Brexit Benefits Log

[hstripes]

The government seems to think India is a GSP country!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trading-with-developing-nations

Imports from these countries have reduced rates of import duty on certain goods outlined in the UK GSP tariff rates.

Algeria
Congo
Cook Islands
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Kenya
Micronesia
Nigeria
Niue
Syria
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam

Damn you've caught me out! Well done! Doesn't alter my view that a free trade deal or preferential free trade deal or whatever you want to call it (lets not boringly argue over semantics) with India should be a priority.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It might be a priority for you but it certainly won't be for India.

No country will want to negotiate a new trade deal with the UK that would be worse for them than what they already have.

[hstripes]

"As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so."

Yes. Of course. Because having left the EU and lost the benefits which came with membership, we will now judge in a different light  the costs and compromises which were the corollary to that.

In simple terms, you are confusing apples with oranges.

Just as you are confusing "choosing to accept collective policies" with "having those policies undemocratically imposed on us."

Like many poorly argued cases you are going round in circles and basing your argument solely on semantics rather than actual fact.

Do you agree that on many areas of policy including trade, consumer rights, environmental rights, farming, fisheries, immigration, sales tax etc etc the UK Parliament can now vote to change the law where it couldn't before as an EU member state under EU law? If the answer is yes than THAT is an increase in our democratic rights and THAT is a potential (depending on how effectively these powers are wielded) benefit of leaving the EU. It is a simple point and not difficult to understand. Come on!! Now who is condescending??

[BillyStubbsTears]

We CHOSE to accept collective decisions and to be bound by them. It was a conscious decision of Parliament (the sovereign body of the nation) to cede some of that sovereignty because it judged the benefits to justify that.

The right that we now have to make our own decisions on those issues can only be considered a benefit if it is weighed in the balance with what is lost. Saying it "may" be a benefit is bleeding obvious but not helpful. Any decision made by any Govt "may" be beneficial if the wind blows in the right direction. But you don't usually choose to make policy on blind hope.

Back to the question I posed about whether the EU had ever actually had primacy over the UK Parliament on matters which our own Parliament hadn't chosen to pool sovereignty. I note that you've not provided a single example.

Interestingly, there is a massive counterexample of the UK and others smashing an EU regulation and not being prevented from doing so. The EU Stability Pact required countries to keep their fiscal deficits below 3% of GDP. Countries which broke this limit could be sanctioned and fined.

When the Great Recession hit, our Govt ran a deficit of nearly 11% as tax take collapsed and welfare costs rocketed. We HAD to run higher deficits because not to have done so would have turned a recession into a depression. When it really mattered, we basically gave the rods to the EU regulation. And we were never sanctioned or fined.

 Because that's how real politics works. We give and take and play by the rules on a day to day basis. We ceded some sovereignty and stuck to EU rules in normal times because it was judged (rightly or wrongly) to be in our interests to do so. But when it WASN'T in our interests, we ripped up the rules and did exactly as we wished.

Which says to me that the argument that the EU emasculated our democracy and that throwing off these shackles was a great restatement of our democratic freedoms is simplistic to the point of being meaningless.

[hstripes]

Your argument is contradicted and proven entirely wrong in only the 2nd sentence of your response.

"It was a conscious decision of Parliament (the sovereign body of the nation) to cede some of that sovereignty" for sovereignty of course read democratic rights. E.g. the right to alter which bands products fall into under VAT - this democratic right, or element of sovereignty if you like, was 'ceded' to the EU. For 40-odd years the undemocratic EU could change the law in this area but our elected Parliament could not.

Leaving the EU means Parliament can now change what band products fall into under VAT - as it already has done with female sanitary products.

If a democratically elected Parliament chose to cede this sovereignty/democratic right in the first place then the Brexit vote affirmed by said Parliament is quite clearly by your own admission here a decision to regain this sovereignty/democratic right (and many more besides). Which is essentially my argument.

I believe having these rights under the power of a democratically elected, UK focussed Parliament should be beneficial over having them in the hands of non-democrats with a whole continent's views to consider. Time will tell if I am right and if said benefits outweigh the negatives of Brexit - going back to my initial post Brexit therefore needs to be assessed as a success or failure in the longer term.

At no point have I argued that the UK was forced to accept EU membership undemocratically or that our membership didn't have democratic legitimacy in this country. Of course a democratic parliament signed up to EEC (later EU) membership and the ensuing EU treaties. I'm not as daft as you seem to think I am you know!

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's essentially a matter of emphasis.

Every international agreement imposes limits on our freedom to make unilateral decisions. Our membership of NATO being a prime example. NATO membership requires our armed forces to be supplied and organised according to STANAG requirements, rather than as we would choose to do so for specifically British requirements. Personally, I'd consider the decision on the standard of vehicle protection for our soldiers against IEDs to be at least on a par with the decision of what VAT we charge on tampons as an issue of sovereignty.

Similarly, our post-Brexit  trade agreement with the EU requires us to impose a boundary between GB and NI, arguably a greater loss of democratic independence than anything we ceded as EU members.

It's fundamentally a question of to what extent we see the benefits of collectivism against the benefits of unilateralism. Dressing that up as a matter of democratic principle is a rhetorical device which clearly works politically, but obscures the real issues to be considered. What we gain or lose by working together, with all the compromises that entails, or working alone with all the difficulties that imposes. I prefer to consider real, practical issues than airy notions of supposed democratic principles. Because the latter are never as simple or inviolate as the advocates would like to claim.

[wilts rover]

That's the problem with soveriegnty - its meaningless in a global trading environment. There are rules and obligations that have to be followed, whatever the VAT on sanitary products. You either have agreements with neighbouring countries to lower these costs - or you make your own businesses pay them with the resultant implication for that business:

Brexit paperwork to cost UK business £7.5bn every year - say UK businesses

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/annual-7-5bn-cost-of-eu-trade-as-bad-for-business-as-no-deal-brexit-jd7llrtb6

[selby]

  Its now a war of attrition hstripes, and only half the pack are in the game yet, after a couple of years you will get the jist of the game, if they say black is white its white mate, in their eyes anyway, and everyone else is wrong.
  keep going buddy but I am afraid your trying to sow seeds on fallow ground.

[SydneyRover]

whereas listening to the chipmunks makes for great entertainment, one gets his ideas from RT radio and the other can't tell the difference between boris johnson and david lammy.

[Axholme Lion]

Here is the news. Brexit happened, move on there's plenty of other stuff going on you can get outraged about.

[selby]

I can tell the difference Syd, and in a two horse race and with I play the racial card idiot Lammy Boris takes the vote.
  Him and his sidekick from the metropolis Emily are two big reasons why the labour party are still in the doldrums, and while they get air time will stay there.

[hstripes]

It's essentially a matter of emphasis.

Every international agreement imposes limits on our freedom to make unilateral decisions. Our membership of NATO being a prime example. NATO membership requires our armed forces to be supplied and organised according to STANAG requirements, rather than as we would choose to do so for specifically British requirements. Personally, I'd consider the decision on the standard of vehicle protection for our soldiers against IEDs to be at least on a par with the decision of what VAT we charge on tampons as an issue of sovereignty.

Similarly, our post-Brexit  trade agreement with the EU requires us to impose a boundary between GB and NI, arguably a greater loss of democratic independence than anything we ceded as EU members.

It's fundamentally a question of to what extent we see the benefits of collectivism against the benefits of unilateralism. Dressing that up as a matter of democratic principle is a rhetorical device which clearly works politically, but obscures the real issues to be considered. What we gain or lose by working together, with all the compromises that entails, or working alone with all the difficulties that imposes. I prefer to consider real, practical issues than airy notions of supposed democratic principles. Because the latter are never as simple or inviolate as the advocates would like to claim.

I am in favour of countries working together towards common goals where appropriate and where the terms of reference for any such agreement have appropriately limited scope. I am therefore in favour of NATO, the UN, the World Bank and international trade deals.

Your argument ignores some key facets of the EU which differentiate it from other supranational organizations or indeed free trade agreements. These differences mean membership of the EU impacts democratic accountability in ways membership of NATO or an FTA simply do not.

1) When a country agrees to join most supernationals or enters into a free trade agreement the terms of the agreement are set and settled and where there are any changes these are generally agreed upon by the democratically elected government. Hence democratic accountability is present.

This is not the case with the EU which has a very active Legislature. The EU laws in place when a country signs up to the EU or latest treaty are subject to change. And change they do with incredible alacrity - over a 1,000 new EU regulations every year. Each one of these may have democratic legitimacy as each member state has signed up to be bound by them, but not democratic accountability as they are proposed by non-democrats and cannot be rejected by the democratically elected governments.

2) The EU's power is much broader in scope than any other supranational or the terms of an FTA dealing just with trade between 2 countries. You glibly say vehicle protection against IEDs is as important as VAT on sanitary ware. A more correct comparison is the limited NATO rules on defence policy vs the EU's varied levels of competency on trade policy, economic policy, environmental policy, tax policy, immigration policy, workers rights etc etc etc. In each of these areas, and more, the EU can and does create new laws as per point 1.

3) 'Ever closer union' a stated aim of the EU - no other supranational has such an aim nor is it inbuilt in FTAs. Not only does a EU member state sign away it's democratic rights to make decisions in a broad range of areas it does so to an entirely limitless degree in said areas. The ultimate, logical if extreme destination being that a democratically elected government has no powers and all decisions in these areas are made by an undemocratic EU. This is a clear and most worrying piecemeal threat to democracy.

4) The cost of departure from the EU is far more profound than from any other supranational or FTA which can be walked away from relatively easily. Membership of the EU bounds a country to its economic structures (Single Market/Customs Union) plus encourages inter-EU trade over non-EU trade. A democratically elected government and population may positively detest undemocratic law emanating from the EU but this cost of departure financially gives them little option but to accept them - the potential democratic decision to withdraw being intolerable for most.

These facts render your argument simplistic and facile.

As for suggesting democratic principle is 'an airy notion' or merely 'a rhetorical device'. As a committed democrat I find these views offensive. Our right to vote in free and fair elections to change our rulers is key to our freedom, prosperity and happiness. I suggest you study some history in terms of how peoples can be treated outside of democracy in totalitarianist dictatorships.

Exactly how much of our 'airy' democratic rights/sovereignty would you deem it acceptable, in the name of 'Collectivism', for our parliament to cede to an undemocratic organization with an intensely active legislature and limitless ambition in terms of power from whom it is exorbitantly expensive to remove ourselves from? 25%? 50%? 75% 100%?? Would the extreme scenario I highlight in my 3rd point be acceptable to you?? From the manner of your post I would assume so.

Your opinion is put eruditely and at first glance appears reasonable but applying a modicum of intelligence and taking it to it's logical conclusion I'm afraid your view, like those of all who support the suppression of democratic rights, is one of idealogical extremism.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll make a much less erudite post this time then.

You are clearly very exercised by the degree to which we ceded decision making to the EU, over which we had no direct democratic control.

You clearly think we should be able to form our own policy on important issues, and not have decisions imposed on us.

In that case, I assume, given the requirements of Article V, you'd be equally (in fact, far more) passionate about wanting us out of NATO? Because Article V basically removes our control over THE most basic power that a state has.

And yet I have never once heard the democratic accountability argument used against NATO. Because the overwhelming majority see that it is a pragmatic decision, to cede sovereignty in the interest of collective benefit.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Regarding the principle of democracy, I do not think that is an airy notion. It's one of the most precious things that humanity has ever produced. The airy notions I was describing are the lopsided, context-free ways that people with a political point to make appropriate and define "democracy".

[hstripes]

The fact that you bring NATO up again, an organization I'm very much in favour of as previously stated, suggests you either haven't read or haven't understood my prior post. I'm happy to explain more succinctly.

- A democratically elected government signed us up to NATO
- The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in scope
- The NATO rules we must comply to are largely fixed and unchanging
- NATO cannot unilaterally change the rules (e.g Article 5) without reference to the democratic governments of member states
- NATO has no stated ambitions to increase its powers over us - no 'Ever Closer Union'
- A democratically elected government could at any time (heaven forbid!) withdraw us from NATO and do so relatively quickly
- Outside of what is lost from the agreement itself there would be no major costs e.g. potential major recession from leaving NATO hence no intolerable disincentive to democratic action if we decided being in NATO wasn't in our best interests.

The counter applies to all the above bar the first for the EU.

I would suggest the reason why you've not heard the 'democratic accountability' argument against NATO is that it would have no intellectual basis to it.

You like asking questions and I have no problem in answering them. Would you mind answering some questions from me?

1) Given the opportunity would you vote for the UK to rejoin the EU?

2) If the answer is yes - given the nature of the EU how does this tally with the view that democracy is 'one of the most precious things that humanity has ever produced'? Or is that just empty rhetoric?

3) Again if the answer to 1) is yes. Where do you think parliament should draw a line in the sand in terms of the level of democratic rights/sovereignty that it hands over to the EU? An important question given the EU's supposed limitless political ambitions i.e 'Ever greater Union'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Forgive me but I couldn't get past this.
"The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in scope"

Article V, if invoked by ANY NATO members, requires us to take military action.

It is THE very essence of the point that I am making. We CHOSE to agree to an international treaty whereby the very survival of our nation could hinge on the actions of others over which we have zero control.

If that is fine realpolitik, but ceding far lesser powers to the EU is an affront to the very concept of democracy, then I think we are working in different logical universes.

[hstripes]

You misundertand my point. Limited in scope in that NATO deals with issues round defence only as opposed to the myriad policy areas the EU has control over.

As in: -

Scope (noun): the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.

So: The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in scope

Not: -

Significance (noun): the quality of being worthy of attention; importance.

So not: The terms of reference of NATO are appropriately limited in significance

I can see why this may have confused you as the two words do begin with the same letter.

[hstripes]

That's the problem with soveriegnty - its meaningless in a global trading environment.

This is patently nonsense. Sovereignty has to lie somewhere. Somebody ultimately has to have responsibility over decisions. With more global trade and hence more international agreements the subject of where this sovereignty lies actually becomes ever more important. This issue was behind the Brexit vote in the first place.

Please can you explain to me why you think unelected people with no democratic mandate or democratic accountability are better suited to the role of making decisions in relation to global trade than people who are both democratically elected and democratically accountable.

[SydneyRover]

sometimes it's just the numbers, buying in bulk, having more clout.

[hstripes]

Sorry Sydney my question wasn't about the size of the country/organization making the decisions but the level of democratic accountability of those making the decisions.

[SydneyRover]

sorry stripy, I was just referring to the obvious advantages of being part of the wealthiest trading group in the world without trading borders and tariffs.

[selby]

  Not when it comes to Sunderland Hospice Syd, they pay 66p a bog roll, the brown envelope wins the day Syd in big organisations especially the NHS and government departments, and is rife in local government.

[Metalmicky]

I'd agree with this also - I manage some purchases for the military and we are tied into several contracts that can be up to 50% higher than if we went out and bought independently.  The problem being that the military want an amount of surety that goods will be readily available and therefore pay a premium for these...

[SydneyRover]

  Not when it comes to Sunderland Hospice Syd, they pay 66p a bog roll, the brown envelope wins the day Syd in big organisations especially the NHS and government departments, and is rife in local government.

wtf has that got to do with what we are talking about

[SydneyRover]

I'd agree with this also - I manage some purchases for the military and we are tied into several contracts that can be up to 50% higher than if we went out and bought independently.  The problem being that the military want an amount of surety that goods will be readily available and therefore pay a premium for these...

wtf has that got to do with what we are talking about

[Metalmicky]

sometimes it's just the numbers, buying in bulk, having more clout.

Sorry did we interrupt the Syd show...?

[SydneyRover]

sometimes it's just the numbers, buying in bulk, having more clout.

Sorry did we interrupt the Syd show...?

I think you'd be better talking to selby mm

[selby]

  I will make it easy just for you Syd, you seem to think buying in bulk is cheaper, the Sunderland hospice don't at 66p a bog roll. And it isn't when there is a back hander flying about.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Fine line on mass purchasing isn't there? Too high and actually you don't get the economies of scale impact or supremacy. Didn't vaccine procurement tell us that?

As a business do you want to sell 10 million units at 1% margin or 1 million at 10%?

[foxbat]

Latest from Reuters  :

“Britain is on course to lose its status as one of Germany’s top 10 trading partners this year for the first time since 1950, as Brexit-related trade barriers drive firms in Europe’s largest economy to look for business elsewhere”

Just another Brexit Benefit right?!

but  , hey , we've cast off those 'shackles '