Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[95thrifleman]

Looks like May as dodged a bullet with the 1922 committee.

[caratacus]

Looks like May as dodged a bullet with the 1922 committee.

The 1922 committee is not what it once was, a distinquished group of Tory grandees, so don't believe the media that it woud be anything different. Under Cameron, it was filled up with his new tory toadies, and we know their position on the EU. When all the Remainers start making comments to support May's plans and those who were supposed to be in the leave camp are silent, you know which way the wind is blowing. We have a political establishment across all three major parties who didn't want Brexit and have no intention of implenting it effectively. This is not a Thatcherite party in government, but one in the mould of Ted Heath.

[Aexodus]

Interestingly though from this IpsosMORI poll the majority don't want an end to freedom of movement, just greater controls over it between EU countries- something that has already started happening around the EU off the back of the migrant crisis with reforms being debated (and some countries just out-right doing), so its one area where i think potentially their could be greater scope than previously thought for the UK- the issue time, which due to incompetence has never been on our side... because 'will of the people' became a nice political tool for a while to shore up a shakey government.

Fair point, but lets remember that the EU is currently suing the visegrad countries over migration. I don’t think Barnier is a very flexible individual when it comes to maintaining weak borders, ‘greater control’ will effectively mean (at least what I would want it to mean) being able to turn away EU low-skilled migrants if we so choose, with caps etc. I don’t think that’s compatible woth full single market access while the EU still controls Europe’s economy, but I would be very happily proved wrong.

[Aexodus]

David Cameron speaking in 2015.



“This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we’ll make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.

”So to those who suggest a decision to leave in the referendum would merely produce another stronger re-negotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain could then stay, I say think again.

”...If we vote to leave, then we will leave”

This couldn’t be more ironic.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Fair point, but lets remember that the EU is currently suing the visegrad countries over migration. I don’t think Barnier is a very flexible individual when it comes to maintaining weak borders, ‘greater control’ will effectively mean (at least what I would want it to mean) being able to turn away EU low-skilled migrants if we so choose, with caps etc. I don’t think that’s compatible woth full single market access while the EU still controls Europe’s economy, but I would be very happily proved wrong.

This is a fair point too mate, i'm not saying at all either your interpretation is wrong or anything here, just more that like most with brexit- its open to different interpretations from different leaver voters, and indeed remainers. Is key issue of brexit and the stupidity of the Conservatives making this both a party-issue and also (much like with austerity) using a simplistic slogan of 'will of the people' or 'brexit means brexit' as a political tool to cling to a tenuous position- which means absolutely nothing, and can be twisted to whatever audience is needed- while making things long term lead to a situation where very few leave or remain voters will be happy with the deal- whatever it was going to turn out to be- because it will be very different from what each individual (or sub-group) envisaged.

Your suggestion here, i don't believe would be compatible with full single market access, but again my EU knowledge is a few years old now and i haven't really looked over the detail of the current discussions to see if that would still be the case, i assume it is though. But again i think a way of actually controlling internal immigration could be found with as some members already did- limit or cut access to benefits, and enforce the expiry date for people moving here with no job to go to. We always had control- it just depends on the level or manner of control which i can understand as we all have different emphasizes. (This of course is without going into my favorite subject of the nature of the UK economy in regards to it being primarily a low-skilled service sector needing reform anyway in the face of the predicted consequences of the gig revolution ).

In regards to Cameron's promises- indeed there was another issue. He promised that, and then went, and subsequently May gambled and essentially diminished her own mandate to carry a similar plan out. This effectively in terms of politiking- puts everything back on the table. We're seeing this further now ironically- as the hard-brexiteers resigning from Cabinet and trying to cause problems (when their not currently infighting with each other over just what they want to do and how)- has actually diminished their influence further in favour of remainers, as it is the latter who are able to best exploit a weakened May, as the far small number of brexiteers cut off their own shakey power-base- which further has put an even softer version of brexit on the table again (Single market access) than was previously on the cards among both the opposition and backbenchers. Its i think the big issue of brexit and the referendum stemming from Conservative party internal divides being pushed out, rather than a grass-roots campaign from the public. The former ensures that politicking and party would always be first and foremost in their minds, and that the country would always be a mess as cross-party support is something that is actively avoided.

EDIT:

This might be of interest-

Labours strategy from this poll seems to be paying off, while the Conservatives have shed slightly to UKIP... though i note it seems 1% of that actually is not interested in a party currently. This seems to be in line with Surrvations own poll a few days ago where it had Labour actually rising to the lead. But i think the polls are showing what many commentators are picking up on- that being that a 'hard' or 'real' (depending upon your perception of it) brexit is dead, MP's can't enforce it, and their isn't the support for it manifesting among the public- which gives the legitimacy angle to a softer conception (or 'not proper' brexit- again depending upon how you individually see these things).

[caratacus]

Months of planning have gone into this visit by Trump to the UK. Its timing was no accident to coinside with the publication of the Government's position on negotiating a deal with the EU. Trump had already stated his intention of initiating a closer trading relationship with the UK once we left the EU and the visit was to begin that process.

However, instead we have a White Paper released yesterday, the details of which would seems to tie the UK into a relationship with the EU which would make any such deal nigh on impossible.

So instead of having a new free trade deal as its most memorable feature. We have a giant inflatable orange baby in the skies over London and a host of hysterical crying snow flakes in its main park.

Trump: Brexit plan 'will probably kill' US trade deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44815558

Donald Trump has said the UK will "probably not" get a trade deal with the US, if the prime minister's Brexit plan goes ahead.
He told The Sun the PM's plan would "probably kill the deal" as it would mean the US "would be dealing with the European Union" instead of with the UK.

Following from Dante's post , it would anyway be likley that the EU will refuse to agree the contents of this Brexit plan in the expectation that it will force the collapse of the Government and a new election in which Labour would win. The logic being, that a Labour parliamentary Labour party, who are largely for remaining, would be more amenable to their wishes.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Months of planning have gone into this visit by Trump to the UK. Its timing was no accident to coinside with the publication of the Government's position on negotiating a deal with the EU. Trump had already stated his intention of initiating a closer trading relationship with the UK once we left the EU and the visit was to begin that process.

However, instead we have a White Paper released yesterday, the details of which would seems to tie the UK into a relationship with the EU which would make any such deal nigh on impossible.

So instead of having a new free trade deal as its most memorable feature. We have a giant inflatable orange baby in the skies over London and a host of hysterical crying snow flakes in its main park.



Following from Dante's post , it would anyway be likley that the EU will refuse to agree the contents of this Brexit plan in the expectation that it will force the collapse of the Government and a new election in which Labour would win. The logic being, that a Labour parliamentary Labour party, who are largely for remaining, would be more amenable to their wishes.

I think in terms of the EU's tactic of collapsing May's government by refusing or negotiating down the deal to Norway style- is probably indeed one option mate. Though i think honestly when we take into account the UK's starting position- even with a Blair or Thatcher (Both very capable of getting what they want on the world stage... less so maybe for Thatcher in terms of the EU and her signing up accidentally or not to 'ever closer union' as vague as that was at the time of course!) we'd still end up in rather the same position- too divided among both public and parliament, still not enough time (the 15 years) to plan for a proper economic restructuring required of brexit, the negotiating and power imbalances being so huge between the two parties- the UK vs the EU, but also 27 individual states who can wield the EU to increase their position- as we've seen France, Germany, Spain and Ireland do. I think a Norway-esque style deal was always going to be the result- the caveat here is that article 50 was pushed far too early.

Change that of course way back, and we might potentially have been on a different outcome. But from that moment i feel its been highly likely this. Of course the other issue being that it needs to not be a Conservative-led brexit as being originally a tool to force party unity- it was always going to be a party-first matter between the several factions- further weakening the position. It all be fascinating indeed- if it wasn't us living through it of course.

In regards to the US free trade deal, i actually am glad it will probably be killed, i get indeed though why people favour it, so won't knock you there mate, but for me i tend to agree with the CBI whose members have said it would destroy British business at all levels beyond the very high-end manufactures and finance. The kind of deal we'd be in a position to make, and which Trump would push for would ensure that, as well as a fundamental change to the provision of public goods- The majority of the electorate in the UK area already against privatized water, electric, trains etc now due to recent failings (and the innate structural failure of them having an artificial monopoly effectively)- a US trade deal would see those things increased to other areas, when in fact they should be being rolled back. Now while this isn't certain of course, i think the rhetoric from the government over this has been telling- failing to deny that they won't be 'on the table'. So i honestly see far more long-term costs from a closer trading relationship with the US, than i do benefits- particularly in regards to economic stability, diminished governmental power to protect its citizens (Bearing in mind the US's recent bullying of several partners to impose its own corporate interests upon them, forcing them to overturn their own national regulations in regards to milk of all things) and a UK who no longer is competitive in its own right.

But again i get their could be benefits from your viewpoint that are quite valid, i'm just personally not very optimistic about them off-setting the costs .

As a general note though leading on from your post mate- i think it'll be interesting to be a fly on the wall of May's office currently- i wonder just how much she regrets inviting Trump over here, for him to actively brief against her, supporting Farage and Boris .

[caratacus]

I think in terms of the EU's tactic of collapsing May's government by refusing or negotiating down the deal to Norway style- is probably indeed one option mate. Though i think honestly when we take into account the UK's starting position- even with a Blair or Thatcher (Both very capable of getting what they want on the world stage... less so maybe for Thatcher in terms of the EU and her signing up accidentally or not to 'ever closer union' as vague as that was at the time of course!) we'd still end up in rather the same position- too divided among both public and parliament, still not enough time (the 15 years) to plan for a proper economic restructuring required of brexit, the negotiating and power imbalances being so huge between the two parties- the UK vs the EU, but also 27 individual states who can wield the EU to increase their position- as we've seen France, Germany, Spain and Ireland do. I think a Norway-esque style deal was always going to be the result- the caveat here is that article 50 was pushed far too early.

Change that of course way back, and we might potentially have been on a different outcome. But from that moment i feel its been highly likely this. Of course the other issue being that it needs to not be a Conservative-led brexit as being originally a tool to force party unity- it was always going to be a party-first matter between the several factions- further weakening the position. It all be fascinating indeed- if it wasn't us living through it of course.

I think you dismiss too lightly how much clout the UK has with the EU. It is one of its principle economies, one of only two that actually contributes more money to its budget than it receives. That imports more goods from European countries than it exports to.

There has always been a time factor though,and that is not on the UK's side, which is why we needed a government that would have been busy this last 18 months preparing for leaving the European market by negotiating with other countries, principle of which is that in North America. But we don't, and now are in a very difficult position to negotiate anything with the EU, because those alternatives aren't even in the early stages. And today the foremost of these alternatives, with a country currently building trade barriers with others, is about to go belly up!!

In regards to the US free trade deal, i actually am glad it will probably be killed, i get indeed though why people favour it, so won't knock you there mate, but for me i tend to agree with the CBI whose members have said it would destroy British business at all levels beyond the very high-end manufactures and finance. The kind of deal we'd be in a position to make, and which Trump would push for would ensure that, as well as a fundamental change to the provision of public goods- The majority of the electorate in the UK area already against privatized water, electric, trains etc now due to recent failings (and the innate structural failure of them having an artificial monopoly effectively)- a US trade deal would see those things increased to other areas, when in fact they should be being rolled back. Now while this isn't certain of course, i think the rhetoric from the government over this has been telling- failing to deny that they won't be 'on the table'. So i honestly see far more long-term costs from a closer trading relationship with the US, than i do benefits- particularly in regards to economic stability, diminished governmental power to protect its citizens (Bearing in mind the US's recent bullying of several partners to impose its own corporate interests upon them, forcing them to overturn their own national regulations in regards to milk of all things) and a UK who no longer is competitive in its own right.

But again i get their could be benefits from your viewpoint that are quite valid, i'm just personally not very optimistic about them off-setting the costs .

As a general note though leading on from your post mate- i think it'll be interesting to be a fly on the wall of May's office currently- i wonder just how much she regrets inviting Trump over here, for him to actively brief against her, supporting Farage and Boris .

And yes the US is an extremely important market for the UK, with Britain being by far the biggest foreign investor. I often find goods to buy online in the US but subsequently find out that they aren't sold outside the US or the cost of taxes and shipping actually cost more than the goods themselves. Compare this to ordering something from China which is substantially cheaper and arrives from places like Hong Kong in less than a week! Completely ridiculous!! Our utilities have already been sold off to foreign companies in Europe, that have well and trully screwed us and China is starting to buy into our transport system and power generation, I hardly thing the prospect of American ownership would be any different. For consumers, the EU is the most protective market in the World, in which goods and services are kept more expensive than they shoud be.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I think you dismiss too lightly how much clout the UK has with the EU. It is one of its principle economies, one of only two that actually contributes more money to its budget than it receives. That imports more goods from European countries than it exports to.

There has always been a time factor though,and that is not on the UK's side, which is why we needed a government that would have been busy this last 18 months preparing for leaving the European market by negotiating with other countries, principle of which is that in North America. But we don't, and now are in a very difficult position to negotiate anything with the EU, because those alternatives aren't even in the early stages. And today the foremost of these alternatives, with a country currently building trade barriers with others, is about to go belly up!!

I'm not by any means saying the UK doesn't have clout, but even with our position, the power imbalance is huge. The UK negotiating with Germany or France- that's where we can have the most leverage, but negotiating with Germany and France, plus the other member states, all of whom use the EU to amplify their political and negotiating clout, is something that Britain could never compete with on equal footing. I think for instance a lot of people see the EU as the united force and thus as you have fairly done here, bring up budget contributions. The issue is that's rather small beer overall, when we're talking about a hole in the EU budget vs a hole in the British economy itself- The EU's deficit while being an issue, does not necessarily follow that most EU nations would then feel any serious adverse effects, while Britain- we don't have that cushion. We are indeed a large consumer of EU nations products, and of course our financial contributions are important- but we shouldn't mistake that for actual equivalent level clout. What it does mean is that essentially we've got to where we are now- as the EU are not willing to 'punish' us due to it not being worthwhile economically for any party. That's about as far as our clout takes us though in reality. It would never get a deal with favorable terms for the UK, without serious compromises to the EU. Which we're seeing, and will probably continue to see.

Indeed right there about the timescale- the issue being of course, that a lot longer than 2 years was needed anyway. It was sheer idiocy driven by perceived political necessity that article 50 be activated so early. But agreed the Conservatives squandering the last 18 months is by no means helpful.

EDIT: Just back on the topic of the power imbalance, the UK did potentially have a a trump card early on- that would be that the EU would collapse into infighting on brexit, or during the process. The trouble here is that brexiteer ministers for whatever reason too that this would happen 'for granted'- hence early on all the blethering about the EU 'on the bring of collapse', the hype over the Netherlands and then Austria possibly leaving- Or indeed Italy...but that blind complacency actually meant that the EU divisions that were there, were pretty effectively shored up in regards to the UK- the EU has presented a pretty solid and united front, partly by supporting individual nations with their own goals from brexit (I.e. Macron nicking bits of London, Spain and Gibraltar, Ireland and the border) which has withstood the issues the UK could have manipulated if we had a proper strategy for negotiations (such as immigration- alas we've lost the 'Championing' of that cause to Italy who has made good headway in bringing together an EU-wide solution to the refugee crisis).

And yes the US is an extremely important market for the UK, with Britain being by far the biggest foreign investor. I often find goods to buy online in the US but subsequently find out that they aren't sold outside the US or the cost of taxes and shipping actually cost more than the goods themselves. Compare this to ordering something from China which is substantially cheaper and arrives from places like Hong Kong in less than a week! Completely ridiculous!! Our utilities have already been sold off to foreign companies in Europe, that have well and trully screwed us and China is starting to buy into our transport system and power generation, I hardly thing the prospect of American ownership would be any different. For consumers, the EU is the most protective market in the World, in which goods and services are kept more expensive than they shoud be

Again fair enough- the consumer point of view for cheaper goods is a valid point for individuals to favour a US deal. But again it doesn't account for the negative impact to Britain's economy in the long term- such a deal would effectively render up our economic sovereignty to direct US interference in rules and regulations when they deem it in their national interest- now the counter-argument- the EU did this to, indeed it did. But the difference is we actually had a vote in that plus a fairly effective alliance (until we on them) with the blocs North and Eastern members to enforce our viewpoint. Moreover long-term economic stability is under direct threat from the US, as British businesses, particularly our economic backbone of small and medium enterprises will not be able to compete. We'll see the key employers shift to being US-centric bodies, particularly if (as has happened in every single US trade deal) they force us to follow their far lower quality controls. Add to this, we'll be seeking a trade deal with the US, at a time when we'd be quite desperate politically to make quick deals, combined with the US and its (fair for them) America First policy- and we're looking at brexit being the final end to the UK's dreams of being a trading nation (And a goodbye to 'global Britain'- the very thing is supposedly should have been for).

Now i'm not saying no trade deal with the US. But not on the terms currently bandied about by both the US and UK governments.

In terms of utilities and public goods- they have already been sold off indeed. But currently there is nothing to stop the government taking them back in house (As France and Germany have at various levels), or indeed what i favour- setting up a state-owned competitor to act as a medium regulator for those markets- breaking up monopolies, punishing the current profiteering and forcing businesses to compete again and raise quality of their services alongside fair pricing. There are no real economic issues stopping the UK taking back control of its public goods and services, its merely a lack of political will from the current government (Which while slowly changing- has yet to gather the strength to act upon their own rhetoric). Given that brexit will likely lead to a Labour government whatever the situation (Unless of course the Conservatives in the next few months can collapse themselves and pass the torch on that way to Labour), i think we can be fairly certain we'll see nationalisation projects begin to take hold- the extent and methods unknown, but it has the electoral support for this area- so i'm a bit more hopeful for change that benefits British citizens here. HS2 can still be scrapped (as the useless project it is now) and Hinkley it was leaked is looking to be a downscaled project. So we're not at the point of no return- But a US trade deal as currently envisaged would be.

A point about the EU being protectionist- while true indeed, i think its good to considering we're currently part of an international economy, where cyclicly (arguably) we're heading to (particularly with automations effects) heading into a protectionist phase. The US is already making waves towards it. Thus the rhetoric of 'global Britain' a 'free trading nation' is about 10 years too late, its a Conservative fantasy that will see us, much like in 1880 when we were forced to abandon free trade, because every other major power went back to being protectionist- out in the cold and having to follow suit. So the question facing us in the immediate next few decades are... who do we want to be protectionist with/which gang will we hang out in

[caratacus]

Indeed right there about the timescale- the issue being of course, that a lot longer than 2 years was needed anyway. It was sheer idiocy driven by perceived political necessity that article 50 be activated so early. But agreed the Conservatives squandering the last 18 months is by no means helpful.

EDIT: Just back on the topic of the power imbalance, the UK did potentially have a a trump card early on- that would be that the EU would collapse into infighting on brexit, or during the process. The trouble here is that brexiteer ministers for whatever reason too that this would happen 'for granted'- hence early on all the blethering about the EU 'on the bring of collapse', the hype over the Netherlands and then Austria possibly leaving- Or indeed Italy...but that blind complacency actually meant that the EU divisions that were there, were pretty effectively shored up in regards to the UK- the EU has presented a pretty solid and united front, partly by supporting individual nations with their own goals from brexit (I.e. Macron nicking bits of London, Spain and Gibraltar, Ireland and the border) which has withstood the issues the UK could have manipulated if we had a proper strategy for negotiations (such as immigration- alas we've lost the 'Championing' of that cause to Italy who has made good headway in bringing together an EU-wide solution to the refugee crisis).

A lot of people at present feel angry that we have been led down the garden path by the present government and that the whole process of Brexit has been kept unnecessarily secret. It has produced a document, which essentially provides too much assurance to Brussels and not enough to protect British interests. This is not the basis of any form of negotiation. Its a divorce in which one spouse intends to remain living in the spare bedroom and sharing the household chores and groceries

Again fair enough- the consumer point of view for cheaper goods is a valid point for individuals to favour a US deal. But again it doesn't account for the negative impact to Britain's economy in the long term- such a deal would effectively render up our economic sovereignty to direct US interference in rules and regulations when they deem it in their national interest- now the counter-argument- the EU did this to, indeed it did. But the difference is we actually had a vote in that plus a fairly effective alliance (until we on them) with the blocs North and Eastern members to enforce our viewpoint. Moreover long-term economic stability is under direct threat from the US, as British businesses, particularly our economic backbone of small and medium enterprises will not be able to compete. We'll see the key employers shift to being US-centric bodies, particularly if (as has happened in every single US trade deal) they force us to follow their far lower quality controls. Add to this, we'll be seeking a trade deal with the US, at a time when we'd be quite desperate politically to make quick deals, combined with the US and its (fair for them) America First policy- and we're looking at brexit being the final end to the UK's dreams of being a trading nation (And a goodbye to 'global Britain'- the very thing is supposedly should have been for).

Now i'm not saying no trade deal with the US. But not on the terms currently bandied about by both the US and UK governments.

You are taking a position that rules and regulations would necessarily need to be completely harmonised for a trade deal to be agreed, when there is nothing to suggest that this would be the case. In a trade deal, everything is up for negotiation and a strong government will obviously prevent an unbalanced deal

In terms of utilities and public goods- they have already been sold off indeed. But currently there is nothing to stop the government taking them back in house (As France and Germany have at various levels), or indeed what i favour- setting up a state-owned competitor to act as a medium regulator for those markets- breaking up monopolies, punishing the current profiteering and forcing businesses to compete again and raise quality of their services alongside fair pricing. There are no real economic issues stopping the UK taking back control of its public goods and services, its merely a lack of political will from the current government (Which while slowly changing- has yet to gather the strength to act upon their own rhetoric). Given that brexit will likely lead to a Labour government whatever the situation (Unless of course the Conservatives in the next few months can collapse themselves and pass the torch on that way to Labour), i think we can be fairly certain we'll see nationalisation projects begin to take hold- the extent and methods unknown, but it has the electoral support for this area- so i'm a bit more hopeful for change that benefits British citizens here. HS2 can still be scrapped (as the useless project it is now) and Hinkley it was leaked is looking to be a downscaled project. So we're not at the point of no return- But a US trade deal as currently envisaged would be.

Aren't you forgetting that attempts at state intervention are controlled by the EU. If Corbyn truly is a Socialist, he better get down off the fence and support this Country leaving the EU. Instead his lack of leadership or political opportunism, has kept him on the side of the majority of those Labour MPs who are fixated in undermining Brexit. Should they succeed, any chance he would have of fundamentally reshaping the Country under a Labour government would be ended. EU rules mean they any public sector organisation set up must function as a private one. They can’t receive any extra subsidy (state aid) or taxpayer support and they’re not allowed to cross-subsidise. Infrastructure must also be separated from operations under these regulations.

A point about the EU being protectionist- while true indeed, i think its good to considering we're currently part of an international economy, where cyclicly (arguably) we're heading to (particularly with automations effects) heading into a protectionist phase. The US is already making waves towards it. Thus the rhetoric of 'global Britain' a 'free trading nation' is about 10 years too late, its a Conservative fantasy that will see us, much like in 1880 when we were forced to abandon free trade, because every other major power went back to being protectionist- out in the cold and having to follow suit. So the question facing us in the immediate next few decades are... who do we want to be protectionist with/which gang will we hang out in

The protectionist policies instigated by the Trump administration, seek to address unfair trading practices and some of the negative effects of the global market on the American economy. I agree with a lot he has done but think it unlikely that it will develop a long term trade war or become any more extensive than they are already. It was though a wonderful opportunity for the UK to develop a closer trading relationship with the US and exploit the differences Trump has had with the EU. Instead fool May, sides completely with the EU position, despite her own steel industry receiving a hammering from cheap foreign imports.

Britain's global influence has been declining for years, not because of American competition but by our membership of the EU. Instead of developing a strong commercial ties with Commonwealth nations, which together comprise the largest. share of the World's population. We were forced to abandon our trading links and become instead one of 27 other trading nations, most of which are tiny in comparison. The Commonwealth is now rendered to be something only associated with Royal visits or sporting events.

Britain could be a commercial bridge between Europe and North America between Europe and Asia , Africa. But this is not going to happen as long as you have a government who cannot even stand up against the EU in negotiating a new commercial relationship with the internal market, because it is obviously not entirely in their interests that this happen.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

A lot of people at present feel angry that we have been led down the garden path by the present government and that the whole process of Brexit has been kept unnecessarily secret. It has produced a document, which essentially provides too much assurance to Brussels and not enough to protect British interests. This is not the basis of any form of negotiation. Its a divorce in which one spouse intends to remain living in the spare bedroom and sharing the household chores and groceries

Agreed on the secrecy. What i find rather amusing is the justification for it 'don't want to reveal our hand' now shows it was all complete bs- we didn't have a 'hand' to reveal. Again though while i don't particularly agree with May's plan (Nor for that matter does the EU seemingly thus far) i think she's limited herself with her 'red lines'- which frankly were unrealistic from the get-go, considering there was never enough time, even with the full two years to prepare for a 'walk away' scenario. So it comes across again as a cobbled together position- that is designed to try and unite the Tory party and solve its own issues, over actually providing a working proposition.

You are taking a position that rules and regulations would necessarily need to be completely harmonised for a trade deal to be agreed, when there is nothing to suggest that this would be the case. In a trade deal, everything is up for negotiation and a strong government will obviously prevent an unbalanced deal

In fairness that's not quite my position- what i'm going from is the evidence from the US that every single deal they've made, and thus far their own rhetoric stemming from just a few days ago, back to last year has been consistent in that the US always forces the other side to allow for their lower standards of regulation if a comprehensive trade agreement is the goal. The UK is no different in this regard, unless we or they decide to not pursue an extensive and comprehensive trade agreement. In a trade deal- everything indeed is theoretically up for negotiation, but for one between states, based on how modern states interact and their historical patterns, politics and the balance of power, not just of immediate issues, but also wider interests are key to how they work- and the reality is that certain things are not up for negotiation, and that in fact one party is unable to walk away due to domestic or economic considerations. Your also being very optimistic that the UK by then will have a strong government, i can't see that happening any time soon- Post-brexit their no doubt will be huge divisions remaining about the type of deal achieved, whose fault it was (Again we come back to my point months ago- that Brexiteers sold brexit promising a paradise that could never be delivered- whether they meant to or not, doesn't matter- but that's what significant minorities of people on either side have bought) that brexit is not as envisaged (And their are a myriad of different perspectives here on what brexit should actually be like- all of which are competing). Add to this that the big two umbrella parties will no doubt receive the blame to varying extents, but also that FPTP means that its very rare they'd be toppled and we're in for a series of weak governments most likely, who will be unable to act decisively (the whole point of FPTP ironically).

Aren't you forgetting that attempts at state intervention are controlled by the EU. If Corbyn truly is a Socialist, he better get down off the fence and support this Country leaving the EU. Instead his lack of leadership or political opportunism, has kept him on the side of the majority of those Labour MPs who are fixated in undermining Brexit. Should they succeed, any chance he would have of fundamentally reshaping the Country under a Labour government would be ended. EU rules mean they any public sector organisation set up must function as a private one. They can’t receive any extra subsidy (state aid) or taxpayer support and they’re not allowed to cross-subsidise. Infrastructure must also be separated from operations under these regulations.

This isn't quite correct, though you are right- but none of it prevents nationalisation or its success- it does limit the options though indeed- The EU's outlook on state intervention and ownership is rather complex. What you say is true in terms of they can't play by rules that private companies don't follow- but there is nothing stopping whole sectors being made 'state monopolies' such as rail, energy, water etc- as these are recognized by the EU as a liberal market model not always working in these areas. The provision is this is done fairly to the other operators (i.e no seizing the means of production comrades)- so providing they are compensated, or as some have said- their contracts left to run out and then not sold out again- its all good, and in a state monopoly the state can indeed use taxes etc. In terms of my model of state-owned companies- just one playing by the rules would actually help the UK a lot anyway as it would be able to offer far lower prices, by simply not profiteering and actually reinvesting. The issue with the UK is we have in areas of natural monopoly, cartels. These can be broken following the EU rulebook, its simply i go back to my previous posts- that there has been a lack of political will due to the belief in the neoliberal model- luckily, or unluckily depending on viewpoint, that model is effectively dead as of 2008.

The protectionist policies instigated by the Trump administration, seek to address unfair trading practices and some of the negative effects of the global market on the American economy. I agree with a lot he has done but think it unlikely that it will develop a long term trade war or become any more extensive than they are already. It was though a wonderful opportunity for the UK to develop a closer trading relationship with the US and exploit the differences Trump has had with the EU. Instead fool May, sides completely with the EU position, despite her own steel industry receiving a hammering from cheap foreign imports.

Britain's global influence has been declining for years, not because of American competition but by our membership of the EU. Instead of developing a strong commercial ties with Commonwealth nations, which together comprise the largest. share of the World's population. We were forced to abandon our trading links and become instead one of 27 other trading nations, most of which are tiny in comparison. The Commonwealth is now rendered to be something only associated with Royal visits or sporting events.

Britain could be a commercial bridge between Europe and North America between Europe and Asia , Africa. But this is not going to happen as long as you have a government who cannot even stand up against the EU in negotiating a new commercial relationship with the internal market, because it is obviously not entirely in their interests that this happen.

I'm not judging in terms of if protectionism is a bad thing or not, but regardless the US seeking to address these unfair trading practices is exactly what's happened before when the world economy goes into a protectionist phase- The Great Depression- the argument was one between three international factions regarding their responses to the crisis and how they used gold- each believing the other was being 'unfair' internationally- hence a global trade collapse which did not recover until the 1950s in value and volume. Earlier, the 1880s saw the end of 'free trade' because the Continental powers and the US saw it as unfairly benefiting Britain (which it did), and thus much as Trump here, protectionism was used to try and force a fairer relationship- which ended in everyone essentially doing the same. It doesn't need a trade war for free trade to diminish or stop being as viable a model.

While there was scope for the UK to exploit the differences between the US and EU, that was very much on the will of the two big powers. Trump isn't exactly the most steady of leaders in terms of the influence those around him have- a prime example being the Sun interview and his subsequent comments- it wasn't 'fake news'- They were direct quotes. Likewise the 'yes and no' over if the UK should have a deal or not- prior to May- Makes a deal difficult, With May- Do what you like, we'll sort out a very good deal of us- Comments after May- Deal will be very difficult again. For the EU's side too, he's swung between supporting them and lambasting them as the US's key trade rival after China. This alone makes the UK capitalizing on this in a positive way very difficult.

The wider context too though of an increasingly protectionist world and why 'Global Britain' is a pipe dream, is we're not just talking about the US pursuing a protectionist stance, but China is also forging its own bloc of influence- manifested by its investment bank being heralded as the alternative to the IMF, but also its 'New Silk Road' project- which far from being economic has a major political and sovereignty element- Jinpings China is a very different beast in terms of exerting considerable influence in foreign affairs, particularly over East Africa- Some economists early on mistook this for China 'coming out to the west', but actually its turned out China is creating its own international order, and providing an alternative model for the economy based upon its neo-communism. In this its innately creating a protectionist bloc politically and economically. We also have the EU- as you rightly said a protectionist club, and it remains to be seen whether Africa becomes once more in the context of the coming decades geopolitics (resource and water struggles) either its own union- equivalent to China's and the EU's...or if its a place where neo-colonialism is adopted again (as arguably China is already doing with infrastructure for raw materials).

The Commonwealth, i'm a big fan of its reform- so agreed. Though Britain's decline and our loss of the commonwealth wasn't entirely just due to our EU ascension. The reason we joined was due to the Commonwealths failure to provide (Mostly due to the nature of its members) an equivalent market for British goods that would pull Britain out of the economic mire it was in. Our global influence though has declined not due to EU membership, but due to firstly a shift in the worlds economic hub back to the Pacific, the decline of Empire and its institutions (Which we are still bearing the effects of today upon our economy), political crisis like Suez (Falklands never acted to off-set Suez in pragmatic terms, more just in the political outlook). But from all this the major contention is that Britain would always decline in influence as the rest of the world caught up with the West. The Cold War gave us arguably a platform for importance by being the US's 'eyes' in Europe. But as places like India, China especially, Though South-East Asia (which was the real 'winner' of the cold war) and parts of South America and Africa modernized and developed, we were always set for the chopping block of being far diminished in influence. What's currently key indeed for our remaining influence is the left-overs from the Empire in terms of the inherited financial institutions- But over the coming decades as China with Hong Kong and also the US and New York grow, we'll slowly lose out there too. Then we have the impact of the 1980s neoliberal model- which effectively with Thatcher destroyed Britain's manufacturing (arguably out of necessity) and saw it outsourced in favour of a low-skilled service economy- that's a model that replaces and influential export led one, to one that is import based- thus the loss of political influence is guaranteed. Brexit would never be able to off-set that alas.

The Commonwealth too is at the point of no return- arguably it is finished- its relevance would be built on the wishes of India (Which is hostile essentially and would need to be appeased, something Britain early on in brexit failed to do by rejecting Indian requests for greater ease of movement between peoples and also the student issues) and Australia- who is aligned far more to the US and has been even prior to us joining the EU- mostly because we economically and politically left them out to dry in the aftermath of ww2.

So i do agree, a revitalized Commonwealth is something i'd love to see as would indeed your idea of Britain being a commercial bridge, bringing the globe together. The issue here is beyond what you've quite rightly identified mate as the struggle it would be to negotiate it, is also that the international context and the sliding into a multipolar world that we're now seeing is not conducive to such a free trade based order to exist. The UK cannot under current circumstances, even with a 'great' brexit deal exert enough influence to what essentially is alone- turn back a protectionist trend- even with no on-going trade wars, the response to the fourth industrial revolution is likely to further instill a protectionist policy as pragmatic. We couldn't stem such a tide when we were the largest economy on the globe, i can't see us having (pending a dramatic change in world circumstances- and such things have happened) any better luck now that we're not. In this context the most likely option is that brexit will be a realignment of the 'club' the UK wishes to belong to- either it'll nail its mast to the EU, or the US, less likely is China, or indeed it'll adapt to something we've never managed to do before and that is downscale further our global commitments and position, trading the influence to become a domestically successful nation based on the Canadian or Scandy liberal-social model. But that option i think is more a dream than anything else when you have a tradition of being at least near the high table .

A question i would ask, out of interest over wishing to cross swords or anything , but what sort of deal would you accept going forward from the EU, or indeed what kind of deal would you offer them? For my part, honestly i haven't given it much though- beyond as i said my predictions given our current context- economic and political and in terms of time sensitivity- but the 'Norway-esque' style one i'm thinking will happen is exactly the one i'd want . So would be interested to hear your thoughts?

EDIT: Just to add in a case-study i've been looking into for a slightly different reason- but highlights for why the Commonwealth would be a long way off a replacement for the EU as an alternate market- The Cairns Group, which features key Commonwealth members like Australia and New Zealand is even without the EU at odds with Britain and the US as the former are raw material providers/exporters and the latter importers- and the exporters want a more liberalized market, while the UK and US and co who are net importers are against such a move as domestically it could ruin their own agricultural industries. Any kind of deal for instance with Australia or the Commonwealth at large- will encapsulate this battle, as you'd need to find a UK government willing to sacrifice what's left of British farming and fisheries effectively, which can't compete and have been kept safe by the EU. Not only are these two sectors where brexit supporters are prominent, but also domestically it would be hell for a government, particularly a Conservative one to push through that agenda. They did to Britain's heavy industry and it effectively lost them those areas since the 80s, i don't think they'll be willing to do it again with their own core voters in the south-east. So prior to Commonwealth reforms or indeed the seeking of new trading relationships- ideally the UK should have already been looking to deal with its existing economic imbalances (And removing a credit-consumer fueled economy which post-austerity has become the model for growth, with something more sustainable and less horrifically dangerous over the mid-term).

Its another issue in why the power imbalance is so much against us, while indeed we're a large EU contributor, we are not, and have not been since the financial crash a strong, stable or sure-footed economy. If we're going from a purely economic perspective we couldn't actually be in a worse position to deal with brexit in terms of the dangerous growth of private debt, which has been fostered to slash the public deficit- right goal, totally wrong plan from the Conservatives if they wanted us to have sustainable growth (but of course as i think we all know now austerity was foremost a political tool to gain and secure power for the party- moving on the coalition to sole rule- it was not primarily a solid economic policy). This left us open to the dangers of a no-deal at a structural level- even again with the two years preparation used well, as we've had a decade of mismanagement and lost opportunity and an economy that it is increasingly warned is set for another dip to compliment its endemic slow growth and wage crisis- and that's all without brexit and nothing actually to do with it. In this context us being a key importer is not a good thing when we're structurally tied to a private credit-fuelled growth cycle within a primarily low-skilled service economy.

[caratacus]

Agreed on the secrecy. What i find rather amusing is the justification for it 'don't want to reveal our hand' now shows it was all complete bs- we didn't have a 'hand' to reveal. Again though while i don't particularly agree with May's plan (Nor for that matter does the EU seemingly thus far) i think she's limited herself with her 'red lines'- which frankly were unrealistic from the get-go, considering there was never enough time, even with the full two years to prepare for a 'walk away' scenario. So it comes across again as a cobbled together position- that is designed to try and unite the Tory party and solve its own issues, over actually providing a working proposition.

Exactly what hand indeed! Whether design or incompetance the situation is pretty dire given the timescale. I read somewhere that if you added up all the hours David Davis had been in actual discussion with the EU it would amount to 2 days out of two years and he only thought it was unworkable this week!

In fairness that's not quite my position- what i'm going from is the evidence from the US that every single deal they've made, and thus far their own rhetoric stemming from just a few days ago, back to last year has been consistent in that the US always forces the other side to allow for their lower standards of regulation if a comprehensive trade agreement is the goal. The UK is no different in this regard, unless we or they decide to not pursue an extensive and comprehensive trade agreement. In a trade deal- everything indeed is theoretically up for negotiation, but for one between states, based on how modern states interact and their historical patterns, politics and the balance of power, not just of immediate issues, but also wider interests are key to how they work- and the reality is that certain things are not up for negotiation, and that in fact one party is unable to walk away due to domestic or economic considerations.

The US are significantly more commercially minded than any UK government that is for sure. Minister for Trade and Industry has always traditionally been a position, given to those without experience in it or particular enthisiasm or flair for developing a global market for British goods abroad. The foreign (and cough cough.. commonwealth) office being seen as more influential position. It woud certainly therefore take change of attitudes for the UK to be less vulnerable to pressure exerted to accept lower regulation standards, but this is possible given a mindset which is admittedly absent at present. The biggest concern I woud have would be food and environmental standards, which in the EU is unarguably far superior

A question i would ask, out of interest over wishing to cross swords or anything , but what sort of deal would you accept going forward from the EU, or indeed what kind of deal would you offer them? For my part, honestly i haven't given it much though- beyond as i said my predictions given our current context- economic and political and in terms of time sensitivity- but the 'Norway-esque' style one i'm thinking will happen is exactly the one i'd want . So would be interested to hear your thoughts?

The majority of people that voted for Brexit, including a fair share of those that didn't, believe that the EU is a failed system of public administration. Its centralised model is beaurocratic in many ways unaccountable and incredibly wasteful. Whilst its management is increasing moving in the direction of a creating fiscal and monetary union.

Brexit wasn't an ideal about reclaiming past colonial glory, it was a necessity because the UK can no longer accept being part of something so resistant to positive change and reform from within. Despite what I term Britain's obvious clout, its influence on pushing reform has been negligible and we have a situation in which a singe country, Germany, controls the EU in all but name. Little wonder that Theresa May should immediately fly out to meet Angela Merkel to brief her on the contents of the Brexit plan, before she had even seen her own cabinet over the White paper. That this crucial document should be almost thrown at MPs by Dominic Raab the Brexit minister, 5 minutes before they had the opportunity to debate it. Whilst the German Chancellor had by then passed her copy onto most of her cabinet.

For me, Brexit is a glove of challenge thrown down to the EU not an opportunity for a cosy new relationship. For this reason I would be content with having left entirely more than a year ago without a trading deal, although I acknowledge that this would have been difficult for many businesses. But once the reality of the situation was made clear (which it wasn't for good reason) the EU would have been forced to reach a suitable commercial arrangement, without all these strings attached such as freedom of movement.

EDIT: Just to add in a case-study i've been looking into for a slightly different reason- but highlights for why the Commonwealth would be a long way off a replacement for the EU as an alternate market- The Cairns Group, which features key Commonwealth members like Australia and New Zealand is even without the EU at odds with Britain and the US as the former are raw material providers/exporters and the latter importers- and the exporters want a more liberalized market, while the UK and US and co who are net importers are against such a move as domestically it could ruin their own agricultural industries. Any kind of deal for instance with Australia or the Commonwealth at large- will encapsulate this battle, as you'd need to find a UK government willing to sacrifice what's left of British farming and fisheries effectively, which can't compete and have been kept safe by the EU. Not only are these two sectors where brexit supporters are prominent, but also domestically it would be hell for a government, particularly a Conservative one to push through that agenda. They did to Britain's heavy industry and it effectively lost them those areas since the 80s, i don't think they'll be willing to do it again with their own core voters in the south-east. So prior to Commonwealth reforms or indeed the seeking of new trading relationships- ideally the UK should have already been looking to deal with its existing economic imbalances (And removing a credit-consumer fueled economy which post-austerity has become the model for growth, with something more sustainable and less horrifically dangerous over the mid-term).

Which agricultural products would decimate the British agricultural market? You do know that British farmers are being subsidised by the taxpayer to produce for a global market! Lamb being for export to the Middle East and pork and milk to China etc. Whilst in supermarkets in winter most fresh produce in the fruit and vegetable aisle comes from outside the EU. Seems sensible that British agriculture be restructured to focus upon a British market and those products we cannot ourselves produce (requiring warm weather) are from countries that we have our own trade deals with, rather than those who have wangled them with the EU at rather expensive EU prices. Australia produces meat, which is a shrinking market in the UK. But they also have a wonderful climate that can produce fruits like oranges, lemons and pears.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Exactly what hand indeed! Whether design or incompetance the situation is pretty dire given the timescale. I read somewhere that if you added up all the hours David Davis had been in actual discussion with the EU it would amount to 2 days out of two years and he only thought it was unworkable this week!

Christ that is downright awful if true, i know there was rumors floating around that he hadn't really bothered actually getting to grips with the negotiations- his performances to the Brexit Committee rather confirmed that, but that is pretty damn dire.

The US are significantly more commercially minded than any UK government that is for sure. Minister for Trade and Industry has always traditionally been a position, given to those without experience in it or particular enthisiasm or flair for developing a global market for British goods abroad. The foreign (and cough cough.. commonwealth) office being seen as more influential position. It woud certainly therefore take change of attitudes for the UK to be less vulnerable to pressure exerted to accept lower regulation standards, but this is possible given a mindset which is admittedly absent at present. The biggest concern I woud have would be food and environmental standards, which in the EU is unarguably far superior

I think that's fair to say indeed. A big issue is probably as we found out early on in the brexit process- the British government had effectively (unlike France or Germany) been downsizing its own capabilities in the civil service since the 1980s in favour of getting comfortable within the status quo of the EU and NATO structures. This hit home when it was realized we still lack the required skilled negotiators and- and this to be fair is more an unsupported personal statement from me, so feel free to ignore it- but from my friend who was loaned out to the Department of Trade from Housing of all places (Showing the skills gap to perhaps be slightly unfair to him), their actually having to now rework the entry and postgraduate qualification schemes to implement a whole dearth of new ones as they lack international legal experts, trade experts, security and monopoly advisers- basically everything to do with an international outlook or trade- we don't really currently have. You sum up well though the current issue- we do indeed need a change in attitude against impending pressure from being 'alone' effectively in the wilds of world trade, but indeed i can't see that happening under this government who are still starving the civil service of the funds it needs to get up and running again as a governing institute. Food and environmental concerns were definitely share here.

The majority of people that voted for Brexit, including a fair share of those that didn't, believe that the EU is a failed system of public administration. Its centralised model is beaurocratic in many ways unaccountable and incredibly wasteful. Whilst its management is increasing moving in the direction of a creating fiscal and monetary union.

Brexit wasn't an ideal about reclaiming past colonial glory, it was a necessity because the UK can no longer accept being part of something so resistant to positive change and reform from within. Despite what I term Britain's obvious clout, its influence on pushing reform has been negligible and we have a situation in which a singe country, Germany, controls the EU in all but name. Little wonder that Theresa May should immediately fly out to meet Angela Merkel to brief her on the contents of the Brexit plan, before she had even seen her own cabinet over the White paper. That this crucial document should be almost thrown at MPs by Dominic Raab the Brexit minister, 5 minutes before they had the opportunity to debate it. Whilst the German Chancellor had by then passed her copy onto most of her cabinet.

For me, Brexit is a glove of challenge thrown down to the EU not an opportunity for a cosy new relationship. For this reason I would be content with having left entirely more than a year ago without a trading deal, although I acknowledge that this would have been difficult for many businesses. But once the reality of the situation was made clear (which it wasn't for good reason) the EU would have been forced to reach a suitable commercial arrangement, without all these strings attached such as freedom of movement.

A thought-provoking and very interesting perspective mate, thank you for it. I appreciate it. A lot of points i can see how you and people generally could fairly conclude them.

Which agricultural products would decimate the British agricultural market? You do know that British farmers are being subsidised by the taxpayer to produce for a global market! Lamb being for export to the Middle East and pork and milk to China etc. Whilst in supermarkets in winter most fresh produce in the fruit and vegetable aisle comes from outside the EU. Seems sensible that British agriculture be restructured to focus upon a British market and those products we cannot ourselves produce (requiring warm weather) are from countries that we have our own trade deals with, rather than those who have wangled them with the EU at rather expensive EU prices. Australia produces meat, which is a shrinking market in the UK. But they also have a wonderful climate that can produce fruits like oranges, lemons and pears

Its particularly food and cash crops. Also chicken, beef etc. Fish i'll admit to not being up on. But the general issue being that much like the US and the CBI's warnings, the same applies here in that the scale will mean British producers are out-competed and out produced and the Carins group members would require that the subsidies and protections be removed (as they consistently argue against the importers at the WTO).

Now with British farming being a subsidized, inefficient mess that essentially is a waste and in need of reform- you are preaching to the converted, i'm totally with you there and for years have had this gripe though i'd go so far as to say that British agriculture should be allowed to die. It being a strategic industry (The reason for the subsidies) is a joke in a modern context as we are beyond now the capacity to feed ourselves to a remotely bare standard. I think it would be far better for the countryside to be allowed to reclaim the former farmland and tourism and a sustainable environment founded that could provide actual revenue for the UK, instead of sucking it out as farming...though i recognize my views are extreme.

What i'm more mentioning though in my triad about the Aussies and the EU is that once again, the government will not be willing to take the necessary steps to make British farming competitive again- or indeed if it ever could be due to the fact we simply do not have the large-scale industrialized farming that there exists in the Carin group (and US) or indeed will potentially be there with Africa. The reason they won't be willing to try though is that this would mean effectively destroying the employment and livelihoods of some of their core electoral base- and more over the part that has large support for brexit (though its been rather amusing seeing the Farmers Association supporting brexit so avidly, and then as Cornwall did making noises about the fact the government needs to continue to subsidize them to the same levels the EU did)- they can't do the sensible thing of restructuring the damn sector in the near term due to this, and also i think in trade talks, their hands are bound due to this. Once more domestic political considerations will trump the UK's needs- and i'm not even sure Labour could do it either- as i get the feeling they'll be pandering to these groups to get into power.

But beyond the political analysis malarky- hell yes to agricultural reform...or letting the free market take its course!

[95thrifleman]

Following from Dante's post , it would anyway be likley that the EU will refuse to agree the contents of this Brexit plan in the expectation that it will force the collapse of the Government and a new election in which Labour would win. The logic being, that a Labour parliamentary Labour party, who are largely for remaining, would be more amenable to their wishes.

That's a dangerous assumption. The Labour heartlands are overwhelmingly leave areas. Only the champagne socialists in London are remainers.

The failure of labour in the local elections can be attributed to their flip-flopping stance on brexit. Another election does not mean a sure win for labour and if British politics has taught us anything over the past decade, polls are useless.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

That's a dangerous assumption. The Labour heartlands are overwhelmingly leave areas. Only the champagne socialists in London are remainers.

The failure of labour in the local elections can be attributed to their flip-flopping stance on brexit. Another election does not mean a sure win for labour and if British politics has taught us anything over the past decade, polls are useless.

This is the interesting thing, your right that polling should not be used as the 'be all, end all'- but what the last GE did see is that Labours vote share was rising in traditional Conservative heartlands of the South East- partly due to an influx of younger people from London escaping the high cost of living. At the same time, The Conservative vote share rose in traditional labour areas of the North-East due to the fact as you've said here due to leave, but also a feeling that Labour do not currently represent them. The big issue for the Conservatives though is their vote share rise was smaller than Labours, and also in far less seats to compensate for any potential future loss of the South East (Which did happen indeed).

Its why we've had the Conservatives attempt to appease the under-30s, and rather make a botch of it to their detriment, but they do recognize the issue and are trying.

Though to the context of brexit- Labour are most likely to win, as currently pending a major change we have a Conservative party set for getting a deal that satisfies no one, and the ironic thing being even if they did manage to get a 'good deal'- conceptions of brexit are so divided- even among the two camps of remain and leave, that their is no real electoral benefit to come from it, but a lot of pain. The other factor is a lot of commentators are now agreeing that we're witnessing the death throes of the Conservative party- the referendum designed to bring unity actually being the killing blow, either splitting them, or from brexit a very different party will emerge with a different outlook. I'd hazard at the moment given the popularity of Labours policies (But not of Corbyn) the Conservative party i don't think will divide- usually their incredibly effective at party-politics and 'power at all cost', but i do think they'll nick most of Labours policy lines and become far more centrist as a 'unifyer'. Whether that will be enough to distance them from their (self-imposed) ownership of brexit, i can't say yet. But something to bear in mind about GE polls- last time they were pretty accurate given lee-way- Corbyn started off 20 points behind May (The reason for her calling the election) and still managed to reduce her majority. A GE starting with Labour in the lead is terrifying for the Conservatives, particularly as May or any of the current Conservative leadership contenders are not the right 'campaign' politician to actually make the difference. Council elections are a fair point- but as many have already said, you can't really attribute local issues to a national electoral landscape, particularly with brexit. For instance here we're a lib-dem stronghold for councils, but a Conservative of the traditional right stronghold for Parliament who consistently gets in.

[caratacus]

Its particularly food and cash crops. Also chicken, beef etc. Fish i'll admit to not being up on. But the general issue being that much like the US and the CBI's warnings, the same applies here in that the scale will mean British producers are out-competed and out produced and the Carins group members would require that the subsidies and protections be removed (as they consistently argue against the importers at the WTO).

Now with British farming being a subsidized, inefficient mess that essentially is a waste and in need of reform- you are preaching to the converted, i'm totally with you there and for years have had this gripe though i'd go so far as to say that British agriculture should be allowed to die. It being a strategic industry (The reason for the subsidies) is a joke in a modern context as we are beyond now the capacity to feed ourselves to a remotely bare standard. I think it would be far better for the countryside to be allowed to reclaim the former farmland and tourism and a sustainable environment founded that could provide actual revenue for the UK, instead of sucking it out as farming...though i recognize my views are extreme.

What i'm more mentioning though in my triad about the Aussies and the EU is that once again, the government will not be willing to take the necessary steps to make British farming competitive again- or indeed if it ever could be due to the fact we simply do not have the large-scale industrialized farming that there exists in the Carin group (and US) or indeed will potentially be there with Africa. The reason they won't be willing to try though is that this would mean effectively destroying the employment and livelihoods of some of their core electoral base- and more over the part that has large support for brexit (though its been rather amusing seeing the Farmers Association supporting brexit so avidly, and then as Cornwall did making noises about the fact the government needs to continue to subsidize them to the same levels the EU did)- they can't do the sensible thing of restructuring the damn sector in the near term due to this, and also i think in trade talks, their hands are bound due to this. Once more domestic political considerations will trump the UK's needs- and i'm not even sure Labour could do it either- as i get the feeling they'll be pandering to these groups to get into power.

But beyond the political analysis malarky- hell yes to agricultural reform...or letting the free market take its course!

Agriculture has been haemorrhaging jobs for years though, if you don't include the temporary labour exploited by many of those farms with deals with the larger food stores. Lets not forget also the hug exploitation going on in Mediterranean countries of migrant labour from Africa, who live as virtual slaves. Where is the action by the EU on these practices?

Anyway, as you point out the trend is "go big" with small farms increasingly becoming unviable and swallowed up by larger ones . You see it in dairy farming in the UK now, with farms of 1000 cows becoming increasingly common, as the the economies of scale reward the larger farmer with access to loan money and greater level of subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy is actually distorting the market on the side of the big producer at the expense of the smaller. However, where subsidises don't exist and there is a free market, the trend is the same. In America farming has become almost wholly an industrial process, with companies owning thousands of acres and hundreds of farms.

But like anything change happens and change should in my opinion be instigated by a reform of farming policies in this country, to produce better food, a better environment and a healthier population. The outcome of what we see in going on in farm production is to produce food which contains high levels of chemicals ,uses large amounts of fertilizers and is damaging to wildlife and the environment. Produce is transported sometimes colossal distances,. In fact the carbon footprint of farming today is actually increasing not decreasing, in comparison with other industries. Agri-business has become more dominant and the push towards GM food constant, especially in America, where companies like Monsanto are endeavouring to foist it upon countries around the world.

It is my contention that Britain should lead the world in the concept of producing quality local food and concentrate on supporting and fostering small farms catering for local markets. To do so requires a colossal shift in how we view food, health and our environment but if successful would trigger a global revolution which would counter the worse excesses of agri business. You certainly won't see this coming from Brussels, where any reform of CAP is not even a topic of conversation.

That's a dangerous assumption. The Labour heartlands are overwhelmingly leave areas. Only the champagne socialists in London are remainers.

The failure of labour in the local elections can be attributed to their flip-flopping stance on brexit. Another election does not mean a sure win for labour and if British politics has taught us anything over the past decade, polls are useless.

The parliamentary Labour party are overwhelmingly for remaining in the EU because they are Blairites. Of those Labour MPs who are pro Brexit, most are noticeably not very vocal about it, including it must be said Jeremy Corbyn. who has done a 180 degree turn on his previous statements about the EU. The opposition have the audacity for criticising the government for a lack of clarity about their Brexit plans and yet we have practicably nothing from the opposition, on how they would achieve it! Or not as is probably the case.

And as for the membership, we see demonstrations by Lefties over Trump, why aren’t they demonstrating for better democracy for a better Brexit focused on bringing back greater accountability? Securing workers rights and better pay?

Politics in the UK today is a joke and those actively involved in it don’t reflect the majority of the electorate who have no real choice. Yes, they will vote Labour in the next election, because Labour MPs are keeping sufficiently quiet, not to reveal what their actual opinions are, and after Friday we all know the direction the present government wishes to pursue.

[swabian]

@Dante: To allow your own agriculture to die is a perverse idea imo. Subsidy policies are much preferable over that for reasons you've already mentioned in part, though i don't understand why you consider it a lack of courage to preserve jobs in the business. The UK would be completely agriculturally dependent on the continent during a time when a rising trade deficit is preprogrammed. I think that's the worst idea one can have right now lol.

@caratacus

It is my contention that Britain should lead the world in the concept of producing quality local food and concentrate on supporting and fostering small farms catering for local markets. To do so requires a colossal shift in how we view food, health and our environment but if successful would trigger a global revolution which would counter the worse excesses of agri business. You certainly won't see this coming from Brussels, where any reform of CAP is not even a topic of conversation.

That could work in principle and in fact does in some parts of europe. One shouldn't forget that the land utilization by small farms isn't worse (at least not much), it's just that small farms are not competitive compared to larger ones. Larger farms can rationalize the production process better, but that's because they have to. The yields per m² aren't necessarily any better. In addition this comes at the cost of environemntal damage, potential health risks, loss of biodiversity and sometimes loss of product quality. Landownership is a sensible issue that is best not left to the free market.

It seems to be some kind of sadistic fetish in political and economical circles to destroy the "romantic old world pansies" for the sake of so called progress, when in fact it's just the weakness of political will giving in to the demands of industrialists and otherwise a regress when it comes to the technical details. It's not like small farmers are ploughing with oxen and fertilize with their own poop.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Agriculture has been haemorrhaging jobs for years though, if you don't include the temporary labour exploited by many of those farms with deals with the larger food stores. Lets not forget also the hug exploitation going on in Mediterranean countries of migrant labour from Africa, who live as virtual slaves. Where is the action by the EU on these practices?

Anyway, as you point out the trend is "go big" with small farms increasingly becoming unviable and swallowed up by larger ones . You see it in dairy farming in the UK now, with farms of 1000 cows becoming increasingly common, as the the economies of scale reward the larger farmer with access to loan money and greater level of subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy is actually distorting the market on the side of the big producer at the expense of the smaller. However, where subsidises don't exist and there is a free market, the trend is the same. In America farming has become almost wholly an industrial process, with companies owning thousands of acres and hundreds of farms.

But like anything change happens and change should in my opinion be instigated by a reform of farming policies in this country, to produce better food, a better environment and a healthier population. The outcome of what we see in going on in farm production is to produce food which contains high levels of chemicals ,uses large amounts of fertilizers and is damaging to wildlife and the environment. Produce is transported sometimes colossal distances,. In fact the carbon footprint of farming today is actually increasing not decreasing, in comparison with other industries. Agri-business has become more dominant and the push towards GM food constant, especially in America, where companies like Monsanto are endeavouring to foist it upon countries around the world.

It is my contention that Britain should lead the world in the concept of producing quality local food and concentrate on supporting and fostering small farms catering for local markets. To do so requires a colossal shift in how we view food, health and our environment but if successful would trigger a global revolution which would counter the worse excesses of agri business. You certainly won't see this coming from Brussels, where any reform of CAP is not even a topic of conversation.

An interesting idea, i don't have much to add honestly beyond i'm intrigued by the such a radical shift as policy- maybe i'll stop with the 'burn the farming industry now' rhetoric. But its good to see a way that could make British farming viable beyond the effective drain it is now.

@Dante: To allow your own agriculture to die is a perverse idea imo. Subsidy policies are much preferable over that for reasons you've already mentioned in part, though i don't understand why you consider it a lack of courage to preserve jobs in the business. The UK would be completely agriculturally dependent on the continent during a time when a rising trade deficit is preprogrammed. I think that's the worst idea one can have right now lol.

Sorry its early morning (for me ) so apologies if i misread what you've said, but effectively i don't consider it cowardly to preserve jobs in business at all, hence my opposition to any kind of comprehensive trade deal with the US in the UK's current context. But it depends on how you view the agricultural sector- if you see it as private sector (as i do) then subsidies make it very similar to the issue most people in the UK have with private owned rail companies, or energy or water- you end up paying twice over for the goods- once at point of purchase, and once when huge sums of your taxes are given to ensure that a private company (or farm) remains not just in profit- but actually benefits from the situation. UK farms in the South-East particularly have been highly resistant to ANY kind of reform to make them profitable and competitive- from allowing large-scale farming, to even doing very niche products based on quality- a lot simply do not engage and are happy in their small holdings, engaging in profiteering at public expense.

More than this, UK agriculture itself will always be in deficit, we've had that same issue throughout the 18th and 19th century in the British farms alone without imports cannot remotely cover the foodstuffs necessary for the population. They aren't even able to off-set the deficit in any meaningful way. So in this context, as a private enterprise, farming should be left to the free market to deal with.

The counter-argument that i can see is that farming should be a seen as providing a 'public good' and strategic industry due to...well it being food for people . The downside for this i can see, is that unlike the provision of water, energy, or public transport- farming as i mentioned does not remotely currently meet its brief by being unable to cater to even the basic needs of the population- thus its a waste of public subsidies as it stands. Strategic industry- it as mentioned can in any meaningful way off-set the deficit of imports required anyway, so its sort of useless here too. So i just can't see the point mate in keeping it as it is, in a weird limbo where it effectively is a drain of tax payer money- i mean heck the first thing farmers did (who wanted brexit) was petition the government to make sure the money they currently get from the EU will be matched by the British tax-payer... that's not a viable industry.

So i'm all for letting farmers be...but literally we should let them be. They should not get public subsidies (and then the public have to on top of this buy their own produce, they've already subsidized...for prices that are not subsidized- its ridiculous).

Britain in terms of farming and trade deficits- we've always had a small agri sector that isn't really competitive, and we've since the 1980s run a trade deficit- our economy is set up to sell services, not agri goods or manufactures. Now their are arguments whether this is good or bad of course, but the fact the UK relies on imports will not change (And is partly the reason as you rightly say their a trade deficit is preprogrammed- mostly due to international conditions that a 'free trade' Britain is a pipe-dream currently).

[swabian]

@Dante: you propbably are aware and able to judge that far batter than i. Let me just capture that the loss of British influence on the drunken and retarded EU commission is a grave loss. We would have needed you fools. Badly.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

@Dante: you propbably are aware and able to judge that far batter than i. Let me just capture that the loss of British influence on the drunken and retarded EU commission is a grave loss. We would have needed you fools. Badly.

Not always mate, i appreciate reading your perspectives on it . Its always good i think to be made to see things from a different angle as you've provided here. I think actually your statement on the EU there is perfectly phrased. I feel that indeed Britain inside the EU had a fair amount of influence over shaping the block and certainly pushing for reforms. I understand the perspective of some of my countrymen who feel that it wasn't a democratic or transparent entity enough, or that they felt we should have had more influence within it, but i think actually we had a good deal, particulalary in shaping the blocs future from the 70s, and also indeed pushing for that two-tier system and acting in concert with other northern and eastern states who did not feel a federal EU was necessarily desirable. It'll be interesting now what happens in regards to EU reforms with the UK's voice no longer blocking, challenging or pushing for its own reforms from the tier-system.