Jump to content

Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.


John Lambies Doos

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

If I am going to be honest here, that amount of pointless name dropping didn't paint you as an uber-activist it painted you as a crazy groupie. I don't mean to be harsh, but the points you raise did not need you to read off your CV and I was physically cringing reading that. I really don't want to sound either derisory or inflammatory but that was my genuine response. It might impress others, but certainly not me.

One final point though, that while I agree the bunfight between the PLP/NEC/MPs was unsavoury, I trust Chucka Umuna considerably more than Corbyn, and that is because Corbyn deceived the electorate in regard to Brexit. You might not see it like that, but an awful lot of people do.

If Umunna ever became Labour leader he would be another Blair.

Maybe you find that appealing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, back onto the topic. I see that the "plan" the ERG first refused to publish because they were worried others would pick it apart has now been published. It's based, on part, on the work of Partick Minford. He made a name for himself by claiming Brexit had no negatives, but his plan some months back was mercilessly ripped apart by even the most amateur economist...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-economists-for-brexit-patrick-minford-study-doubly-misleading-eu-uk-trade-deal-tariff-a7691271.html

..what's more it was effectively the rehashed and equally pilloried "Economists for Brexit" paper which was published in part before the referendum and in part after..

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/publication/economy-after-brexit-publications/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

If Umunna ever became Labour leader he would be another Blair.

Maybe you find that appealing.

Is that a question, an assumption, a false dichotomy or just passive aggressive rhetoric?

There are positives and negatives with Blair. At the start those positives outweighed the negatives, by the end it was diametrically the opposite.

I certainly wouldn't vote for him, and I never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buddist Monk said:

Is that a question, an assumption, a false dichotomy or just passive aggressive rhetoric?

There are positives and negatives with Blair. At the start those positives outweighed the negatives, by the end it was diametrically the opposite.

I certainly wouldn't vote for him, and I never did.

The first sentence is an accurate prediction imo.

The second is an assumption based upon you understanding the accuracy of the first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

Anyway, back onto the topic. I see that the "plan" the ERG first refused to publish because they were worried others would pick it apart has now been published. It's based, on part, on the work of Partick Minford. He made a name for himself by claiming Brexit had no negatives, but his plan some months back was mercilessly ripped apart by even the most amateur economist...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexiteers-economists-for-brexit-patrick-minford-study-doubly-misleading-eu-uk-trade-deal-tariff-a7691271.html

..what's more it was effectively the rehashed and equally pilloried "Economists for Brexit" paper which was published in part before the referendum and in part after..

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/publication/economy-after-brexit-publications/

I actually read through the Economists for Brexit paper a while ago. Batshit mental. I'd expect an Economics 101 student to pick it apart.

I think that's the time I decided this was all a big scam, because the people promoting it (including the author) must know better. They can't be that stupid. 

Also, for an 'academic' paper it reads like a Daily Express article without the capitalised words. A search on it for 'Remoaners' yields 2 results for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

The first sentence is an accurate prediction imo.

The second is an assumption based upon you understanding the accuracy of the first.

Not sure how you could make such an assumption, especially based on the posts I've made.

I believe an Umunna led Labour party would have won the last election, and while it's true to say he's be more centrist that Corbyn, which I think we both agree wouldn't be too hard. It's clear he wouldn't be Blair. Bit daft to even suggest he would, mind.

Not sure about his institutionally racist claim though. You see I think the state of Israel is a malign force in the world, both from it's inception and it's conduct. So I can see why the full adoption of the international definition of anti-Semitism is difficult for a Corbyn led Labour party because the examples lean toward protecting the Israeli state rather than the Jewish faith. The problem is they really need to suck it up and accept that the UK law allows free speech on such matters.

Edited by Buddist Monk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

I actually read through the Economists for Brexit paper a while ago. Batshit mental. I'd expect an Economics 101 student to pick it apart.

I think that's the time I decided this was all a big scam, because the people promoting it (including the author) must know better. They can't be that stupid. 

Also, for an 'academic' paper it reads like a Daily Express article without the capitalised words. A search on it for 'Remoaners' yields 2 results for example.

It's a fucking mess. His claim that we don't need manufacturing and that we should just work on a zero tariff basis in a no deal Brexit shows his complete lack of understanding of WTO rules.

If we leave with no deal and drop to WTO we must put in tariffs to begin with, there is no option to start with none. If we then drop all the tariffs that means we have to drop them for every country in the WTO; European, American, Asian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

I actually read through the Economists for Brexit paper a while ago. Batshit mental. I'd expect an Economics 101 student to pick it apart.

I think that's the time I decided this was all a big scam, because the people promoting it (including the author) must know better. They can't be that stupid. 

Also, for an 'academic' paper it reads like a Daily Express article without the capitalised words. A search on it for 'Remoaners' yields 2 results for example.

Every political group will try to find justification for their position, the problem for the Brexiteers is that their position is based wholly on a political ideology.  Finding the economic argument to support it is impossible.

The position on EU immigration (probably the key factor for the Gammons) is a microcosm of this. The economy  desperately needs European immigrants, a reality that the Brexiteers are desperate to ignore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

 

If we leave with no deal and drop to WTO we must put in tariffs to begin with, there is no option to start with none. If we then drop all the tariffs that means we have to drop them for every country in the WTO; European, American, Asian.

The USA seems to fire tariffs onto things no bother despite WTO rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

It's a fucking mess. His claim that we don't need manufacturing and that we should just work on a zero tariff basis in a no deal Brexit shows his complete lack of understanding of WTO rules.

If we leave with no deal and drop to WTO we must put in tariffs to begin with, there is no option to start with none. If we then drop all the tariffs that means we have to drop them for every country in the WTO; European, American, Asian.

What would happen, after a jumping off the cliff Brexit, if we said we would zero tariff any country who would do the same with us, and stick with anti dumping rules and EU health and safety rules? Not really expecting a Nostradamus answer, just wondering if there is an obvious big hurdle, like we'd f**k our economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

What would happen, after a jumping off the cliff Brexit, if we said we would zero tariff any country who would do the same with us, and stick with anti dumping rules and EU health and safety rules? Not really expecting a Nostradamus answer, just wondering if there is an obvious big hurdle, like we'd f**k our economy.

The tariff situation is a relatively pointless sideshow. It's non-tariff barriers that are far more relevant and would present huge issues even in the scenario that you presented above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jambo: First Blood said:

The tariff situation is a relatively pointless sideshow. It's non-tariff barriers that are far more relevant and would present huge issues even in the scenario that you presented above.

In the context of the Brexit debate I would contest that it's not a sideshow, although you are right, and it's what I alluded to, that if you end up with a zero tariff base you devastate the domestic market in favour of foreign imports.

Flip that around and do we think that the US would reciprocate with zero tariffs to their market? No chance, and under Trump even less chance.

If you raise unequal tariffs against a country, like the US has done with the EU. The WTO rules allow you to introduce equal measures (not necessarily the same, which is why the US hit steel and the EU hit Harley Davidson) and then take them to a tribunal which would most likely order the initial tariffs dropped. Of course the US holds the whip hand here because it's the largest economy and also a leading player in the WTO existing. It pays a lot towards keeping the thing running. Now under Trump, who hates unilateral bodies because it reduces individual leveraging, he'll just throw up the petted lip and remove funding. It's utterly frustrating that we have painted ourselves into a corner like this, but the way the US pushed for soft power pre-Trump is also the justification for Trump pulling funding from all sorts of things. I mean, he's sort of right, which is annoying in itself, but it's not like the world went cap in hand to the US, it was the one that offered the funding because it progresses the world view the US wanted to promote.

On the steel tariffs, it's amazing how stupid Trump is. It's clearly aimed at his base in the hope that they are idiots, as the steel that they produce is not the same steel they need for the vast majority of their manufacturing. It's like saying, we are putting tariffs on all eggs because we want all cakes to be made in the US, only to find out you don't produce eggs, only flour.

Edited by Buddist Monk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The USA seems to fire tariffs onto things no bother despite WTO rules?

The US is the economic superpower which we clearly aren't.

Just look at the necessities. We import about 50% of our food while the US is number one in food exports. 

I'm not saying it's the right decision for America to use tariffs but they can get away with it a lot more due to their economic strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jambo: First Blood said:

The US is the economic superpower which we clearly aren't.

Just look at the necessities. We import about 50% of our food while the US is number one in food exports. 

I'm not saying it's the right decision for America to use tariffs but they can get away with it a lot more due to their economic strength.

He's talking about raising tariffs, which the WTO allows those who they've been raised against to both raise reciprocal tariffs then take them to a tribunal. They can only get away with it for a short time unless he intends on complete isolation, which really isn't what he wants despite the bullshit he throws to his base,

I said it in my previous post, his way of doing business is to cause as much damage as possible so that when the dust settles the deal he offers (which is worse than the previous one) looks appealing. That's what's going on with NAFTA just now, or even perhaps JCPOA - although it's clear Trump's Israel ties also feed into that. He dislikes large multilateral because he has a limited ability to perform that trick. It's the divide and conquer tactic.

While many people think that he's an idiot and doesn't understand how things work, and to be fair he has absolutely no grasp of the cost the benefit or the point of soft power, it's not that. It's just that the way he goes about things are idiotic. It's using 19th century business ideas that Keynes or Smith would endorse, in a modern global interconnected economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw that.

I think it raises a genuine concern and worryingly plays into the far-right playbook. You shouldn't be telling his kids that "people don't like your daddy". That's not going to achieve anything other than allow him to point to malign forces are acting against him. The argument that he whipped up those malign forces may be true, or at least partly true, holds no weight when trying to defend shouting at a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

if you end up with a zero tariff base you devastate the domestic market in favour of foreign imports.

Which markets was the question I was inarticulately trying to ask earlier? Assuming the deal is zero on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

 

 


As much as he is a freak who think he lives in the 1800s no one deserves that.

 

No ones kids deserve that.

If that protester was genuine and not a fucking fruitcake he would realise that this sort of stuff by is counter productive and simply generates a level of sympathy for the guy he’s supposedly protesting against.

A “look at me” individual putting self promotion above all else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...