Quicklinks Update
GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller

Britain considers joining TPP post-Brexit... despite not being anywhere near the Pacific
Posted: Posted January 3rd by Arch

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/03/britain-in-talks-to-join-the-tpp-to-boost-trade-after-brexit
Britain is in talks to join a trans-Pacific trade group to boost exports after the UK leaves the European Union, according to reports.

The government is exploring becoming a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to stimulate exports after Brexit next March and has held informal discussions with the group. If the proposals go ahead Britain would be the first member of the trade agreement which does not have borders on the Pacific Ocean or the South China Sea.

Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade is believed to be developing the proposals to join the group which is regrouping after it lost the United States, its largest member, when President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement last year.
Brexit: Starmer to force vote on UK's adoption of EU charter of rights
Read more

The 11 remaining member states include Australia, Mexico, Singapore and Canada.

Trade minister Greg Hands told the Financial Times there was no geographical restriction on Britain joining trade groups. “Nothing is excluded in all of this,” he said. “With these kind of plurilateral relationships, there doesn’t have to be any geographical restriction.”

A Department for International Trade spokeswoman said: “We have set up 14 trade working groups across 21 countries to explore the best ways of progressing our trade and investment relationships across the world. It is early days, but as our trade policy minister has pointed out, we are not excluding future talks on plurilateral relationships.”

However it is likely that any agreement would have to wait until TPP has been revised after the US left and following the UK settling its Brexit departure with the EU.

The UK is not allowed to make trade deals before it formally leaves the EU. One TPP official said it was too early to discuss any UK plans to join it, according to the FT.

Combined spending from the 11 TPP countries make up less than 8% of the UK’s export market, with Japan taking just 1.6% of UK exports, compared with the 11% bought by Germany.
Analysis Good for factories, bad for shoppers: a Brexit pattern is emerging
Read more

The plan was criticised by the shadow trade minister Barry Gardiner.

He said: “It is not the main event and at the moment the government is making a hash of that.”

Lib Dem Tim Farron said: “This plan smacks of desperation. These people want us to leave a market on our doorstep and join a different, smaller one on the other side of the world. It’s all pie in the sky thinking.”


In the litany of stupid ideas that the world is forced to currently bear witness, Brexit remains king. A government that still has no plan, despite 18 months having past since the referendum, and a Tory party that acts in clear contempt of the British public on a daily basis.

What is of course particularly insulting about this suggestion, other than its sheer geographical illiteracy, is that the very Brexiteers now seriously forwarding TPP as a legitimate consideration for an international trade alternative to EU membership were arguing that Brexit was necessary to shield the UK from the damaging effects of TTIP. These recent developments have only continued to confirm my initial suspicion during the referendum that the Leave camp was led by a bunch of non-domiciled disaster corporatists who's only interest is in asset stripping the UK's public resources, and further diverging the UK from the European regulatory model into the freefall of some Transatlantic think-tank's wet dream (i.e. becoming the 51st US state).

Onwards Albion into further irrelevance, where our dreams of global supremacy will be built on the strong foundations of flogging shortbread biscuits to Chile and jam to Malaysia.

Rule Britannia.

settingsOptions
There are 12 Replies

Remainers don't seem to understand that Brexit was never an economic argument. It was a cultural argument. The vote to leave the European Union was a pro-democracy, pro-sovereignty, pro-nation vote (along with the corollaries of those things). It was not an economic one, no matter how hard the leave campaign tried to dress it up as one to make it more palatable to the establishment.

Why any Brit would want to stay in the European Union given the post-referendum behaviour of the Commission is beyond me - with it's clear intent not only to humiliate Britain (why would this be necessary if the EU was of such benefit to member states?) but to push full-steam ahead with ever-closer union. I'm not sure how seriously we should take Schulz's recent statements, but surely they can't be dismissed out of hand?

There are things that are more important to many people than money. I don't know whether Brexit will be economically beneficial or harmful. I don't think it's beyond us to come up with imaginative solutions to the economic challenges Brexit presents (though it may be beyond the Tory party). But remainers won't win over anyone if they keep arguing over the economics of Brexit. It was never an issue of economics.

Posted January 3rd by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

—are you blokes talking about crickett?

Posted January 3rd by Kaot0
Kaot0

It was never an issue of economics.

Bull.



Posted January 4th by Malas
Malas
 

O! Is that why Catalonia voted to secede? Because they wanted to remain under Brussel's directives?

Edited January 4th by Kaot0
Kaot0

@Malas

Posted January 4th by Kaot0
Kaot0

?

Catalunya's secessionist movement, save for its minority anticapitalist wing, has tradtionally been pro EU - for example, one of the major selling points that its representatives used to convince the Catalan people was that they would continue to be part of the EU (it goes without saying that EU officials quickly made it clear that wouldn't be the case).

Posted January 4th by Malas
Malas
 

Any chance of addressing the subject in the OP SA, or can we infer you agree its indefensible?

Remainers don't seem to understand that Brexit was never an economic argument. It was a cultural argument. The vote to leave the European Union was a pro-democracy, pro-sovereignty, pro-nation vote (along with the corollaries of those things). It was not an economic one, no matter how hard the leave campaign tried to dress it up as one to make it more palatable to the establishment.

At least you concede that a vote for Brexit was a purely emotive response, rather than anything based on rational consideration.

What were the pro-democracy, pro-sovereignty and pro-nation arguments in favour of leaving the European Union? I have still yet to hear a convincing account of what these are from either you or any leading light of Brexit, other than gnomic notions of "taking back control" and that these arguments are self-evident and need no elaboration.

Irrespectively of what the Leave camp may or may not have said (a lot of which now seems to be an exercise in disowning what they once said and revisionism; a confidence-filling act), and what you believe to be the motives of anyone voting Leave (which is largely you projecting your own feelings and thoughts), the reality is that the economics and economic arguments are now asserting themselves, whether you like it or not.

There are real structural considerations and problems as a result of leaving the EU which cannot be ignored; the act of extrication by definition requires a complete reset of our economic, diplomatic and administrative relationship with Europe. The fact that anyone advocating Leave didn't give one serious thought to these processes, and have subsequently shown they are incapable of working through these issues as part of the actual negotiations, is a damning indictment of both the individuals as well as the (already non-existent) logical coherence of the Leave position.

Why any Brit would want to stay in the European Union given the post-referendum behaviour of the Commission is beyond me - with it's clear intent not only to humiliate Britain (why would this be necessary if the EU was of such benefit to member states?) but to push full-steam ahead with ever-closer union. I'm not sure how seriously we should take Schulz's recent statements, but surely they can't be dismissed out of hand?

The fact that you think the only interlocuter is the Commission is illuminating, as is focusing on Schulz who's comments have no bearing on current negotiations.

How has the EU sought to humiliate us (without parroting Telegraph article headlines please)?

There are things that are more important to many people than money. I don't know whether Brexit will be economically beneficial or harmful. I don't think it's beyond us to come up with imaginative solutions to the economic challenges Brexit presents (though it may be beyond the Tory party). But remainers won't win over anyone if they keep arguing over the economics of Brexit. It was never an issue of economics.

Waxing lyrical about imperial pretensions and ill-defined freedom from an imaginary technocratic dictatorship is not a valid argument in response to the economic reality.

It was always an issue of economics - and contrary to your incredibly egregious denial, that was always a central Leave argument and inextricably linked to it - and it doesn't matter about Remainers arguing about it, as the current pro-Brexit government will have to address these set of issues either way. Any vague notion of "regaining sovereignty" (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is an incoherent argument that has still yet to be convincingly set out) is insignificant in comparison. It is also clear that our current incumbents are not interested at all in parliamentary process, an independent judiciary, or transparent democratic oversight, given their willingness to override all of it in favour of the executive, unaccountable ministers and the inherently authoritarian "will of the people".

Edited January 4th by Arch
Arch
 

Remember this?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-recession-with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu-new-treasury-analysis-shows
Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.


Still waiting...

Bull.

My point was that leave voters did not vote to leave the European Union, on the whole, for economic reasons. I certainly didn't.

Any chance of addressing the subject in the OP SA, or can we infer you agree its indefensible?

Yes you can. I have no idea why we're so keen to tie ourselves up in restrictive trade deals at all, and TPP looks like a particularly bad one.

However, joining TPP does not follow necessarily from leaving the European Union. It is a bad decision made by bad government.

At least you concede that a vote for Brexit was a purely emotive response, rather than anything based on rational consideration.

It was perfectly rational. It just had nothing to do with economics.

What were the pro-democracy, pro-sovereignty and pro-nation arguments in favour of leaving the European Union?

The European Union legislates in important areas, and the British people can not vote out the people responsible for that legislation.

There is a total disconnect between the British public and the European Union. It is undemocratic and unhealthy.

what you believe to be the motives of anyone voting Leave (which is largely you projecting your own feelings and thoughts)

I know plenty of leave voters. None of them voted for economic reasons. On the contrary, the projection of feelings and thoughts onto leave voters comes entirely from remainers. How many times have we heard that we all wanted to "stay in the single market" or wanted to leave so that "£350 million could be redirected to the NHS every week", etc? The referendum revealed a cultural divide in our society. Leave voters and remainers simply don't understand each other. I doubt many remainers know a single person who voted leave. Otherwise why would they say these things about them?

The fact that anyone advocating Leave didn't give one serious thought to these processes

This is a problem with referendums. The leave campaign was not a political party and had no right to draw up a mandate which it would then implement.

The fault lies with the government of the day which, having called a referendum, made no contingency plans in the event that the vote was to leave. Cameron did sod all and then buggered off.

is a damning indictment of both the individuals as well as the (already non-existent) logical coherence of the Leave position.

It's a damning indictment of the Tories, sure. But leave voters, the Tory Party, and Vote Leave, are not the same thing.

The fact that you think the only interlocuter is the Commission is illuminating, as is focusing on Schulz who's comments have no bearing on current negotiations.

The fact that nobody gives a toss about the internal workings of the EU is also pertinent.

How has the EU sought to humiliate us (without parroting Telegraph article headlines please)?

Fundamentally, it's clear refusal to negotiate. There is no reason why we can't "cherry-pick" a trade deal other than the EU's need to punish us for leaving in order to prevent others from leaving.

It was always an issue of economics - and contrary to your incredibly egregious denial, that was always a central Leave argument and inextricably linked to it

It's indicative that remainers always point to the leave campaign, as if that's why anyone voted leave. Do you actually know any leave voters? Have you ever asked them why they voted leave?

Most leave voters, I'm sure, didn't give a crap about the campaign and had made up their minds about the EU years ago. The fact that the leave campaign tried to make it about economics, when it was always about nationalism, immigration and democracy, is not the fault of leave voters.

It is also clear that our current incumbents are not interested at all in parliamentary process, an independent judiciary, or transparent democratic oversight, given their willingness to override all of it in favour of the executive, unaccountable ministers and the inherently authoritarian "will of the people".

The decision was ceded to the people and the people made their decision. The problem with leaving it to Parliament is that many MPs don't believe in democracy and are quite willing to ignore the people.

Still, I agree that isn't a good enough reason to bypass Parliament. Again, that's a Tory problem.

Edited January 4th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

Still waiting...

We haven't left yet. But could we get your view on things actually happening (as opposed to outdated forecasts from 18 months ago) such as the collapse in pound sterling, declining growth rates and business investment, banks preparing to move critical ops to to the EU, FDI (second largest in world) at risk of decline, to name but a few?

I'll also repeat what I said in the last discussion thread, seeing as you raised the exact same point then:

Forecasts are just that: forecasts. They're not iron-clad prophecies that are inexorable. This was not some orthodoxy from "establishment experts" last year, seeing as a similar number of economists and analysts (not to say businesses) did not think it would happen. It was on the assumption that we would leave within that time period, and no actor took any action to either minimise or mitigate the damage. Without the Bank of England (an insitution damned by Brexiteers, ironically) and businesses not ceasing all action, as well as an earlier Article 50 announcement, we'd have been in recession.


I doubt, as many did and still do, that Venezuala in any form is round the corner. The actual argument here, not the strawman of a proclamation from 18 months ago you seem to think constitutes an argument, is that clearly the UK faces economic decline if we are to abitrarily sever ourselves from the largest trade bloc in the world, for zero material gain. Slow decline being celebrated over the non-existent imminent collapse is not a victory.

Yes you can. I have no idea why we're so keen to tie ourselves up in restrictive trade deals at all, and TPP looks like a particularly bad one.

However, joining TPP does not follow necessarily from leaving the European Union. It is a bad decision made by bad government.

So not all good sense has left you on the subject.

You're right; joining TPP doesn't inevitably follow Brexit. But having to formulate new trade policy and agreements definitely is. The exact same logic the proponents of this move are utilising is used for other potential FTAs around the world.

It was perfectly rational. It just had nothing to do with economics.

Basing an entire decision on returning sovereignty we haven't lost and needlessly restrictive immigration policy in order to deliberately hamstring your nation's economy is most certainly irrational.

The European Union legislates in important areas, and the British people can not vote out the people responsible for that legislation.

There is a total disconnect between the British public and the European Union. It is undemocratic and unhealthy.

This still tells me nothing.

At the risk of repeating myself, we have (soon had) representation in the European Parliament, a strong stakehold in the European Council and have a proportional share of Commission appointments. The vast majority of our national votes have resulted in the desired UK outcome, and the sheer amount of opt-outs we gained is indicative of our (quickly disappearing) international clout. As a result of the vote and our needless obstinate belligerence as part of the negotiations, we'll most likely never be in this advantageous position again.

A lack of civic engagement does not automatically make the system moribund - just as a comparative lack of engagement wth either local elections or a UK general election does not diminish either of those systems.

I know plenty of leave voters. None of them voted for economic reasons. On the contrary, the projection of feelings and thoughts onto leave voters comes entirely from remainers. How many times have we heard that we all wanted to "stay in the single market" or wanted to leave so that "£350 million could be redirected to the NHS every week", etc? The referendum revealed a cultural divide in our society. Leave voters and remainers simply don't understand each other. I doubt many remainers know a single person who voted leave. Otherwise why would they say these things about them?

I also know Leave voters, who deploy the same arguments as you, including economic ones. I don't make the presumption to know why everyone voted the way they did, as there exists no comprehensive record of this - and attempts to survey it give contradictory results.

Certain things were said by certain individuals who are now bound by the prerogative of office. It is as simple as that.

This is a problem with referendums. The leave campaign was not a political party and had no right to draw up a mandate which it would then implement.

The fault lies with the government of the day which, having called a referendum, made no contingency plans in the event that the vote was to leave. Cameron did sod all and then buggered off.

Not a particulaly good advertisement for referenda then.

Indeed - Cameron's exit stage left was a disgrace, and that cohort should've stayed on. But that didn't happen, and so it is moot - we now have a bunch of Brexiteers leading government, forced ahead by a backbench campaign to see Brexit through, and elected on a manifesto as recently as last June. Most of them predate the referendum by decades in terms of their Euroscepticism, and have had that time to think about the extrication process, and certainly time over the past 18 months. They have also nonetheless made a number of claims about what is possible and what would happen in terms of exiting ("row of the summer"; FTAs as far as the eye can see with third countries; EU will prostrate itself because cars and prosecco etc.), and all of them have failed to materialise. Responsibility lies with the incumbents - Brexiteers. Fortunately, abrogation is not an option, save for handing the keys to the city to (pro-remain) Labour, which they baulk at. Therefore, their complaints about the perceived lack of fairness of negotiations or delays ring hollow.

It's a damning indictment of the Tories, sure. But leave voters, the Tory Party, and Vote Leave, are not the same thing.

With the exception of voters, they are effectively synonymous. Who constitute the bedrock of Brexit support? Tories. Which names can we identify protesting from Maastricht to ERM, the Euro to Lisbon? Tories. Who spearheaded both Leave campaigns? Tories. Who pontificates in the Tory media about Brexit and its divine grace? Tories. Who represents the only real Eurosceptic backbench movement in Parliament? Tories.

What is the current administration, arguing for Brexit as express policy? True blue Tory. Brexit is an internal party political spat writ large.

Fundamentally, it's clear refusal to negotiate. There is no reason why we can't "cherry-pick" a trade deal other than the EU's need to punish us for leaving in order to prevent others from leaving.

Why would the EU allow a soon-to-be third country undermine the entire basis of the single market and customs union by offering needless concessions, when no other third country globally has this relationship with the EU, and certainly no member state has this relationship?

A cherry-picked deal - in which we have our cake and eat it on immigration and economic access - would also violate WTO rulings we are subject to. It isn't about punishing us, it is about preserving their own interests. The fact that Brexiteers in government and the media become apoplectic over transgressions that aren't there says more about them than the EU

It's indicative that remainers always point to the leave campaign, as if that's why anyone voted leave. Do you actually know any leave voters? Have you ever asked them why they voted leave?

Most leave voters, I'm sure, didn't give a crap about the campaign and had made up their minds about the EU years ago. The fact that the leave campaign tried to make it about economics, when it was always about nationalism, immigration and democracy, is not the fault of leave voters.

I brought it up because every valid structural or economic issue raised is answered by you (and others) with the refrain that it was allegedly never a central concern or set of arguments in favour of leaving (when they clearly were part of it), and that it's somehow mitigated by nebulous concepts of sovereignty and freedom (and thus irrelevant).

And yes I've spoken to Leave voters. This fact does not change the reality of the situation. There are probably a lot of die-in-the-wool Eurosceptics out there, but given Europe's low ranking as an issue for the general public for years prior to the referendum whenever it was polled, it has clearly been subordinate to wider concerns other than Europe (i.e. the sovereignty question) for a long time.

The decision was ceded to the people and the people made their decision. The problem with leaving it to Parliament is that many MPs don't believe in democracy and are quite willing to ignore the people.

Constitutionally it remains an advisory referendum that did not result in a supermajority, and with no direct legal presence in our parlimentary system in terms of binding its hand. There is no overwhelming precedent to implement the decision.

We live in a representative democracy; MPs are not bound by abitrary plebiscite unless explicity stated in law. They are able to disagree, an ability as stipulated by their elected office.

Attlee and Thatcher were right when they said that referendums were devices of dictators and demagogues, and had no place in the narrative of British parliamentary democracy. Clearly some people are willing to override the very foundation of this country's political system in order to facilitate delusion.

Still, I agree that isn't a good enough reason to bypass Parliament. Again, that's a Tory problem.

It's caused by a form of Tory psychosis entirely predicated on leaving the EU, to be more precise.

Edited January 5th by Arch
Arch
 

I have nothing to add because I have nothing really to say.

But I appreciate these threads being across the pond that I am as it's sort of like our own version of Vidal v. Buckley. I silently stalk these threads, trying to learn.

Posted January 5th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

Wow, high praise Jet. :-)

Can't give you a decent reply for a few days Arch as I'm in Wales and there's no way I'm risking typing out a long reply on my phone..

Posted January 6th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

No worries, I usually spend a day responding anyway. I dare to type it on my phone.

And I'll take that as a compliment Jet, although let's hope we don't come to blows.

Posted January 8th by Arch
Arch
 
Reply to: Britain considers joining TPP post-Brexit... despite not being anywhere near the Pacific

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on