Brexit matters

[RT4038]

And that was the point I was trying to make - that they are not similar. I'm not, for once, arguing for "Remain" here, by the way, just arguing against the argument that the UK is more different than the rest.

I don't think there is any recognised measure of the quantum of 'differences' in the cultural context. You could calculate a number by making a list, but this would not take into account the weighting in each individual countries' case. Therefore it will always be rather subjective. So I am not really sure what you are arguing for - because Bulgaria and Sweden have one set of unique combination of differences, but it is convenient for their circumstances to be members of the EU, that the UK, with their combination of unique differences should be automatically content with membership too?

 

[SteveP29]

I'd tend to agree with you. While I don't know many people who are happy about paying taxes, for the most part people are content with paying them as long as they perceive that they're getting value for money. This is in contrast to attitudes among many in the USA (particularly on the right) where any taxes not directly spent on defence are seen as a massive imposition and are fought against, tooth and nail.

I wish Americans would have a lightbulb moment and question why they have a need for such a massive defence budget

 

[najaB]

I wish Americans would have a lightbulb moment and question why they have a need for such a massive defence budget

The "price of Freedom", innit?

 

[RT4038]

I wish Americans would have a lightbulb moment and question why they have a need for such a massive defence budget

Rather a lot of citizens livelihoods depending on it, directly and indirectly?

 

[najaB]

Rather a lot of citizens livelihoods depending on it, directly and indirectly?

Pork barrel politics isn't really a good excuse in itself. The same money could be spent on other things that provide employment.

 

[RT4038]

Pork barrel politics isn't really a good excuse in itself. The same money could be spent on other things that provide employment.

But they are where they are, and if peoples livelihoods are threatened (and particularly if a lot of livelihoods are threatened), it is going to be contentious to move from expenditure on one to another. Makes lightbulb moments that much more unlikely.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Pork barrel politics isn't really a good excuse in itself. The same money could be spent on other things that provide employment.

But those areas are largely down to the states, whereas the military (and things like NASA) is federal spend.
We don't have the same split of budgets, federal being a dirty word in Westminster.

 

[najaB]

But they are where they are, and if peoples livelihoods are threatened (and particularly if a lot of livelihoods are threatened), it is going to be contentious to move from expenditure on one to another. Makes lightbulb moments that much more unlikely.

That's true. However defence contractors directly employ less than 2% of the US working population. So the lightbulb moment can still happen for the other 98% of taxpayers.

But those areas are largely down to the states, whereas the military (and things like NASA) is federal spend.
We don't have the same split of budgets, federal being a dirty word in Westminster.

If by "those areas" you mean the alternative spend then yes, much of it is at the state level. However there is a lot of non-defence Federal spending - rebuilding and improving transportation infrastructure for example could provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, much of which comes out of Federal budgets.

 

[RT4038]

That's true. However defence contractors directly employ less than 2% of the US working population. So the lightbulb moment can still happen for the other 98% of taxpayers.

But it is not just those employed directly by defence contractors - it is those employed by those firms supplying defence contractors, and all their families, and those supplying those families, and the military personnel and their families, and, and . Nor is it particularly clear as to why they would want to reduce their security.....

 

[najaB]

But it is not just those employed directly by defence contractors - it is those employed by those firms supplying defence contractors, and all their families, and those supplying those families, and the military personnel and their families, and, and .

Most of those second and third tier companies also provide the civilian sector. As to military personnel, the US armed forces aren't actually that large as compared to other countries. On a per-capita basis they are 59th out of 175.

Nor is it particularly clear as to why they would want to reduce their security.....

It's not clear that their defence spend needs to be quite as high as it is to ensure security. The USA spends more on defence than the next nine countries in the list combined.

 

[RT4038]

It's not clear that their defence spend needs to be quite as high as it is to ensure security. The USA spends more on defence than the next nine countries in the list combined.

That is not our business though. Presumably this expenditure keeps them (and their influence) in bases all over the world, and ahead of the game in Research and Development?

 

[najaB]

Presumably this expenditure keeps them (and their influence) in bases all over the world, and ahead of the game in Research and Development?

Fifty years ago, definitely. Of late, much of it goes directly into the pockets of investors in companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing, rather than being invested into research.

 

[RT4038]

Fifty years ago, definitely. Of late, much of it goes directly into the pockets of investors in companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing, rather than being invested into research.

Whether it does, or not, is not our problem. We are not exactly immune from such things ourselves, be it in defence or other state and other activities.

 

[najaB]

Whether it does, or not, is not our problem. We are not exactly immune from such things ourselves, be it in defence or other state and other activities.

Perhaps not, but I was just answering the question posed above.

 

[AM9]

Fifty years ago, definitely. Of late, much of it goes directly into the pockets of investors in companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing, rather than being invested into research.

Defence research, development, production and support has always transcended contemporary or extant trading treaties, being driven almost exclusively by national and global security considerations. Although it is true that the US has the largest influence over materials and processes, the UK continues to have a significant influence in the design and development sphere.
The major commercial issue is that the government frequently fails to prevent predatory 'mergers' (or acquisitions) where US liquidity is used. It does go the other way sometimes, e.g. BAE Systems has a global payroll of about 93000, but 41000 of those are part of BAE Systems Inc..

 

[nw1]

Single Market/Customs Union/Rejoining the EU is too hot a potato to handle as it would haemorrhage votes away from any party that mentions it. I know I certainly would not vote for a party that mentions it.

(Moved from the "Tories after the election" thread)

What is your problem with the single market and customs union? Is reducing bureaucracy, red tape and costs when trading with the EU not a good thing? Is the imposition of additional costs and checks, contributing to food price inflation, not a bad thing?

In what material way will your life be better if we stay outside the single market and customs union?

And would you really reject an entire party just because it might mention the possibility of rejoining the single market and customs union, even if the rest of its policies are sensible?

I'm certainly not doing the converse - i.e. entirely rejecting a party because it's not, for now, mentioning rejoining the single market and customs union. I'm not such a strong Remainer that I will only vote for parties promising a rejoin right now - I'm primarily voting to get the Tories out, as just about anyone else (except Reform) would do a better job, IMO. Even though they are not making any "Remain" type noises for the moment, I can see that on a whole range of other matters, Labour are clearly better than the Conservatives, and hence, I will be voting (tactically) for them.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

If you’re in the SM/CU you’re essentially in the EU by default, paying exorbitant memberships fees and not being able to have a say at the table. Not something acceptable to me so let’s leave it at that.

 

[SynthD]

If you’re in the SM/CU you’re essentially in the EU by default, paying exorbitant memberships fees and not being able to have a say at the table. Not something acceptable to me so let’s leave it at that.

In that case you may have voted against Brexit in the referendum, as you have defined the soft exit we were sold.

 

[Enthusiast]

What is your problem with the single market and customs union? Is reducing bureaucracy, red tape and costs when trading with the EU not a good thing? Is the imposition of additional costs and checks, contributing to food price inflation, not a bad thing?

Ah! So when did you stop beating your wife?

Of course reducing bureaucracy is a good thing. Of course imposing additional costs is a bad thing. Unfortunately to enjoy the good and eliminate the bad involves costs and consequences which you have conveniently omitted to mention

In what material way will your life be better if we stay outside the single market and customs union?

It won't. But unfortunately being inside those institutions involves freedom of movement and bestows the right on 450m to almost unquestionably settle in the UK. It also involves the UK having to submit to trading agreements which may not suit it. Most importantly it means accepting the jurisdiction of a legislature on matters which have nothing to do with trade whatsoever.

Of course there is no reason why a trading arrangement which eliminates tariffs and bureaucracy should require freedom of movement and the other features of the SM and CU. Other countries seem to conclude perfectly satisfactory agreements with their trading partners which do not involve that. But of course as we all know, the EU is not simply a trading bloc. It is a political construction which claims sovereignty over its members' legislatures so whatever material benefits it provides are simply irrelevant.

And would you really reject an entire party just because it might mention the possibility of rejoining the single market and customs union, even if the rest of its policies are sensible?

Yes.

In that case you may have voted against Brexit in the referendum, as you have defined the soft exit we were sold.

Anybody who voted to leave and who expected the UK to remain in the SM and/or the CU was deluded. Participation in those two institutions gave rise to the very issues which the majority of people who wanted to leave were most critical of. There was no such thing as a "soft" Brexit (i.e. one that involved simply striking the UK off the list of members). If many politicians had had their way, that is precisely what would have happened.

 

[nw1]

Ah! So when did you stop beating your wife?

Sorry?

I really don't get that reference at all. Can you please explain?

It won't. But unfortunately being inside those institutions involves freedom of movement and bestows the right on 450m to almost unquestionably settle in the UK. It also involves the UK having to submit to trading agreements which may not suit it. Most importantly it means accepting the jurisdiction of a legislature on matters which have nothing to do with trade whatsoever.

That might be true, or might not be (you can surely have SM/CU without FoM, should you desire; that was one of the options on the table in 2019) but the post I was replying to did not mention FoM - just SM/CU.

 

[sor]

It won't. But unfortunately being inside those institutions involves freedom of movement and bestows the right on 450m to almost unquestionably settle in the UK. It also involves the UK having to submit to trading agreements which may not suit it. Most importantly it means accepting the jurisdiction of a legislature on matters which have nothing to do with trade whatsoever.

Meanwhile we've printed as many visas as businesses desire, and we've signed up to things that we have no say over (abandoning the ridiculous UKCA nonsense and allowing permanent use of CE certification on goods sold in GB)

All without the benefits of actually being in the EU or in a very close arrangement that works perfectly well for several countries (in that EFTA club that we were in before we became a full EU member)

Of course there is no reason why a trading arrangement which eliminates tariffs and bureaucracy should require freedom of movement and the other features of the SM and CU. Other countries seem to conclude perfectly satisfactory agreements with their trading partners which do not involve that. But of course as we all know, the EU is not simply a trading bloc. It is a political construction which claims sovereignty over its members' legislatures so whatever material benefits it provides are simply irrelevant.

It's been 8 years and I can't believe the same arguments are going around again. The UK self imposed various red lines on what it would accept, the EU provided something that complied with them. We are not going to get special treatment, not even Switzerland gets that.

We gave up a little with the Windsor Agreement, and the EU gave us something back, including access to the Horizon research programme

Anybody who voted to leave and who expected the UK to remain in the SM and/or the CU was deluded. Participation in those two institutions gave rise to the very issues which the majority of people who wanted to leave were most critical of. There was no such thing as a "soft" Brexit (i.e. one that involved simply striking the UK off the list of members). If many politicians had had their way, that is precisely what would have happened.

We weren't allowed to find out what form of brexit we wanted, including a "soft" one, because those politicians decided we weren't to be asked - having managed to eke out the slimmest win, it's not as if they wanted to find out that people had changed their mind (or not wanted the diamond hard brexit we received)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's the diplomatic damage that irritates me most.
We gave up close and cooperative relations with the Commission and 27 other states to achieve "third country" status outside the control of the ECJ.
We have been excluded from cross-Europe planning and policy evolution (eg on EU databases, immigration, climate change etc), where we were once trusted leaders balancing France and Germany.
Our closest friends (NL, Nordics, Germany, much of Eastern Europe, Iberia) are still aghast at our insularity.
We are close to being a pariah state in European terms, and our world role is diminished outside the EU.
That's apart from the new nonsense over borders and WTO rules which is damaging trade, especially for small traders on both sides, and in Ireland.
I hope Starmer can at least begin to improve the current position with our close neighbours and friends over (and under) the Channel.

 

[nw1]

It's the diplomatic damage that irritates me most.
We gave up close and cooperative relations with the Commission and 27 other states to achieve "third country" status outside the control of the ECJ.
We have been excluded from cross-Europe planning and policy evolution (eg on EU databases, immigration, climate change etc), where we were once trusted leaders balancing France and Germany.
Our closest friends (NL, Nordics, Germany, much of Eastern Europe, Iberia) are still aghast at our insularity.
We are close to being a pariah state in European terms, and our world role is diminished outside the EU.
That's apart from the new nonsense over borders and WTO rules which is damaging trade, especially for small traders on both sides, and in Ireland.
I hope Starmer can at least begin to improve the current position with our close neighbours and friends over (and under) the Channel.

Indeed. Best post on this thread recently.

 

[SynthD]

There was no such thing as a "soft" Brexit (i.e. one that involved simply striking the UK off the list of members). If many politicians had had their way, that is precisely what would have happened.

Who campaigned and defined the meaning of Brexit, if not politicians, of Leave?

Edit: this feels like well trodden ground. Sorry.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's the diplomatic damage that irritates me most.
We gave up close and cooperative relations with the Commission and 27 other states to achieve "third country" status outside the control of the ECJ.
We have been excluded from cross-Europe planning and policy evolution (eg on EU databases, immigration, climate change etc), where we were once trusted leaders balancing France and Germany.
Our closest friends (NL, Nordics, Germany, much of Eastern Europe, Iberia) are still aghast at our insularity.
We are close to being a pariah state in European terms, and our world role is diminished outside the EU.
That's apart from the new nonsense over borders and WTO rules which is damaging trade, especially for small traders on both sides, and in Ireland.
I hope Starmer can at least begin to improve the current position with our close neighbours and friends over (and under) the Channel.

Sorry but this is fantasy nonsense. Pariah state?!?!?!?! Seriously? North Korea is an example of a pariah state - the UK is nothing like that. I'd grant you that the fact that we are no longer part of various bodies associated with the EU will have made cross-border cooperation harder in some areas, but Brexit does not stop general diplomatic relations from carrying on as normal. It's completely normal that countries do things that other countries disagree with - happens all the time, and it doesn't turn countries into pariah states (other than extreme cases like North Korea or the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Diplomats will be well versed in working around those differences, and politicians tend to come and go on a timescale of just a few years so if any European politicians at the time of Brexit were (a) annoyed by Brexit and (b) sufficiently lacking in maturity as to let that annoyance impact their working relationships with their UK counterparts then those politicians will mostly be long gone within a few years from now.

The UK's early leadership 2 years ago over getting support and weapons to Ukraine amply demonstrates that our world role is not diminished by Brexit: In reality our world role will always ebb and flow according to the political issues of the day, how well different countries respond to them, and to what extent those countries agree with each other and the UK.

 

[Enthusiast]

Sorry?

I really don't get that reference at all. Can you please explain?

It's a popular example of a loaded question (jokingly asked by some US TV presenter, I think). You asked two questions to which, if anybody answered "yes" to both (which many might), would indicate they must support EU membership.

... (you can surely have SM/CU without FoM, should you desire; that was one of the options on the table in 2019) .

A nation cannot be a SM member without agreeing to the free movement of goods, labour and capital. I don't know what table it was on in 2019, but the EU would not have agreed to it.

The UK self imposed various red lines on what it would accept, the EU provided something that complied with them. We are not going to get special treatment, not even Switzerland gets that.

Nobody who voted to leave should have expected the UK to receive (favourable) special treatment. If they did they were foolish.

It's been 8 years and I can't believe the same arguments are going around again.

Nor can I.

 

[REVUpminster]

It's 8 years since the referendum, not since we left the EU.

 

[nw1]

Nobody who voted to leave should have expected the UK to receive (favourable) special treatment. If they did they were foolish.

On the other hand I suspect many looked at Switzerland and Norway and decided "yes, that would be quite acceptable".

I would be prepared to bet a lot of money that had the choice been honest, i.e. between "Remain" and "Hard Brexit, with no SM/CU and difficulties with emigration" Remain would have got more votes than Leave, and probably by a substantial margin.
There were I suspect a lot of "soft Brexiters" who had reservations about the EU but wished to retain FoM/SM/CU. And still others who didn't care either way, but just wanted to spite David Cameron.

Hard Brexit was implemented for political gain, and political gain only, because the Tories knew that they could win elections from the votes of a coalition of traditional Tory voters and small-c conservatives whom hard Brexit appealed to.

Nor can I.

So should anyone expressing support for Brexit in 1983, or indeed any time after that, been told by EU supporters "I can't believe we're still having these arguments..." - because the 1975 referendum had settled it once and for all and arguing about something eight years later was pointless?

I suspect most would answer No.

The inherent bias I find in a lot of Brexit supporters is that it was quite acceptable for them to spend years complaining about the EU, but as soon as those of us who want to be in the EU start complaining about Brexit, we're told "the decision has been made, accept it...."
It's as if the 2016 referendum is somehow more binding than the 1975 one. In reality, 2016 is just as much a random year in history as 1975 is. What people believed in 2016 is not necessarily what they believe now.

It's a popular example of a loaded question (jokingly asked by some US TV presenter, I think). You asked two questions to which, if anybody answered "yes" to both (which many might), would indicate they must support EU membership.

Ah ok, thanks, sorry. I was completely confused by it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Hard Brexit was implemented for political gain, and political gain only, because the Tories knew that they could win elections from the votes of a coalition of traditional Tory voters and small-c conservatives whom hard Brexit appealed to.

No. We got a hard Brexit because it was the only meaningful way we could Brexit. Anything less - such as staying in the single market - would have in practice meant almost nothing changed with regard to the EU except for the UK losing our voice in decisions that impacted us. It would have amounted to almost-EU-membership in practice, just not in name.

 

[nw1]

No. We got a hard Brexit because it was the only meaningful way we could Brexit. Anything less - such as staying in the single market - would have in practice meant almost nothing changed with regard to the EU except for the UK losing our voice in decisions that impacted us. It would have amounted to almost-EU-membership in practice, just not in name.

I think you're just expressing your preference here. Many Brexit voters, I suspect, looked at Norway and Switzerland and wished to have that sort of setup - a more arms-length relationship but with many of the advantages.

In my opinion, it's obvious that the whole thing was designed purely for Tory political gain. And it did succeed.

Plus of course, a wafer-thin majority for Brexit arguably should have resulted in "almost-EU membership in practice, just not in name" - as such an outcome would be the kind of compromise that would reflect a split-down-the-middle vote. It would implement the referendum result (so would tick that box) yet not completely ignore the wishes of the 12 out of 25 who voted Remain.

It's the fact that Remainers have been completely sidelined and ignored that many of us are upset about, despite the vote being very close (12 Remainers for every 13 Brexiters). If there had been any attempt at compromise, even I suspect this thread would be a good deal quieter than it actually is. But there has been zero.

A nation cannot be a SM member without agreeing to the free movement of goods, labour and capital. I don't know what table it was on in 2019, but the EU would not have agreed to it.

In your opinion. Who knows what the EU might have agreed to with further negotiations?

And some of us would believe that if the EU could not agree to a soft Brexit with SM/CU, it should have been "sorry, guys, we tried our best but we couldn't negotiate a moderate Brexit" and offered a second referendum, explicitly between Remain and Hard Brexit.
Controversial, I know - and I know it won't be popular amongst many here - but that's my own opinion.