Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

Of course.

Thank you!

westernpromise wrote: »

Within the Conservative party, George Osborne is a Remainer who has argued that we should not relinquish access to the single market in return for control over free movement;

When did he say that?

Before the referendum, lots of nonsense was said. However, Cameron called the referendum precisely because he had failed to extract further concessions from the EU. By that point, it was quite clear you cannot pick-and-choose from the list of benefits and obligations of the EU, and it was therefore quite clear that remaining in the single market but with control over free movement was bull****

Did Osborne say that either during the referendum campaign or after the referendum?
Did Osborne really say, even after the referendum was called, that we could have remained in the EU but without the free movement of people?
If so, anyone with half a brain would have been able to see it was bull****

westernpromise wrote: »

Anna Soubry of the same party (at the time) is a Remainer who indicated she could vote against the repeal of any of the legislation enacting EU laws.

Not sure how this means the Remain camp was divided on the meaning of Remain?

westernpromise wrote: »

Kenneth Clarke looks "forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe”;

And I look forward to the day people will stop being racist. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen any time soon.
Did Clarke say he was sure tighter integration would be bound to happen with great certainty over a short time?

westernpromise wrote: »

David Cameron in contrast "wanted to allow Britain to discriminate against citizens from other EU countries by excluding them from in-work benefits, unless they had lived in the UK for four years...

Yes, he tried that, and the EU (rightly) told him to get lost.
That's when he called the referendum.
Again, anyone with half a brain could have realised there was no way this was going to happen: Cameron had already tried unsuccessfully, why would the EU change its mind?

westernpromise wrote: »

Nick Clegg, meanwhile, thought in 2012 that "a grand, unilateral repatriation of powers might sound appealing but in reality, it is a false promise, wrapped in a Union Jack", a position irreconcilable to Cameron's.

Again: not sure how this means there was division in the Remain camp about the meaning of remain?

westernpromise wrote: »

For example, the EU has just appointed as successor to Juncker someone who thinks the EU should undermine NATO by having an EU army. [...]If we remain, are we going to be part of that? What is the unanimous Remain view of the EU army? I have heard absolutely no "official Remain" comment on this.

Oh, no, not the European army fake news again! Yes, some (the operative words being *some*) politicians are in favour. However, that would require unanimity. some < unanimity, so good luck with that happening in this lifetime.
https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/

westernpromise wrote: »

There are other obvious fault lines in the Remain worldview. There is the schism between those Remainers who want a second referendum (Lib Dem), those who don't (Labour), and those who want to ignore the first one as well (also Labour and many Conservative). Then there are those Remainers who think the previous referendum result means there has to be another Joxit referendum, and those Remainers who don't.

So what? That doesn't mean remain means multiple things to multiple people.

Remain and leave are cross-party positions so it is only natural that there will be disagreement on some matters. That's not the point. The point is whether remain means different things to different people. No, remain is ONE clear choice, while Brexit can mean lots of different things.

westernpromise wrote: »

There are the 500-odd MPs who voted to implement Article 50 but who then voted against any implementation of Article 50. Arithmetically these must include several hundred Remainers who disagreed not only with other Remainers, but with themselves.

So what? That doesn't mean remain means multiple things to multiple people

westernpromise wrote: »

Sure. Tony Blair stood on a platform to leave the EU in 1983. He's now a Remainer.

That was 36 years ago! I don't see anything shocking in changing your position after 36 years - it's a different world after 36 years! Even if you disagree with me and find this change of heart despicable, that's switching camps, it doesn't mean remain means different things to different people.

westernpromise wrote: »

May was a Remainer in 2016 who as PM then advocated Brexit in 2017.

As above: it doesn't mean remain means different things to different people!

westernpromise wrote: »

Elsewhere I have repeatedly asked Leavers what happens to farmers facing 41% tariffs in a no-deal Brexit, or what would they do about Northern Ireland, or how would we get a trade deal with the EU if we waltz off without paying, to which the answer is likewise always "You're a Remainer".

Yes, I have been asking the same questions - to no avail

westernpromise wrote: »

If someone asks you a question to which you have no persuasive (or any) answer, and all you have is whataboutery, look into yourself.

What questions would I have dodged??

buglawton

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

The Financial Times has an interesting article on VAT and the Irish border. It's behind a paywall, so I'll summarise.

An Ikea bed costs roughly the same in Belfast and Dublin, at current exchange rates.

Post-Brexit, unless there is a specific deal on VAT, too, someone from NI could drive to Dublin, buy the bed, and claim VAT back at the border - perfectly legal, since a non-EU resident would be exporting goods outside the EU.

The UK has said it will not charge its VAT on personal imports
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650459/customs_bill_white_paper_web.pdf

This means inviting this kind of activity. It would also mean a death sentence for most NI retailers.

How would the Ireland and the EU react? No one knows.

But it's clear the matter is very complicated. Too bad the next British Pm doesn't do details, right?

Eek! A complication. That means we must stay in the EU.

SouthLondonUser

Maybe it means Brexiters should have some answers?



By the way, a potential destruction of the retail sector in NI is slightly more than a "complication".

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Maybe it means Brexiters should have some answers?

By the way, a potential destruction of the retail sector in NI is slightly more than a "complication".

Destruction?
Hyperbole is the angry Remoaners friend.

Zero_Gravitas

Tromking wrote: »

Destruction?
Hyperbole is the angry Remoaners friend.

Easiest trade deal in history...
£350 million a week for the NHS...
Lies have been the gullible brexiteers’ friends...

SouthLondonUser

Then why not reply with details and alternatives?

As the FT pointed out, decades ago the music industry in the UK suffered badly when firms started selling Vat-free CDs from the Channel Islands. This lasted a while, till the loophole was closed.

With the current UK proposal of NOT charging VAT on personal imports, there will be a strong incentive to drive to the Republic to buy not small things but bigger stuff yes. The NI retail sector might not be destroyed but would certainly suffer. Who would ever buy anything worth > £200-400 in NI when you can get it VAT free after a short drive??? Would you?

So maybe the UK would charge VAT on personal imports? That would mean a u-turn on the current proposal and lots of checks at the border .

Maybe the UK would stay in the EU VAT system?

I am not saying civilisation as we know it will end.
I am saying the potential for disruption is real and huge.

As usual, it is SHOCKING that Brexiters don't do details, had never thought of these issues and, when pressed, have nothing to say.

If you were a small retailer in NI would you not be worried?

Or are you one of those Englishmen whose attitude is not to care in the slightest what happens on the island of Ireland?

cogito

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Then why not reply with details and alternatives?

As the FT pointed out, decades ago the music industry in the UK suffered badly when firms started selling Vat-free CDs from the Channel Islands. This lasted a while, till the loophole was closed.

With the current UK proposal of NOT charging VAT on personal imports, there will be a strong incentive to drive to the Republic to buy not small things but bigger stuff yes. The NI retail sector might not be destroyed but would certainly suffer. Who would ever buy anything worth > £200-400 in NI when you can get it VAT free after a short drive??? Would you?

So maybe the UK would charge VAT on personal imports? That would mean a u-turn on the current proposal and lots of checks at the border .

Maybe the UK would stay in the EU VAT system?

I am not saying civilisation as we know it will end.
I am saying the potential for disruption is real and huge.

As usual, it is SHOCKING that Brexiters don't do details, had never thought of these issues and, when pressed, have nothing to say.

If you were a small retailer in NI would you not be worried?

Or are you one of those Englishmen whose attitude is not to care in the slightest what happens on the island of Ireland?

People on both sides of the border have been crossing it for as long as I can remember to shop where it’s cheaper. The devaluation of the £ has resulted in a considerable increase in traffic from south to north to the disadvantage of retailers in the south. Just saying.

SouthLondonUser

You are talking about exchange rates.
I am taking about VAT.


A NI shopper would be able to claim it back at the border.
The UK's proposal envisages not charging VAT on personal imports.

Do I need to repeat what this means?

May I ask again how Brexiters think of addressing this? Or will I get the usual 'how dare you demand an answer'?

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Not sure how this means the Remain camp was divided on the meaning of Remain?

It is fairly obvious, no? We have Clarke saying he wants the HoC to be a parish council versus Cameron saying we should have this that and the other carve outs. The mere existence of the terms Eurosceptic and Europhile, or "two-speed Europe", or Clegg's reference in the speech I quoted to in a effect a three-speed Europe, with there being Remainers of all three stripes, point clearly to there being different versions of what EU membership entails ("In Europe today, there are effectively three places you can be. They fit together like rings around a circle. There’s the core: where the Eurozone countries are now pulling together more closely, integrating further to shore up the single currency. Then there is the ring around that - the inner circle: the states who aren’t in the euro, but are members of the EU. And the outer circle: where you find the accession countries, EEA countries, Norway, Switzerland, and so on. The UK is in the inner circle - but the terrain is shifting"). This is without considering whether previous states are more desirable to the UK, eg pre-Maastricht.

It is simply beyond argument that there are different versions of Remain. What their campaign needed to do was identify which version of Remain voting Remain entailed. It's not for me as an unpersuaded voter to prove to Remain ex post that Remain has always been a nebulous concept. If I think it is, then it is. The burden of proof is the other way around.

Oh, no, not the European army fake news again! Yes, some (the operative words being *some*) politicians are in favour. However, that would require unanimity. some < unanimity, so good luck with that happening in this lifetime.

Again, it is simply untenable to handwave away the German Chancellor saying "this will lead to a European army" as not actually meaning this will lead to a European army". If you tell people black is white you should not only expect to be disbelieved; you should expect to disbelieved when you later say that white is white.

The point is whether remain means different things to different people. No, remain is ONE clear choice, while Brexit can mean lots of different things.

They are identically equally poorly defined. The EU army point is a perfect encapsulation.

What questions would I have dodged??

You've been disingenuous in dismissing valid doubts as to what Remain means on the grounds that you're happy it only means one thing, whatever anyone else may think. I don't believe this and neither do I believe there is any future course of events in which both you and Angela Merkel are vindicated on the question of a European army. The same can be said of any mooted aspect of EU integration.

We can agree to differ but the last time we did so Remain lost the referendum because of it. A further contributing factor to that was, I think, the failure to acknowledge legitimate concerns about the absence of proper democracy in the EU - for instance, as noted above, the way in which the EU commission is formed without regard for the results of its own elections. This again is something Remainers handwave away as being of no account, or by saying never mind that this is worse, or whatever. All these matters cost you votes, however, so the stupid ones were not those who voted Leave, but the Remain organisers who decided to belittle or even ignore the concerns.

Analogously, we have today a situation where graduates pay 9% extra income tax above a certain salary for 30 years. Some regard this as outrageous and politicians are therefore flapping around trying to come up with some wheeze to address the grievance. When I graduated in 1985 my salary was taxed more than its equivalent today even including the 9%, and so was that of everyone else on that salary including those who hadn't been ti university. The correct answer to the "grievance" is therefore something like "S0d off snowflake, you don't know you're born", but it wouldn't win you a referendum.

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

It is fairly obvious, no? We have Clarke saying he wants the HoC to be a parish council versus Cameron saying we should have this that and the other carve outs.

No, not obvious at all. Different people want different things. What a surprise. I want to eat 2 kg of chocolate a day and lose weight. Not gonna happen.

What Clarke wants is totally, completely and utterly irrelevant unless there is reason to believe he can achieve it. Can he? No, so that's irrelevant.

westernpromise wrote: »

[...] ("In Europe today, there are effectively three places you can be. They fit together like rings around a circle. There’s the core: where the Eurozone countries are now pulling together more closely, integrating further to shore up the single currency. Then there is the ring around that - the inner circle: the states who aren’t in the euro, but are members of the EU. And the outer circle: where you find the accession countries, EEA countries, Norway, Switzerland, and so on. The UK is in the inner circle - but the terrain is shifting").

Again: is there any reason to believe the UK would have lost its opt-outs or been forced to join the euro?
Like I asked in my previous post, if the pull is so strong, why are so many countries still outside the euro?

westernpromise wrote: »

It is simply beyond argument that there are different versions of Remain.

??? Not in the slightest!
So far all you have managed to come up with is that some politicians are in favour of more integration, some aren't; that some are in favour of the EU army, while the vast majority aren't.

westernpromise wrote: »

What their campaign needed to do was identify which version of Remain voting Remain entailed. It's not for me as an unpersuaded voter to prove to Remain ex post that Remain has always been a nebulous concept. If I think it is, then it is. The burden of proof is the other way around.

Some twisted logic here...
In order to prove that Remain means different things / not the status quo, you'd need to prove:

• that the EU is very likely to change in some very material way in the near future, OR
• that there is enough division among EU leaders on which direction to take that it is impossible to predict which direction the EU will take

westernpromise wrote: »

Again, it is simply untenable to handwave away the German Chancellor saying "this will lead to a European army" as not actually meaning this will lead to a European army".

??? Something like that would require unanimity. There is nothing even remotely close to unanimity on that point. So how can you be so sure it will happen? I had asked , no answer, so I ask again.

westernpromise wrote: »

You've been disingenuous in dismissing valid doubts as to what Remain means on the grounds that you're happy it only means one thing, whatever anyone else may think.

You have miserably failed to prove otherwise!

westernpromise wrote: »

I don't believe this and neither do I believe there is any future course of events in which both you and Angela Merkel are vindicated on the question of a European army.

Merkel wants a European army.
Most EU leaders do not.
A European army would require unanimity.
There is no sign Merkel is close to winning unanimity on that.
So?

westernpromise wrote: »

We can agree to differ but the last time we did so Remain lost the referendum because of it. A further contributing factor to that was, I think, the failure to acknowledge legitimate concerns about the absence of proper democracy in the EU - for instance, as noted above, the way in which the EU commission is formed without regard for the results of its own elections.

Sigh... Please, not the usual nonsense...
Do I need to remind you that British ministers are not appointed directly, either?
That Commissioners are in the end voted by the EU Parliament?
That the only alternative would be to give less power to the national governments, which currently nominate commissioners, and more to the EU parliament?

Brexiters cannot have it both ways: the current system gives power to the national governments (which nominate Commissioners) but that's bad because it doesn't directly reflect the outcome at the European Elections. A system in which MEPs could nominate Commissioners directly would reflect the outcome, but would give less power to national governments, and Brexiters would shout from the rooftops about sovereignty, a EU super-state etc. You can't have your cake and eat it - you must pick and choose.

westernpromise wrote: »

This again is something Remainers handwave away as being of no account, or by saying never mind that this is worse, or whatever. All these matters cost you votes, however, so the stupid ones were not those who voted Leave, but the Remain organisers who decided to belittle or even ignore the concerns.

So your point is that Remain lost because those who voted Leave were experts in comparative constitutional law who appreciated all the subtleties and finer details??? Fake news and populism had nothing to do with it?

Are you familiar with Carole cadwalladr's reporting on fake news? Do you dismiss that as irrelevant or do you agree she has a point?
https://blog.ted.com/social-media-is-a-threat-to-our-democracy-carole-cadwalladr-speaks-at-ted2019/

FWIW I think the key error of the Remain campaign was to focus too much on the negatives of leaving the EU and not do a good job of selling all the positives. Positive messages are always more likely to win.

westernpromise wrote: »

Analogously, we have today a situation where graduates pay 9% extra income tax above a certain salary for 30 years. Some regard this as outrageous and politicians are therefore flapping around trying to come up with some wheeze to address the grievance.

I fail to see the relevance. BTW, this graduate tax (because that's what it is, not a student loan but a graduate tax) makes perfect sense because it means that the more you benefit from university education, the more you pay, which is how a fair and progressive tax system should work. The previous system of getting everyone to pay for a minority was unfair and regressive.