Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

If we apply the same restriction on EU immigrants as we do non EU then 75% wouldn't get in.

 

Not really true. If you apply for a student visa you have almost guaranteed success rate, and it brings the right to work with it too. There are almost no checks on how many (if any) hours you study and after three years the right to apply for permanent residence is again almost automatic.

[Wes Tender]

Au contraire. There shouldn't have been any referendums because that is not our democratic way. Parliament is supreme and reflects and implements the will of the people. We didn't have a referendum when we declared war in 1939.

 

A referendum is far and away the more democratic device for a single policy issue rather than allowing MPs to decide such matters on the basis of their election on a manifesto covering dozens of policy issues. According to you, issues such as education/increasing the number of Grammar Schools, defence/renewing our nuclear deterrent, the National Health Service, housing, law and order, immigration, Europe etc, are all to be left to the government of whichever political persuasion on the basis that they have a mandate on each and every one of those issues.

 

You bleat on about how it will change the futures of our children for generations to come and then don't see it as being important enough to be decided by a public plebiscite.

 

The fact that a majority of the electorate flew in the face of the major traditional parties who all had manifestos wishing to remain in the EU speaks volumes about how out of touch the political establishment was with the electorate. Following your argument that policy over matters like Europe should be decided by elections rather than referenda, even that is untenable as during the European Elections, UKIP the dominant party attained the most seats by some distance on the pledge that they would seek our departure from the EU.

 

Thankfully, the Conservative Party was forced by the rise in UKIP support to add a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum over our membership of the EU if they won the last election. What would you have their manifesto state in order that it would be an obligation that they would have to honour if elected? That they would remain in, or that they would leave? That they would stay or leave if certain reform conditions were or were not met? There has been a history of broken promises over Europe by governments both Labour and Conservative during the past couple of decades and the electorate had had enough of being lied to.

 

The falling number of voters in recent elections was testament to this disillusionment with the electoral system and how stale it had become. This referendum has invigorated our democratic process, not lessened it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Au contraire. There shouldn't have been any referendums because that is not our democratic way. Parliament is supreme and reflects and implements the will of the people. We didn't have a referendum when we declared war in 1939.

 

Makes our victory even sweeter that the head of the remoaners was the person who called it .

 

Parliament is supreme & parliament handed this issue over to the people in the form of a referendum . A parliament stuffed with remainers shot themselves in the foot. They voted for a referendum , & spent £9 million on a leaflet saying " it is your choice,parliament will act upon it" ,

Edited 30 September, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[so22saint]

Those plebs see that as a better alternative to what they have at the moment. Might want to ask them why and you may understand why they voted leave.

 

I know exactly why they voted leave - I'm from Totton originally and remember how the value system in areas like Totton places more kudos on being "cool" than "intelligent", is belligerent and quick to fight, and is also ultimately easy to manipulate with bad facts and scary headlines. I'm also aware that globalisation benefits the world by dragging the global underclass out of poverty and into the working class (which ultimately gets them paying taxes to maintain the culture, and to become consumers for the ruling manufacturing class) but it screws over the working class of countries like the UK by dragging those guys closer to the global underclass as they get dragged toward Western standards of living.

 

So things feel worse for those people, and they vote against it.

 

IMHO...

 

As a remainer however, I have to say I thought Liam Fox's speech yesterday about being a standard bearer for global free trade was the first decent optimist thing I'd heard from what was a fairly nasty side of the campaign. and we are leaving, so lets get on with it.

[aintforever]

Not really true. If you apply for a student visa you have almost guaranteed success rate, and it brings the right to work with it too. There are almost no checks on how many (if any) hours you study and after three years the right to apply for permanent residence is again almost automatic.

 

I'm not sure foreign students pouring money into our education system, then staying on to do high qualified work is much of an issue though.

[buctootim]

I'm not sure foreign students pouring money into our education system, then staying on to do high qualified work is much of an issue though.

 

You think 300,000 students doing bar work and waitressing will have no effect and that when they finish college the 100,000 who successfully apply to stay every year will all suddenly be middle class?

[Verbal]

Except this government was elected on the promise of a refurendum.

 

It was also elected on the clear manifesto promise to retain membership of the single market, regardless of the referendum result.

[Johnny Bognor]

It was also elected on the clear manifesto promise to retain membership of the single market, regardless of the referendum result.

 

Are you sure about that????

 

I'm struggling to find any cast iron promise to retain membership of the single market, irrespective of the referendum result. I mean, why bother holding the referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/conservatives-election-manifesto-2015-the-key-points

 

They said they would hold an in/out referendum. Which would be held after re-negotiation. The fact that the negotiation amounted to the square root of naff all, led to them to trigger the referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge

[Lord Duckhunter]

It was also elected on the clear manifesto promise to retain membership of the single market, regardless of the referendum result.

 

It wasn't

[aintforever]

You think 300,000 students doing bar work and waitressing will have no effect and that when they finish college the 100,000 who successfully apply to stay every year will all suddenly be middle class?

 

From what I remember of Uni I expect most rich foreign students will do **** all part time work while they are studying. Of course not all will go on to be high-earners but i would rather have highly educated immigrants than people who turn up in the hope of picking some cabbages.

[buctootim]

From what I remember of Uni I expect most rich foreign students will do **** all part time work while they are studying. Of course not all will go on to be high-earners but i would rather have highly educated immigrants than people who turn up in the hope of picking some cabbages.

 

Its not mostly university students. It includes people on language courses and dodgy made up colleges with no real tuition set up solely to get people visas.

[Hockey_saint]

Its not mostly university students. It includes people on language courses and dodgy made up colleges with no real tuition set up solely to get people visas.

 

Yeah, I am aware of a few. I've not posted for a while (been quite unwell). I was a remainer (still kinda am) but I could honestly see the hope that prompted most leavers. It's a tough one for me as I wouldn't trust the three main Brexiteers to look after my pet hamster. We are where we are aren't we? Also, remember, Boris said he wanted more Asian immigration and promptly told the polish foreign sec. that he wanted more Polish migration....I bet that went down like a lead balloon for some leavers.

[Wes Tender]

It was also elected on the clear manifesto promise to retain membership of the single market, regardless of the referendum result.

 

Get your facts straight. The actual General Election Conservative manifesto was not very detailed about that at all and there certainly wasn't any caveat that I recall about wanting to remain in the single market regardless of the referendum result. But their manifesto for the preceding European Elections the year before said this:-

 

● Free movement to take up work, not a freedom to move just for more generous benefits.

● Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members, but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent.

 

As it is an EU prerequisite that membership of the single market was conditional on the free movement of peoples, then those manifesto conditions clearly challenged that policy and sought to bring about some reform of it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Makes our victory even sweeter that the head of the remoaners was the person who called it .

 

Parliament is supreme & parliament handed this issue over to the people in the form of a referendum . A parliament stuffed with remainers shot themselves in the foot. They voted for a referendum , & spent £9 million on a leaflet saying " it is your choice,parliament will act upon it" ,

 

...and parliament agreed to an advisory referendum.

[Whitey Grandad]

A referendum is far and away the more democratic device for a single policy issue rather than allowing MPs to decide such matters on the basis of their election on a manifesto covering dozens of policy issues. According to you, issues such as education/increasing the number of Grammar Schools, defence/renewing our nuclear deterrent, the National Health Service, housing, law and order, immigration, Europe etc, are all to be left to the government of whichever political persuasion on the basis that they have a mandate on each and every one of those issues.

 

You bleat on about how it will change the futures of our children for generations to come and then don't see it as being important enough to be decided by a public plebiscite.

 

The fact that a majority of the electorate flew in the face of the major traditional parties who all had manifestos wishing to remain in the EU speaks volumes about how out of touch the political establishment was with the electorate. Following your argument that policy over matters like Europe should be decided by elections rather than referenda, even that is untenable as during the European Elections, UKIP the dominant party attained the most seats by some distance on the pledge that they would seek our departure from the EU.

 

Thankfully, the Conservative Party was forced by the rise in UKIP support to add a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum over our membership of the EU if they won the last election. What would you have their manifesto state in order that it would be an obligation that they would have to honour if elected? That they would remain in, or that they would leave? That they would stay or leave if certain reform conditions were or were not met? There has been a history of broken promises over Europe by governments both Labour and Conservative during the past couple of decades and the electorate had had enough of being lied to.

 

The falling number of voters in recent elections was testament to this disillusionment with the electoral system and how stale it had become. This referendum has invigorated our democratic process, not lessened it.

 

I'm on an iPad so it's difficult for me to highlight certain paragraphs but I'm not clear what you're arguing in your first paragraph. All the items you list should be determined by the government, certainly not by referendums.

 

I don't know of any manifesto that has ever been implemented in full, everybody knows that they are just aspirations. Whatever happened to the increase in the Inheritance Tax threshold? 'We' also elected a government with David Cameron as Prime Minister but that didn't last long.

[Lord Duckhunter]

...and parliament agreed to an advisory referendum.

 

We're leaning the EU , you should start accepting it

[CB Fry]

http://www.ippr.org/juncture/a-win-for-proper-people-brexit-as-a-rejection-of-the-networked-world

 

This is a nice read.

 

In summary, educated, connected and wealthy Remainers will win in the new world, and the uneducated dinlows who voted leave won't. It's a far more erudite article than that of course.

[Wes Tender]

I'm on an iPad so it's difficult for me to highlight certain paragraphs but I'm not clear what you're arguing in your first paragraph. All the items you list should be determined by the government, certainly not by referendums.

 

I don't know of any manifesto that has ever been implemented in full, everybody knows that they are just aspirations. Whatever happened to the increase in the Inheritance Tax threshold? 'We' also elected a government with David Cameron as Prime Minister but that didn't last long.

 

What I'm arguing is a very simple premise, that the issue of our membership of the EU is far too important to be lumped together with all of those other everyday policies and that it should subsequently be accepted that if elected a government had a mandate for that one issue. Of course, the difference between that single issue and all of the others, is that they are reversible in the next General Election, whereas leaving the EU is not.

 

Just to see how deep your principles go with your stance that Parliament is sovereign and that decisions like this should be taken by them, I presume that logically you would be happy if the Conservative manifesto had had a commitment to leave the EU and then having won the election, proceeded to trigger article 50 immediately afterwards, claiming that they had a mandate for it.

 

Regarding your claim that those who voted for the Conservatives are somehow let down because Cameron has resigned, they voted for the Party, not the leader. The leader is chosen by the Party, not the electorate. Who is to say that Theresa May is not seen by many voters as an improvement on Cameron, as many despised the Tory Toffs like him and Osborne. Anyway, the same applies to Labour when Blair resigned and also when Red Ed resigned after the last election, ditto the Lib Dems, all have changed their leaders following the General Election.

[Whitey Grandad]

We're leaning the EU , you should start accepting it

 

But it is the manner of our leaving that matters now.

[Whitey Grandad]

What I'm arguing is a very simple premise, that the issue of our membership of the EU is far too important to be lumped together with all of those other everyday policies and that it should subsequently be accepted that if elected a government had a mandate for that one issue. Of course, the difference between that single issue and all of the others, is that they are reversible in the next General Election, whereas leaving the EU is not.

 

Just to see how deep your principles go with your stance that Parliament is sovereign and that decisions like this should be taken by them, I presume that logically you would be happy if the Conservative manifesto had had a commitment to leave the EU and then having won the election, proceeded to trigger article 50 immediately afterwards, claiming that they had a mandate for it.

 

Regarding your claim that those who voted for the Conservatives are somehow let down because Cameron has resigned, they voted for the Party, not the leader. The leader is chosen by the Party, not the electorate. Who is to say that Theresa May is not seen by many voters as an improvement on Cameron, as many despised the Tory Toffs like him and Osborne. Anyway, the same applies to Labour when Blair resigned and also when Red Ed resigned after the last election, ditto the Lib Dems, all have changed their leaders following the General Election.

 

British politics is far more subtle than that. We don't live in a dictatorship and there are layers upon layers that must be negotiated before anything can be achieved.

[aintforever]

http://www.ippr.org/juncture/a-win-for-proper-people-brexit-as-a-rejection-of-the-networked-world

 

This is a nice read.

 

In summary, educated, connected and wealthy Remainers will win in the new world, and the uneducated dinlows who voted leave won't. It's a far more erudite article than that of course.

 

What a load of old cock. Generalise all Brexit voters as poor and eneducated, then conclude that all poor and uneducated will be worse off than rich educated after we leave. Yeah genius that.

 

Just some Uni lecturer who is so detached from reality that he is struggling to understand why people voted out.

[Wes Tender]

British politics is far more subtle than that. We don't live in a dictatorship and there are layers upon layers that must be negotiated before anything can be achieved.

 

You've neatly avoided debating the issues I raised by responding with platitudes and generalisations that nobody could reasonably disagree with. So to clarify your position, could you please answer my question as to whether our continued membership of the EU or departure from it should have been settled by a referendum, or would you have been happy under the circumstances I outlined in my middle paragraph to support a decision that was left solely for the government to decide, had they promised in their manifesto that we would leave if they won the election?

 

The reality of what transpired is that had the Conservatives not offered a referendum (and assurances that the decision would be binding on them), the Euro-sceptic sector of the electorate would not have been placated into accepting those hollow platitudes and UKIP would have increased their vote substantially. The subtlety of British politics is demonstrated by gradual alterations to the political landscape over many years, whereby if the electorate's will is ignored, there will be the eventual formation and rise of political forces like UKIP that will bring about those changes, as has happened in this instance.

[Wes Tender]

What a load of old cock. Generalise all Brexit voters as poor and eneducated, then conclude that all poor and uneducated will be worse off than rich educated after we leave. Yeah genius that.

 

Just some Uni lecturer who is so detached from reality that he is struggling to understand why people voted out.

 

He's obviously not a shining example of somebody whose opinions carry any weight from experience of the cold hard World. He was born into an aristocratic family, educated at Eton and Cambridge, probably has never had any sort of job whereby he could identify with the hopes and aspirations of the man in the street. He sits in his ivory tower in the sheltered hallowed halls of academia and pontificates about how the educated and privileged like him will not be affected by the post-Brexit era. As you say, it doesn't take an Einstein to recognise that wealth, position and the best education will equip those who have them to thrive under almost any circumstances in a civilised Country like ours. It smacks of an "I'm alright, Jack, blow you" attitude guaranteed to get up the noses of those less well educated or privileged.

 

I would go further and say that it was arrogant, detached individuals like him and the so-called other experts that peppered the Remain campaign with their superiority platitudes that probably gifted the Brexit the extra few percent that pushed them over the winning line.

[CB Fry]

What a load of old cock. Generalise all Brexit voters as poor and eneducated, then conclude that all poor and uneducated will be worse off than rich educated after we leave. Yeah genius that.

 

Just some Uni lecturer who is so detached from reality that he is struggling to understand why people voted out.

 

It's a generalisation based on basic facts. Rich and educated voted in, poor and uneducated didn't. Statistically proven.

 

The poor saps in Sunderland or Doncaster or Spalding won't be any better off, while the rich and privileged will be just fine. Based on lots of the reports at the time, the people in those places could barely articulate why the voted out either.

 

I still like your reason the best - you voted out to stick it to the powerful vested interests and to stick it to the likes of Goldman Sachs. Guess what - they will be absolutely, 100%, copper bottomed fine. They'll win Brexit regardless of the referendum vote.

[aintforever]

It's a generalisation based on basic facts. Rich and educated voted in, poor and uneducated didn't. Statistically proven.

 

The poor saps in Sunderland or Doncaster or Spalding won't be any better off, while the rich and privileged will be just fine. Based on lots of the reports at the time, the people in those places could barely articulate why the voted out either.

 

I still like your reason the best - you voted out to stick it to the powerful vested interests and to stick it to the likes of Goldman Sachs. Guess what - they will be absolutely, 100%, copper bottomed fine. They'll win Brexit regardless of the referendum vote.

 

Given that the effects of mass immigration are mostly felt by the low paid it is not exactly surprising what the stats show. The idea that you can class Brexit voters as rich or poor, educated or thick is just nonsense - it's a few percent either way - and that's from polls probably carried out by the people who always get it wrong.

 

The reason I sided with leave was nothing to do with the likes of Goldman Sachs - Purely the effects of mass uncontrolled immigration. Wages being depressed, services over stretched and the housing crisis. I was just glad people ignored the scare stories from the so called big business leaders because their concerns were purely selfish.

[Hockey_saint]

It's a generalisation based on basic facts. Rich and educated voted in, poor and uneducated didn't. Statistically proven.

 

The poor saps in Sunderland or Doncaster or Spalding won't be any better off, while the rich and privileged will be just fine. Based on lots of the reports at the time, the people in those places could barely articulate why the voted out either.

 

I still like your reason the best - you voted out to stick it to the powerful vested interests and to stick it to the likes of Goldman Sachs. Guess what - they will be absolutely, 100%, copper bottomed fine. They'll win Brexit regardless of the referendum vote.

 

I like the one about the EU MEPs being "unelected"....Aside from the EU Elections we have and the very ones that elected old Nige' in to begin with.

 

This is interesting from Alastair Campbell however. I also think he's kinda right although I hypothesise that 2004 was the trigger when people realised that free movement meant just that and that although the other western EU states didn't really see any need to come here en mass, the relatively economically poorer A8 countries saw the disparity in wages mainly and decided to use the right they felt they voted for and that most of us had simply ignored. I mean, our relationship with the EU has always been tenuous at best and that just about broke the camel's back.

 

So nope, I wouldn't call it any type of phobia but more a shock reaction by the public at this (capitalised on by right (and traditional left)wing politicians of course). But the crux of my point is that this whole issue is about ignorance. Ignorance to understand what we signed up for in the first place, ignorance to think those with a much much lower income level to us wouldn't want to come here; an ignorance by the labour party to think it wouldn't happen. The ignorance of those who voted remain to think this couldn't happen and brush it off as xenophobia and finally the ignorance of those who voted leave to think that everything would just be fine and dandy by ignoring everyone and choosing what was inside the mystery box.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/01/alastair-campbell-new-labour-tony-blair-immigration-brexit

[Johnny Bognor]

Article 50 to be triggered before the end of march...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37532364

[Whitey Grandad]

Article 50 to be triggered before the end of march...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37532364

Before the French and German elections? This woman is getting above her station.

[Batman]

Before the French and German elections? This woman is getting above her station.

 

oh no.

[buctootim]

Its been announced there will be a bill presented to Parliament to repeal the EU accession treaty. Ken Clarke has already said he will vote against and the Government only has a majority of 12 (10 with Clarke). What do people think the chances are the legislation passing? Regardless of whether you are leave or remain and whether MPs should or shouldn't be bound by the referendum, I just can't see the Government getting sufficient numbers.

[SW5 SAINT]

We're leaning the EU , you should start accepting it

 

We are leaving the EU, I think most have have accepted that. However I very much expect we will stay in the single market(which is not the same as the EU) At the same time paying a very much increased contribution to be in it , with no say what so ever on how it is run. In all probability we will also have to accept some form of freedom of movement. Nothing about freedom of movement on that referendum ballot paper!

[Wes Tender]

We are leaving the EU, I think most have have accepted that. However I very much expect we will stay in the single market(which is not the same as the EU) At the same time paying a very much increased contribution to be in it , with no say what so ever on how it is run. In all probability we will also have to accept some form of freedom of movement. Nothing about freedom of movement on that referendum ballot paper!

 

Read this and bring yourself up to date. You're probably going to find yourself being wrong on all the points you raised apart from having no say on how the EU is run, but then we wouldn't care a toss once we're out of it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/brexit-theresa-may-prioritises-immigration-curbs-over-free-movement

[JackFrost]

http://www.ippr.org/juncture/a-win-for-proper-people-brexit-as-a-rejection-of-the-networked-world

 

This is a nice read.

 

In summary, educated, connected and wealthy Remainers will win in the new world, and the uneducated dinlows who voted leave won't. It's a far more erudite article than that of course.

 

It is amusing how many remainers still believe this

[Whitey Grandad]

Read this and bring yourself up to date. You're probably going to find yourself being wrong on all the points you raised apart from having no say on how the EU is run, but then we wouldn't care a toss once we're out of it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/brexit-theresa-may-prioritises-immigration-curbs-over-free-movement

She's in a very weak position as far as getting anything through Parliament is concerned. Just wait for the first government motion to be voted down and then let's see how far hard talking takes her.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want the best outcome for Britain but from what I've heard about her leadership style I can't see her lasting very long. She's made too many enemies.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We are leaving the EU, I think most have have accepted that. However I very much expect we will stay in the single market(which is not the same as the EU) At the same time paying a very much increased contribution to be in it , with no say what so ever on how it is run. In all probability we will also have to accept some form of freedom of movement. Nothing about freedom of movement on that referendum ballot paper!

 

If being in the single market means freedom of movement and also makes us unable to conduct trade deals independently , we will not be joining it.

[Sour Mash]

We're leaning the EU , you should start accepting it

Cracks me up so many are still crying about Brexit, makes it all even more enjoyable.

[CB Fry]

It is amusing how many remainers still believe this

Still believe what?

[Wes Tender]

She's in a very weak position as far as getting anything through Parliament is concerned. Just wait for the first government motion to be voted down and then let's see how far hard talking takes her.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want the best outcome for Britain but from what I've heard about her leadership style I can't see her lasting very long. She's made too many enemies.

 

We'll have to wait and see. Although she has a slender majority, many MPs who supported the Remain position now take the view that the people have spoken and that they have a moral obligation to accede to their wishes. Maybe the cunning plan is to call a General Election if the Great Repeal Act freeing us from the 1972 European Communities Act is not passed. Apart from Labour being in disarray, an election called on that basis would almost certainly see the Conservatives gaining a much bigger majority, especially if contrary to the fear campaign's pre-referendum predictions, the economy continued to show no signs of deterioration during the next few months.

[Hockey_saint]

Cracks me up so many are still crying about Brexit, makes it all even more enjoyable.

 

You really shouldn't lower yourself to such depths. This is quite an important issue potentially effecting the lives of a great many people. Not really anything to childishly s****** over, whichever side you are on.

[Whitey Grandad]

We'll have to wait and see. Although she has a slender majority, many MPs who supported the Remain position now take the view that the people have spoken and that they have a moral obligation to accede to their wishes. Maybe the cunning plan is to call a General Election if the Great Repeal Act freeing us from the 1972 European Communities Act is not passed. Apart from Labour being in disarray, an election called on that basis would almost certainly see the Conservatives gaining a much bigger majority, especially if contrary to the fear campaign's pre-referendum predictions, the economy continued to show no signs of deterioration during the next few months.

Could be.

 

If so, it would need to be done before the economy deteriorates, but there would need to be a motion of no confidence passed first. The people may have spoken but they didn't actually say what they wanted, only what they didn't want.

[Sour Mash]

You really shouldn't lower yourself to such depths. This is quite an important issue potentially effecting the lives of a great many people. Not really anything to childishly s****** over, whichever side you are on.

 

I am sorry. I'll take your views seriously from now on.

[Hockey_saint]

I am sorry. I'll take your views seriously from now on.

 

I sway kinda to both sides actually, I do worry about the state of the NHS without a fair whack of it's workforce and being ruled by an overly ambitious right wing government. I applaud them stopping repeated checks on autistic people for ESA but I'd be mainly worried about where the money to fund such things in the future were coming from. It's awkward and a very complex issue. I'm just saying it's not a game and it's not something to gloat over.

[Whitey Grandad]

I sway kinda to both sides actually, I do worry about the state of the NHS without a fair whack of it's workforce and being ruled by an overly ambitious right wing government. I applaud them stopping repeated checks on autistic people for ESA but I'd be mainly worried about where the money to fund such things in the future were coming from. It's awkward and a very complex issue. I'm just saying it's not a game and it's not something to gloat over.

Wise words.

[ecuk268]

Perusing the weekends papers, there appears to be a split developing in cabinet.

 

The Chancellor says that the negotiations should prioritize free trade even if we have to compromise on immigration whereas Liam Fox says that we should prioritize immigration whilst compromising on free trade.

 

Boris will agree with whoever is likely to further his career.

[Wes Tender]

Perusing the weekends papers, there appears to be a split developing in cabinet.

 

The Chancellor says that the negotiations should prioritize free trade even if we have to compromise on immigration whereas Liam Fox says that we should prioritize immigration whilst compromising on free trade.

 

Boris will agree with whoever is likely to further his career.

 

No doubt you will be happy to provide links to the articles that led you to these conclusions; I couldn't find anything particularly that could lead me to them. So the Chancellor puts more emphasis on trade over immigration and the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade prioritises immigration over trade. I'm inclined towards this being a difference of opinion over priorities rather than a split, although I can understand that you Remainians like to clutch at straws.

 

It has already been stated many times that the Government is not going to lay out its proposals on how it will negotiate a trade deal with the EU before Article 50 is triggered, so any little snippets like these are just opinions, not policy. What has been made crystal clear by the PM, is that we will not accept the free movement of peoples as part of any trade deal.

[Verbal]

No doubt you will be happy to provide links to the articles that led you to these conclusions; I couldn't find anything particularly that could lead me to them. So the Chancellor puts more emphasis on trade over immigration and the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade prioritises immigration over trade. I'm inclined towards this being a difference of opinion over priorities rather than a split, although I can understand that you Remainians like to clutch at straws.

 

It has already been stated many times that the Government is not going to lay out its proposals on how it will negotiate a trade deal with the EU before Article 50 is triggered, so any little snippets like these are just opinions, not policy. What has been made crystal clear by the PM, is that we will not accept the free movement of peoples as part of any trade deal.

 

If you just tried to interpret what's going on instead of regurgitating Tory Central Office press releases and No10 briefings about 'opinions' you might have a better grasp of politics. There are clearly a number of heavily divided positions in Cabinet, as well as on the backbenches (in a party with a slender HoC majority), from Hammond in defence of the single market and the British economy, to Fox and his weird mercantilist view of the world.

 

Oh, and Happy Rosh Hashanah!

[Guided Missile]

Matt Ridley in the Times. Spot on as usual:

A golden opportunity for a free-trade bonanza

Freed from the shackles of Brussels, Britain can blaze its own trail by telling the world that we are open for business

The prime minister wants Britain to be “the most passionate, most consistent, most convincing advocate for free trade”. Under either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and with world trade stagnating, it looks as if the job is increasingly likely to be vacant in March 2019, so Britain has both a vital duty and a golden opportunity. It worked for us before.

 

Next year marks the 200th anniversary of David Ricardo’s insight of “comparative advantage” — the counterintuitive idea that trade benefits “uncompetitive” countries as much as efficient ones. If one country is better at making both cloth and wine than another, it can still pay it to get its wine, for example, by making extra cloth to swap for the other’s wine. Or, as somebody once put it, even if Winston Churchill was a very good bricklayer (he was) it still made sense for him to write books or run governments, and pay somebody else to build his walls.

 

So the government’s view of trade should be: the more the better, the freer the better, and unilateral is fine. There is no episode in history of a country opening itself more to world trade without getting richer. The Phoenicians, Athens, Gujarat and Bengal, Venice, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Victorian British, America, Singapore, Hong Kong, China after Deng Xiaoping — in every single case, countries that opened to trade got much richer very fast.

Dan Hannan, the MEP, laments that we seem to have forgotten this; that young people are under the impression that trade is a zero-sum game and makes the rich richer and poor poorer. He said: “We need to make the case for unrestricted commerce, as its earlier advocates did, in the kind of ethical language that the Occupy crowd will hear. Free trade is the ultimate instrument of poverty alleviation, conflict resolution and social justice.” Free trade is the enemy of complacent corporations and their crony conspiracies with corrupt politicians. It ensures that business serves its customers more than its owners.

 

Yet most of the current debate seems to be locked in a mercantilist view that trade is something governments arrange. As John Longworth, the former head of the British Chambers of Commerce and co-chairman of the new pressure group Leave Means Leave, points out: “Trade consists of a willing seller and a willing buyer. If the buyer wants a product and it is the right quality and price there will be trade. Governments do not trade, they only get in the way.”

 

Being in the EU has meant having no trade deals at all with America, China, Russia, India, Brazil or just about any large economy, despite decades of desultory negotiation. This hasn’t stopped us trading with them; hasn’t stopped them getting “access” to the single market — that is, selling the same product throughout Europe; hasn’t required them to join the protectionist single regulatory zone; won’t stop us having such access. The truth is, if it’s trade deals you want, the EU is the worst possible entity to be part of: it’s done fewer trade deals than most countries.

 

Creative destruction and pain would lead to greater gain

If the EU decides to punish its citizens by slapping a tariff on imports from Britain, that’s their funeral. Given the current devaluation of the pound our exports are about 10 per cent more competitive compared with the continent than they were before the referendum. Adding a tariff of roughly 3.5 per cent under World Trade Organisation rules would — as John Redwood puts it — still leave us 6.5 per cent more competitive, and them 13.5 per cent less competitive. So, as Peter Lilley argues in a new Legatum/Centre for Social Justice pamphlet: “We should simply announce that for the time being we will maintain our zero tariffs on imports from the EU — unless they choose to impose WTO tariffs on us, in which case we will reciprocate.”

 

Britain’s comparative advantage lies in high-value-added things such as investment banking, accountancy, law, advertising, design, research, higher education — things that the rest of the world wants. As the financier Miles Morland put it in a recent essay, there is more investment banking expertise on the Isle of Dogs than in the whole of continental Europe put together.

The world’s biggest advertising agency is British and its nearest rival is American. Seven of the top ten accountancy firms have their headquarters in Britain, and only one elsewhere in the EU; five of the top ten law firms, and none in the rest of the EU; three of the top ten universities (versus none). London’s peers, partners and rivals are primarily the other nine of the top ten financial centres: New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, Zurich, Toronto, San Francisco and Washington. That’s where the opportunity for growth, and the competition for business, lie.

 

We just don’t know how competitive British science, technology, medicine, even precision agriculture could be, once freed from the top-down dirigisme of Brussels with its myriad rules designed to stifle innovation and protect big companies from upstart competition. The distinguished medical scientist Sir John Bell says: “Britain is more inclined towards a relatively liberal risk-based regulatory environment that allows fields to move quickly — to reflect on ethical issues but not to over-regulate. The EU, by contrast, has a record of deep regulatory conservatism, attempting to legislate and control many aspects of science that are not deemed here in the UK to present a significant danger.”

 

If Britain were to become the global champion of free trade, as it did once before at the behest of Adam Smith, Ricardo and Richard Cobden, there would be creative destruction, for sure, and pain to go with the greater gain. But there’s little doubt that we could find ourselves growing at 4 or 5 per cent a year. Think how that would transform our public services.

It is now more than three months since we voted to leave the EU. Neither Mark Carney’s promised recession nor George Osborne’s promised punishment budget have happened, or look likely to. Every stock index, growth forecast, purchasing manufacturer’s index, employment rate and house price index that was supposed to plummet has gone up instead. Service sector growth is much higher than forecast. Only the pound is down, giving us a perfect competitiveness boost without significant inflationary risk.

 

I am reminded of what happened in 1992 when we were ejected by the markets from the exchange rate mechanism and all the pointy-heads said that we faced disaster: we had a boom instead.

[Wes Tender]

If you just tried to interpret what's going on instead of regurgitating Tory Central Office press releases and No10 briefings about 'opinions' you might have a better grasp of politics. There are clearly a number of heavily divided positions in Cabinet, as well as on the backbenches (in a party with a slender HoC majority), from Hammond in defence of the single market and the British economy, to Fox and his weird mercantilist view of the world.

 

Oh, and Happy Rosh Hashanah!

 

I'm sure that ECUK will be grateful for your intervention on his behalf.

 

As a Conservative Party member, policy briefings I receive at least give me the political edge over you when it comes to having a grasp of what their position will be regarding the path they take towards leaving the EU and deciding what is pot-stirring by the media, attempting to highlight divisions that don't exist within the Party and which are lapped up by the likes of you.

 

It really is no earth-shattering surprise that over an issue such as leaving the EU which divided the nation during the referendum, that there should also be differences of opinion within the cabinet or the party on how we go about it and how different aspects of it are prioritised. Cabinets of all political persuasions contain Ministers with differences of opinion over certain policies, but they arrive at decisions based on consensus, as will this one.

 

Any credibility that reflected your grasp of politics was severely damaged when you assured us that there was no way that Corbyn would be elected leader of the Labour Party.

 

Oh, and Happy Hijri New Year!

[buctootim]

me the political edge over you when it comes to having a grasp of what their position will be regarding the path they take towards leaving the EU and deciding what is pot-stirring by the media, attempting to highlight divisions that don't exist within the Party

 

Ha very droll. Ever heard of the Tory Reform Group Wes?

[Winnersaint]

I'm sure that ECUK will be grateful for your intervention on his behalf.

 

As a Conservative Party member, policy briefings I receive at least give me the political edge over you when it comes to having a grasp of what their position will be regarding the path they take towards leaving the EU and deciding what is pot-stirring by the media, attempting to highlight divisions that don't exist within the Party and which are lapped up by the likes of you.

 

It really is no earth-shattering surprise that over an issue such as leaving the EU which divided the nation during the referendum, that there should also be differences of opinion within the cabinet or the party on how we go about it and how different aspects of it are prioritised. Cabinets of all political persuasions contain Ministers with differences of opinion over certain policies, but they arrive at decisions based on consensus, as will this one.

 

Any credibility that reflected your grasp of politics was severely damaged when you assured us that there was no way that Corbyn would be elected leader of the Labour Party.

 

Oh, and Happy Hijri New Year!

 

Hmmm! More gloating.