Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[uppi]

I indicated that a bit in my post, and also in various other posts, but a good long explanation would be an article worthy of the NYT or closer by, a good BBC documentary. A good one.
You have to describe the impact of the neglect by the government in flanking and developing policies and the wrong directions by politicians messaging towards small and big company owners, by statements and policies.

Thanks for that attempt of an explanation. Good analyses are scarce and it is all too easy to lament the loss of outdated manufacturing jobs and the articles you linked are also not able to completely avoid that. They point to Germany and say that the Germans have kept their manufacturing sector. Yes, they did, but they didn't keep the manufacturing jobs.

Pretty much anybody I know who actually worked at an assembly line in the past has lost that job by now. I have met and know many people who work for BMW, but none of them ever touch a car that is going to be sold to a customer. Part of that is certainly because the educational level of my acquaintances tends to above average, but part of that is also due to the reason that there are not many people at BMW who actually build cars. The assembly lines are highly automated and most of the work is done by robots. There is someone, who builds those robots, of course, but again the robot company has many more people who design, develop, program, and sell the robot. So the shift from strict manufacturing jobs to "service" jobs, which never actually touch the finished product was accurately taking into account. The fallacy was more that you could then go on to just sell services instead of manufactured goods.

Goods are much easier to sell than services. You can specify the product and then send it cheaply around the world. With services this is much harder, because it is not as easy to specify what exactly the service should be and you need to communicate much more, often over language barriers. This means that a service tends to be more efficient, the more tightly integrated it is and selling a service from half the world away is going to be difficult.

Going a bit more on topic: I wonder how much of the decline of UK manufacturing is related to the refusal of the UK to properly engage with the EU. Some of the EU countries and especially Germany have managed to shape Europe into a huge domestic market and the UK could have done so as well. Part of the reason why they didn't may be that they lacked the industrial base to do so, but I think the apparent inability to understand European politics have certainly contributed. The reason the Brexit deal is so bad for the UK is that the UK government took way to long to understand the EU position (and to some extent still doesn't).

I think the Brexit proponents on the Tory side as well as on the Labour side are stuck in the past: The Troy side thinks than the UK on its own can be a major power on the global scale, when this hasn't been true since the Empire dissolved. The Labour side seems to think that the EU somehow prevents them to make another failed attempt at getting the good old manufacturing jobs back.

 

[innonimatu]

@Hrothbern, there is only one think I disagree with you on that analysis: the governments in the UK, as well as those of other countries, think more in terms of domestic interest groups and their own ease of keeping power than in therms of the country's strategic position. Favoring industry in the UK would favor employees who were already organized enough to demand wages kept up, whereas closing own industry and betting on the more "flexible" services favored financial speculators and a much smaller number of city employees. This was not even hidden at the time when the choice was made: it was framed in terms of the "old" being sacrificed to the "new".

The government must have seen that competing in industry would required causing trouble to other groups. Either devalue the sterling and have the finance group screaming, or slash real wages and continuously face demands by workers on the distribution of income (the owners group screaming). British industry, geared as it was to a large degree for exports, had to compete with industry abroad. If they could not cut costs in wages, they'd have to invest and be smart managers to obtain higher productivity. And to invest they'd have to, again, compromise the interests of finance where people wanted to chase higher yield investments or export capital abroad. This required no controls on capital, but prevented the government from encouraging industrial investment except if it was the government itself doing it.

Dumping industry and turning to finance must have seemed easier. Since the end of WW2 the UK had a sterling problem: its currency had been one of the world's major currencies, arguably the reserve currency prior to the dollar. Meaning foreigners had large stocks of pounds, and were trading them slowly for the newer reserve currencies. This put pressure on british finance, and the government was more concerned with defending it that with making industrial or infrastructure investments. Ultimately they chose to promote the city and liberalize capital flows. And the sterling still today retains an excessively large role as reserve currency relative to the size of the UK's economy. The problem the UK faced was in part still the fallout from the end of its empire.

In the new environment continental Europe very much wanted, and was getting, more of a share in those old UK markets, meaning british industry would not get easy big profits on investment. The british could compete, they were not doomed to go bankrupt. But profits would not be great, finance promised a better deal. For those with money, not for the common people of the country...

Going a bit more on topic: I wonder how much of the decline of UK manufacturing is related to the refusal of the UK to properly engage with the EU. Some of the EU countries and especially Germany have managed to shape Europe into a huge domestic market and the UK could have done so as well. Part of the reason why they didn't may be that they lacked the industrial base to do so, but I think the apparent inability to understand European politics have certainly contributed. The reason the Brexit deal is so bad for the UK is that the UK government took way to long to understand the EU position (and to some extent still doesn't).

I easily recall, it was not so long ago, when Germany was presented as the sick man of Europe. When it ran current account deficits for a decade. Then they had a government that ruthlessly repressed wages and had the Euro. Those two combined turned into a big exporter country, at the cost of increasing the inequality of income distribution in Germany. It was not a good thing for your average german.

The EU market is a race to the bottom in terms of living conditions for the population, that is the reason why the EU is failing as a political project. The need for competing" with another country inside the market that has managed to push through wage suppression policies in turn justifies more wage suppression policies. These together reduce the income of the people who consume most of their income, and keep the EU market mired in low growth. Which the germans claim will always be made up by higher exports outside that market. It's a con, with the only ones benefiting being the owner class who gets a higher share of the national income.

The UK's leaders had witnessed the struggles this led to, during the 60s and 70s. I believe that the politicians and even the owners knew that this kind of policy was spent there, they might wish to push it through but were unable to.
Their answer was to promote a "new economy", push a different lie to attain the same goal, wealth concentration. This new economy would be all about trade and services, and those who were left behind by it were old and hopeless. You can't fight against progress, can you?

The UK had its winter of discontent 30 years ago. The EU is about to get into one. I hope the outcome will be different.

 

[uppi]

The EU will not accept a reversal on the same terms

The ECJ has said they would have to. If the UK decided to stay in the EU, the EU will breathe a collective sigh of relief and accept a reversal. Sure, the UK won't have much influence in EU politics anytime soon, but then they never had - mostly because of their own choices.

 

[Cheetah]

People are exaggerating in all this, you need to cool down and look at the actual problems, not invented ones to scare people - that too is an example of noxious politics.
The issue, the danger, is one of commercial confusion and administrative delays. And the economic damage from that. And some strategic, deliberate "sabotaging" of trade in areas that are not vital or politically sensitive and where companies in other countries can get away with profit.

Still you and others such as (Cheeta) seem determined to construct a heap of inferred logic so that you can believe that WTO rules are (like the
proverbial white rabbit pulled out of the magician's hat), something that will mean non EU countries previously prohibited or quota'd or tariffed
against in exporting to the UK now will, when those barriers reduce, suddenly and perversely ride to the rescue of the EU27 and gang up on the UK.

If you don't want to take it from me, take it from the experts testifying at a House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee.

 

[Kyriakos]

The ECJ has said they would have to. If the UK decided to stay in the EU, the EU will breathe a collective sigh of relief and accept a reversal. Sure, the UK won't have much influence in EU politics anytime soon, but then they never had - mostly because of their own choices.

Though it is highly unlikely that the uk will just stay (cause this would at least need to be decided in a new uk referendum) it is even less likely that the next eu parliament wont be more farcical even than the current one. Either way, the future looks bright, trump orange for half this eu (ex soviets and stuff like austria and tied states).

 

[innonimatu]

The ECJ has said they would have to. If the UK decided to stay in the EU, the EU will breathe a collective sigh of relief and accept a reversal. Sure, the UK won't have much influence in EU politics anytime soon, but then they never had - mostly because of their own choices.

The ECJ put fort a declaration that makes nothing actually clear. This is because they qualify withdrawing article 50 as possible only if it "does not involve an abusive practice". They knew they were sticking their nose into a political matter that is outside the ECJ's real power and hedged the answer so much that it is useless.

 

[Senethro]

The very worst thing about the whole business is that if no-deal happens then March 30th will be the beginning of a decade of this shite, not the end of it all.

 

[Ajidica]

The very worst thing about the whole business is that if no-deal happens then March 30th will be the beginning of a decade of this ****e, not the end of it all.

And you know Labour will do its hardest to avoid actually having to call a actual vote of no confidence because that would almost certainly mean a Labour victory in a General Election and then they will have to deal with flaming dumpster fire left behind by the Tories.

 

[Ironsided]

Dumpster fire? Banksy says Merry Christmas!

I hope Corbyn is smart enough to really make the conservative experience sink in. While brexit may seem like a really huge deal right now, I’m sure the UK will be fine going forward and hopefully a lot less opportunistic as a result.

 

[Arakhor]

The ECJ put fort a declaration that makes nothing actually clear. This is because they qualify withdrawing article 50 as possible only if it "does not involve an abusive practice". They knew they were sticking their nose into a political matter that is outside the ECJ's real power and hedged the answer so much that it is useless.

Lawyers and judges answer questions on the basis of legal precedent. The politics behind such questions has always been a different matter.

 

[Broken_Erika]

So how long until Corbyn starts chanting "The will of the People"?

 

[Takhisis]

the governments in the UK, as well as those of other countries, think more in terms of domestic interest groups and their own ease of keeping power than in therms of the country's strategic position.

Otherwise known as the Brexit referendum.

The very worst thing about the whole business is that if no-deal happens then March 30th will be the beginning of a decade of this ****e, not the end of it all.

Right now it looks as though it's more a when than an if.

Lawyers and judges answer questions on the basis of legal precedent. The politics behind such questions has always been a different matter.

The ECJ acts upon the principles of civil law where, unlike in common law, precedent is never binding.

And in any case, how much precedent is there for leaving the European Union?

 

[Kyriakos]

Despite his own faults, corbyn at least is an honest, non-scum politician. I'd vote for him and hope he manages to lead an actual labour gov.

 

[Arakhor]

And in any case, how much precedent is there for leaving the European Union?

Presumably none, but that wasn't really the point though, was it? It's a presumably hypothetical question about a very tricky matter.

 

[Takhisis]

Despite his own faults, corbyn at least is an honest, non-scum politician. I'd vote for him and hope he manages to lead an actual labour gov.

I'm not that sure about his honesty, given his choice of wording for that motion he tabled recently, but we'll see.

Presumably none, but that wasn't really the point though, was it? It's a presumably hypothetical question about a very tricky matter.

Oh yes, I get that, but the point about precedent needed to be made, seeing as how there are people here who believe that the ECJ should apply English/British law.

 

[Takhisis]

More on –as I said last page and innonimatu has, as usual, in his crusade against the EU, ignored– political elites destroying their own population's political and purchasing power while profiting themselves:

Rees-Mogg has reportedly moved a business he co-founded to Ireland​

 

[Oerdin]

The ECJ put fort a declaration that makes nothing actually clear. This is because they qualify withdrawing article 50 as possible only if it "does not involve an abusive practice". They knew they were sticking their nose into a political matter that is outside the ECJ's real power and hedged the answer so much that it is useless.

Not to mention it is a nonbinding advisory ruling only.

 

[Arakhor]

Just like the 2016 referendum, eh?

 

[uppi]

Not to mention it is a nonbinding advisory ruling only.

Obviously, it cannot be binding right now, because the court was asked to answer a question that is purely hypothetical right now. But you would have to be a fool to assume that the same court would rule differently if asked the same question in a binding decision.

I very much doubt that the UK parliament will go for this option in the three months remaining. But the option is there, nevertheless.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Relying on HMRC catching offenders is being optimistic - the UK was fined this year for not adequately controlling its borders on behalf of the EU.

Rome wasn't built in a day. First we stop paying the EU fines and then we reinforce HMRC.

Either the UK is going to keep borders mostly unchanged and no catastrophe will happen on brexit day

I suspect that the main change on day 1 of NDE is that HMRC will suddenly start concentrating
on imports of alcohol and tobacco from the EU outside Ireland to generate tax invoices for importers.

Import duties on other goods are not that high and they will probably just ask the companies to
declare their imports, not by stopping shipments, on a periodic basis online; later on moving to
occasionally searching lorryloads and opening shipping containers to statistically estimate cheating.

The Tories continuing the strategy to shrink the economic sector agriculture for food .

I think that you are flattering the UK conservative party. They were never organised enough to actually have a strategy on agriculture or manufacturing.
What happened was that the lobbyists for the financial sector bought the party thereby capturing policy making which became whatever they wanted.