviously we're not going to do it!

This is very relevant to rejoin because rejoin would mean eliminating our currency and taking the Euro and many other things that we previously had to negotiate our way out of whilst in the EU. These are fundamental to joining the EU, you have to take them and they have nothing whatsoever to do with free trade. If the cost of rejecting that is at worse 4% of GDP over 10+ years then so be it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
roubaixtuesday said:
Despite every single economist disagreeing with you (and I've quoted a few)!

It's impossible to have the rest of the discussion while you insist on denying economics.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but it's time to move on because it's too late. This discussion was only relevant *checks date* 9 years ago.

If Brexit is having some serious impact then our government would surely be flapping around and acting quickly to do something about it?

And yet it seems their priority is more to take winter fuel payments off pensioners than deal with this apparent Brexit catastrophe.
 
inbetween said:
This is very relevant to rejoin because rejoin would mean eliminating our currency and taking the Euro
Click to expand...
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden - thats 7 out of 27 or around a quarter of member states do not use the Euro. Don't believe the scare stories you read
 
City Hobgoblin said:
Even The Daily Express and Clarkson ( who I think was anti-brexit) are having worries

www.express.co.uk

Jeremy Clarkson responds to 'scary' BBC Countryfile post Brexit report

Joe Crowley investigated post-Brexit border checks on BBC's Countryfile - with Jeremy Clarkson adding his own thoughts on the 'scary' situation.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk
Click to expand...

he was in the lead up then became pro - if Brexit is fucking these two up then it can only be a good thing as those who follow their every word realise that they were sold a massive turd
 
inbetween said:
...

I mean bloody hell If you're a car manufacturer then it isn't like the UK will now put 2 wheels on cars instead of 4 or not put seatbelts in cars. The first thing we did after leaving is transcribe most EU law into UK law so we're already by default compliant so there is today very little impact if at all in terms of regulatory differences.
...
Click to expand...
That's not a very good example of the impact of Brexit, given the damage to UK motor manufacturing since 2016.

16000 firms that used to export stuff to the EU no longer bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top