Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

To be honest, it could have been better planned, but the disruption caused by the remoaners was such that this was practically imposible. And then, of course, the pandemic hit.
With more time, we could have done so much better, but in the circumstances, the time was simply not there.

The UK was offered a one-year extension by the EU but declined it. Industry constantly asked the government what it needed to plan for but the government didn't know itself.

[jfman]

“A faulty deal brought about by remoaners” ha ha ha. Remove your blinkers OB. Remoaners weren’t at the table.

The left wing of the Labour Party were probably more keen on Brexit than the centrists and the Lib Dems so your analogy is completely faulty.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no but. It absolutely could have been better planned. The opposition parties don’t control the Civil Service. Nor do they control the timescale.



Absolutely we could have done better with more time. But these were active political choices to trigger Article 50 (with no plan) and reject an extension to the transitional period. As you say - the pandemic hit - but an active political choice was made to not use that as reasonable justification for an extension to use that time to plan better. That wasn’t a “remoaner” choice.

So I ask again at what point do you accept the Government are accountable? Five years? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?

You’ve also confused a third country with a third world country in your response to Andrew.

The remoaners (and by that I mean remainers who doggedly refused to accept the democratic preference of the electorate) disrupted negotiations to such an extent that planning was almost impossible until we knew which way we were going.

Article 50 was triggered to get things moving and the extension of the period would only have allowed the government's detractors to cause even more mayhem.

Clearly, the government will be held accountable for the success or otherwise of Brexit, but if you ever really thought that everything should be sorted and working perfectly in the first year beyond the transition period, you're living in fairy land.

How long, you ask, before the government should be held accountable? Well, that's a very simplistic question, because it depends what happens. If we manage to get EU co-operation, things should have settled within five years, but if we cannot get agreement we will probably end upmgiving notice of termination of the deal. Clearly, that would lead to some further disruption, and stabilisation should come within a year or two of that.

I am very clear that Brexit is good for the long term future of the UK. Short term problems are the price we pay.

By the way, I have confused nothing.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I simply don't agree with your points, Andrew.

They're simple facts, Old Boy, not opinions. The EU manages imports from Third Countries* in certain ways.

Great Britain became a Third Country following Brexit hence its exports to the EU are now treated in that manner.

* That's their term for non-EU countries, by the way, akin to third parties.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

“A faulty deal brought about by remoaners” ha ha ha. Remove your blinkers OB. Remoaners weren’t at the table.

The left wing of the Labour Party were probably more keen on Brexit than the centrists and the Lib Dems so your analogy is completely faulty.

I think most of us remember the chaos caused by the remoaners and you do yourself no credit by denying it. It was touch and go whether we would leave with a deal, without a deal, a deal with conditions attached, etc, etc. How do you make a plan when you don't know what will be agreed and with a reluctant Civil Service?

As for Labour - er - they opposed Brexit as well, actually. Don't try changing history, we were all there at the time, remember? Corbyn didn't know which side he was on half the time, incidentally.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They're simple facts, Old Boy, not opinions. The EU manages imports from Third Countries* in certain ways.

Great Britain became a Third Country following Brexit hence its exports to the EU are now treated in that manner.

* That's their term for non-EU countries, by the way, akin to third parties.

We thought we had a deal, Andrew.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

None of this waffle actually tries to remotely address the points I've made.

Annoying isn't it, when someone else's "waffle" doesn't address your waffle

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think most of us remember the chaos caused by the remoaners and you do yourself no credit by denying it. It was touch and go whether we would leave with a deal, without a deal, a deal with conditions attached, etc, etc. How do you make a plan when you don't know what will be agreed and with a reluctant Civil Service?

The chaos? Aside a Westminster pantomime life continued as normal for almost everyone OB.

You are right it was touch and go whether we would leave with/without a deal, with/without conditions. But that only evidences my point about the failure of political leadership not counters it.

That’s quite a slur on the Civil Service to call them “reluctant”. I’m sure there are processes for insubordination, but any long term career Civil Servants will have served Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Johnson Governments.

The idea that they diligently carried out these tasks for decades and then conspired to scupper Brexit is laughable. And another pathetic attempt at deflection.

As for Labour - er - they opposed Brexit as well, actually. Don't try changing history, we were all there at the time, remember? Corbyn didn't know which side he was on half the time, incidentally.

Maybe he was considering the subject impartially, rather than being a dogmatic ideologue. There’s many on the Labour left who are no friends of the EU - and Corbyn wasn’t committed to a second referendum until dragged to it by the centrists.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The remoaners (and by that I mean remainers who doggedly refused to accept the democratic preference of the electorate) disrupted negotiations to such an extent that planning was almost impossible until we knew which way we were going.

Article 50 was triggered to get things moving and the extension of the period would only have allowed the government's detractors to cause even more mayhem.

Is there any evidence for this - Boris has the clear parliamentary mandate. How could they possibly cause more chaos than having business completely ill-prepared for what you acknowledge had a range of outcomes until the very end of negotiations?

Clearly, the government will be held accountable for the success or otherwise of Brexit, but if you ever really thought that everything should be sorted and working perfectly in the first year beyond the transition period, you're living in fairy land.

When? Or will their acolytes simply blame those pesky remoaners for decades to come. “It’d have been great if only we’d got the deal we wanted” might wash for some but at some point preparation (or lack thereof) will severely impact the ability of our economy to rebound.

How long, you ask, before the government should be held accountable? Well, that's a very simplistic question, because it depends what happens. If we manage to get EU co-operation, things should have settled within five years, but if we cannot get agreement we will probably end upmgiving notice of termination of the deal. Clearly, that would lead to some further disruption, and stabilisation should come within a year or two of that.

So we’re on a wing and a prayer and you’re giving them a free decade essentially.

I am very clear that Brexit is good for the long term future of the UK. Short term problems are the price we pay.

You can be as clear as you wish but your hopes and aspirations count for nothing in the absence of a clear economic strategy to respond to any shocks that can clearly be anticipated.

By the way, I have confused nothing.

You have.

I refer you to the earlier posts where Andrew refers to being a Third Country - this is a country outside the EU/Single Market.

Your response refers to Andrew hoping we become a third world country. Clearly in a rush to defend the Government at all costs you failed to make the distinction.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Annoying isn't it, when someone else's "waffle" doesn't address your waffle

I'll take your word for it.

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We thought we had a deal, Andrew.

We requested and got a deal outside the Single Market. This means being treated as a Third Country with all the implications for inspections, etc that this entails.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Article 50 was triggered to get things moving and the extension of the period would only have allowed the government's detractors to cause even more mayhem.

Clearly, the government will be held accountable for the success or otherwise of Brexit, but if you ever really thought that everything should be sorted and working perfectly in the first year beyond the transition period, you're living in fairy land.

So you accept they were lying when they said

We hold all the cards

We can have our cake and eat it

Easiest deal ever

You don't get to blame the public for living in fairy land for believing what their government told them

How long, you ask, before the government should be held accountable? Well, that's a very simplistic question, because it depends what happens. If we manage to get EU co-operation, things should have settled within five years, but if we cannot get agreement we will probably end upmgiving notice of termination of the deal. Clearly, that would lead to some further disruption, and stabilisation should come within a year or two of that.

I am very clear that Brexit is good for the long term future of the UK. Short term problems are the price we pay.

By the way, I have confused nothing.

Yes it is a very simplistic question and the answer is they'll never be held accountable, they'll blame others just as you have tried to do for their ineptitude and hope enough people believe them and with apologists like yourself they may well get away with it

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

So you accept they were lying when they said

We hold all the cards

We can have our cake and eat it

Easiest deal ever

You don't get to blame the public for living in fairy land for believing what their government told them

It was called Project Fear before Brexit and there was nothing to worry about.

Now, apparently the public should have believed it and it's their fault for believing there would be no problems.

Old Boy might not be familiar with the term "gaslighting" but I am.

[jfman]

At some point there needs to be planning to respond to our economic needs, not that of venture capitalists. While they can enjoy opportunities for supernormal profits in a period of economic shock (according to Jacob Rees-Mogg’s Dublin based investment firm) that doesn’t work for Hard Working Families, White Van Man and whatever other parodies you have of “ordinary Brits” who face the real world consequences on the ground.

The private sector isn’t going to come up with every solution either. Entrepreneurial spirit doesn’t pay the bills, raising prices does but that has long term consequences itself. How will the Conservatives develop this high skills, high wage economy and ensure it’s not all eroded in inflation? That’s the key question. That needs a plan.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The UK was offered a one-year extension by the EU but declined it. Industry constantly asked the government what it needed to plan for but the government didn't know itself.

I’m not sure why you keep repeating this, Andrew - we know!

And as you know, any extension would have given remoaners even more opportunity to cause trouble.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m not sure why you keep repeating this, Andrew - we know!

And as you know, any extension would have given remoaners even more opportunity to cause trouble.

What kinds of trouble? Parliament had a clear majority to leave, and leave under the terms agreed. In what way could a 12 month extension cause problems?

Outside the Westminster pantomime it would have been valuable time for industry. Indeed those with “entrepreneurial spirit” make representations on a number of occasions about the problems that would be faced. For someone who persistently extols the virtues of businesses why would we not listen to them? If our economic recovery is going to be on their backs - and not the Governments - surely they have the most valuable contribution to make?

[Carth]

IMO quite a few UK businesses contribute to the economy by having their products made in other countries, usually by cheap labour in a factory using fossil fuel energy.

Products are then shipped halfway around the world so we, the consumers, can buy at fantastic prices (although much of it is probably throw away crap)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The UK was offered a one-year extension by the EU but declined it. Industry constantly asked the government what it needed to plan for but the government didn't know itself.

Do you know exactly what industry thought was needed post-Brexit? Industry would have known what the eventual deal would entail, given the UK would be a Third Country in the eyes of the EU.

I surmise that "industry" would have been worried about losing cheap labour - which sets off the war between profits and prices.

As I see it, "industry" will have to seek a UK workforce and their bottom line need will drive that as the Guvmin exercises levers in that direction. Inflation will move around till everything is adjusted and things return to normal. None of this can be done overnight.