5 ms·

Without even knowing much about trade or economics, this conclusion seemed inevitable from the start. The primary trading partner of the UK is obviously going t

Without even knowing much about trade or economics, this conclusion seemed inevitable from the start. The primary trading partner of the UK is obviously going to be the EU due to geographic proximity. Yet, the UK no longer has a seat at the table and thus must negotiate from a much weaker position being outside the EU block. How could this history have played out otherwise?

Deukhoofd 4y ago
Not just that, but a country divided against itself was set against a group of countries completely determined to protect their own interests. Britain couldn't win, as Britain didn't have any idea what it actually wanted, and was constantly fighting itself to figure that out.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
There could in theory have been a sane outcome where the UK "left" the EU, respecting the vote, but remained as close as Switzerland and Norway, and still had access to the single market. But any politician sensible and capable enough of achieving that would have been against Brexit in the first place, and would have to deal with the sniping of idiots that were for Brexit and promising the moon on a stick.
- borissk 4y ago
  Nope. The main reason for the leave vote was hate towards immigrants. And EU is very clear that access to the single market comes only with free movement of people.
  - lmm 4y ago
    I guess the EU's free trade agreement with Turkey is impossible and doesn't exist then?
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      See the four options laid out: > 1. Norway option: Staying in the EU Single Market and leaving the Customs Union would mean full access to the Single Market for both goods and services, but the UK would have to continue to abide by the EU’s four freedoms, including freedom of movement. […] > 2. Turkey option: Leaving the EU Single Market and EU Customs Union, but creating a new customs union with the EU. This would ensure tariff-free trade for goods covered by new customs union, but mean applying the EU’s common external tariff for trade to those goods imported from other countries. […] > 3. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, but negotiating a new bespoke bilateral free trade and customs agreement. […] Swiss, Ukraine, Canada as examples > 4. World Trade Organization (WTO) option: Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union without a deal. […] * https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/options-uks-trading-relationship-eu https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/...
      - Idiot_in_Vain 4y ago
        This has been repeated a million times. Some people just prefer to leave in their own imaginary world, where Turkey is a part of the common market, and free to do any trade deals with 3rd parties.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Do you think it’s possible to be for reducing immigration and not hate immigrants?
  - 123pie123 4y ago
    and massive amount of Russian money
narag 4y ago
(From a few Mm) I remember them saying that EU was a big-government ballast, so reducing expenses and bureaucracy they could have a much agile and vibrant economy. But is that what they did?
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  Yes, both parties have largely accepted the need for deregulation. Labour's recent economic policy proposals are largely identical, on this issue, to the Tories. The upside potential has largely been accepted by all (and btw, not all of this was to do with the EU either...the UK has bureaucrats too and they love gathering power as much ones in Brussels). The only exception is the BoE...which, unsurprisingly, has been one of the institutions that gathered the most power over the last decade. I did not vote to Leave but I think it is also a case of direction. Even outside the EU and the UK, I think people look at the direction the EU is going and realise it is a bit mad. Those differences would only have grown over time with the UK because unemployment is so low and govt is naturally turning towards supply-side reforms. Some countries in Europe have been doing supply-side reforms since the early 90s.
  - narag 4y ago
    But did you cut the deficit? I believed the last ephemeral PM had to resign after cutting taxes and, at the same time, growing the budget had dire consequences. Even here in the mainland, the ECB is being forced to stop printing money at the usual rate.
    - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
      I am not sure what you are referring to. The UK was running a primary surplus in 2018. And the UK is now running a deficit. Imo, the deficit is too large but most countries are running a deficit that is too large. The last PM didn't cut taxes and didn't grow the budget. The vast majority of her policies did not happen. The ECB has not stopped printing money because they aren't selling bonds and are (I believe) still intervening in Southern Europe bond markets because of their dire fiscal situation. The BoE stopped QE and began selling bonds in February 2021. Still far too late, but the ECB has (imo) gone so far with QE that it is impossible to stop (iirc, most new corporate loans in most of Western Europe are now govt-guaranteed...their intervention into banking has been far deeper than any other country).
nonethewiser 4y ago
Brexit wasn’t about improving the economy.
- epistasis 4y ago
  It was falsely sold to the populace as improving the economy, NHS, etc., so in the sense that it's about anything at all, improving the economy has to be considered.
- meepmorp 4y ago
  Nonsense, it was about improving the economy and everything else. It was gonna send an extra 350 million pounds a week to the NHS, gonna supercharge global trade, gonna free British businesses from EU red tape, and eliminate immigration. The UK was going to enter a golden age. Brexit was never a plan, it was a slogan. The vote had no realistic framing for what the status of things between the EU and UK would be, or any other details. Everyone was free to imagine any outcome they please, and quite a number imagined they'd be richer.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Are you suggesting it didn’t free EU businesses from red tape? The way you worded it seems that way.
    - meepmorp 4y ago
      Are you suggesting British businesses have less EU red tape to deal with now that they're trading with the EU as non-member state? They still need to comply with the regulatory requirements for products, but now also have voice in Brussels along with the added overhead of customs and other barriers.
skippyboxedhero 4y ago
I think you might have stopped after the first point you made. I will give you a brief precis. UK announces they are leaving, projections that hundreds of thousands of jobs will go from the City, massive drop in trade and growth, and that the EU will never concede anything in negotiations. Time has now passed. The number of jobs gone is likely negative, projections that have found positive numbers (usually in the thousands) typically use any job created in Europe in financial services as a job "taken" from the City...the number is still tiny. Trade with the EU is above pre-Brexit levels. Exports are growing slowly but that is because the EU is growing slowly. Exports to RoW are up (but the main issue with the UK remains supply growth, even if we were in the EU it wouldn't change the fact that unemployment is extremely low). EU has conceded everything. The 2019 deal was regarded as totally impossible, it happened. The EU turned NI into a political football then people started being shot in NI, and they have conceded that now too. Btw, you are right...you didn't need to know much about trade or economics to know this. I do happen to know a bit about both, but it was obvious before because trade is based on mutual interest. The EU is highly protectionist, but the UK is such a large trading partner that the eventual outcome (a deal that resulted in no costs for either side) was predictable...but no-one was making that prediction beforehand (and, unfortunately, much of the debate in the UK is composed of people who made very confident-sounding predictions without much understanding of economics, and were wrong).
- padjo 4y ago
  > The EU turned NI into a political football That’s a pretty bizarre interpretation of events given that it was the UK that threatened to unilaterally abandon the Northern Ireland protocol as a negotiating tactic
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    The NI protocol came significantly after the EU decided to turn the NI border into an issue in the Brexit negotiations (iirc, the EU's position paper was published in 2017). The reason why the UK had to look at unilateral action was: because the EU wouldn't negotiate (the original position paper was made with the premise that the UK would actually go back on Brexit and that the issue could be used to force another vote), because NI hadn't had a govt for years as a result, and because terrorist attacks were increasing. This isn't a negotiating tactic, the EU attempted to break up the UK in order to "win" at Brexit. You may call that a "bizarre interpretation" but the Windsor framework accepted this because all the EU's previous reservations were dropped entirely (i.e. they were negotiating tactics). The mistake that previous UK govts made was to accept the EU turning the UK's territorial integrity into an issue over, essentially, a trade deal.

Deukhoofd 4y ago

Not just that, but a country divided against itself was set against a group of countries completely determined to protect their own interests. Britain couldn't win, as Britain didn't have any idea what it actually wanted, and was constantly fighting itself to figure that out.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

There could in theory have been a sane outcome where the UK "left" the EU, respecting the vote, but remained as close as Switzerland and Norway, and still had access to the single market. But any politician sensible and capable enough of achieving that would have been against Brexit in the first place, and would have to deal with the sniping of idiots that were for Brexit and promising the moon on a stick.

borissk 4y ago
Nope. The main reason for the leave vote was hate towards immigrants. And EU is very clear that access to the single market comes only with free movement of people.
- lmm 4y ago
  I guess the EU's free trade agreement with Turkey is impossible and doesn't exist then?
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    See the four options laid out: > 1. Norway option: Staying in the EU Single Market and leaving the Customs Union would mean full access to the Single Market for both goods and services, but the UK would have to continue to abide by the EU’s four freedoms, including freedom of movement. […] > 2. Turkey option: Leaving the EU Single Market and EU Customs Union, but creating a new customs union with the EU. This would ensure tariff-free trade for goods covered by new customs union, but mean applying the EU’s common external tariff for trade to those goods imported from other countries. […] > 3. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, but negotiating a new bespoke bilateral free trade and customs agreement. […] Swiss, Ukraine, Canada as examples > 4. World Trade Organization (WTO) option: Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union without a deal. […] * https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/options-uks-trading-relationship-eu https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/...
    - Idiot_in_Vain 4y ago
      This has been repeated a million times. Some people just prefer to leave in their own imaginary world, where Turkey is a part of the common market, and free to do any trade deals with 3rd parties.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Do you think it’s possible to be for reducing immigration and not hate immigrants?
- 123pie123 4y ago
  and massive amount of Russian money

narag 4y ago

(From a few Mm) I remember them saying that EU was a big-government ballast, so reducing expenses and bureaucracy they could have a much agile and vibrant economy. But is that what they did?

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
Yes, both parties have largely accepted the need for deregulation. Labour's recent economic policy proposals are largely identical, on this issue, to the Tories. The upside potential has largely been accepted by all (and btw, not all of this was to do with the EU either...the UK has bureaucrats too and they love gathering power as much ones in Brussels). The only exception is the BoE...which, unsurprisingly, has been one of the institutions that gathered the most power over the last decade. I did not vote to Leave but I think it is also a case of direction. Even outside the EU and the UK, I think people look at the direction the EU is going and realise it is a bit mad. Those differences would only have grown over time with the UK because unemployment is so low and govt is naturally turning towards supply-side reforms. Some countries in Europe have been doing supply-side reforms since the early 90s.
- narag 4y ago
  But did you cut the deficit? I believed the last ephemeral PM had to resign after cutting taxes and, at the same time, growing the budget had dire consequences. Even here in the mainland, the ECB is being forced to stop printing money at the usual rate.
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    I am not sure what you are referring to. The UK was running a primary surplus in 2018. And the UK is now running a deficit. Imo, the deficit is too large but most countries are running a deficit that is too large. The last PM didn't cut taxes and didn't grow the budget. The vast majority of her policies did not happen. The ECB has not stopped printing money because they aren't selling bonds and are (I believe) still intervening in Southern Europe bond markets because of their dire fiscal situation. The BoE stopped QE and began selling bonds in February 2021. Still far too late, but the ECB has (imo) gone so far with QE that it is impossible to stop (iirc, most new corporate loans in most of Western Europe are now govt-guaranteed...their intervention into banking has been far deeper than any other country).

nonethewiser 4y ago

Brexit wasn’t about improving the economy.

epistasis 4y ago
It was falsely sold to the populace as improving the economy, NHS, etc., so in the sense that it's about anything at all, improving the economy has to be considered.
meepmorp 4y ago
Nonsense, it was about improving the economy and everything else. It was gonna send an extra 350 million pounds a week to the NHS, gonna supercharge global trade, gonna free British businesses from EU red tape, and eliminate immigration. The UK was going to enter a golden age. Brexit was never a plan, it was a slogan. The vote had no realistic framing for what the status of things between the EU and UK would be, or any other details. Everyone was free to imagine any outcome they please, and quite a number imagined they'd be richer.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Are you suggesting it didn’t free EU businesses from red tape? The way you worded it seems that way.
  - meepmorp 4y ago
    Are you suggesting British businesses have less EU red tape to deal with now that they're trading with the EU as non-member state? They still need to comply with the regulatory requirements for products, but now also have voice in Brussels along with the added overhead of customs and other barriers.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago

I think you might have stopped after the first point you made. I will give you a brief precis. UK announces they are leaving, projections that hundreds of thousands of jobs will go from the City, massive drop in trade and growth, and that the EU will never concede anything in negotiations. Time has now passed. The number of jobs gone is likely negative, projections that have found positive numbers (usually in the thousands) typically use any job created in Europe in financial services as a job "taken" from the City...the number is still tiny. Trade with the EU is above pre-Brexit levels. Exports are growing slowly but that is because the EU is growing slowly. Exports to RoW are up (but the main issue with the UK remains supply growth, even if we were in the EU it wouldn't change the fact that unemployment is extremely low). EU has conceded everything. The 2019 deal was regarded as totally impossible, it happened. The EU turned NI into a political football then people started being shot in NI, and they have conceded that now too. Btw, you are right...you didn't need to know much about trade or economics to know this. I do happen to know a bit about both, but it was obvious before because trade is based on mutual interest. The EU is highly protectionist, but the UK is such a large trading partner that the eventual outcome (a deal that resulted in no costs for either side) was predictable...but no-one was making that prediction beforehand (and, unfortunately, much of the debate in the UK is composed of people who made very confident-sounding predictions without much understanding of economics, and were wrong).

padjo 4y ago
> The EU turned NI into a political football That’s a pretty bizarre interpretation of events given that it was the UK that threatened to unilaterally abandon the Northern Ireland protocol as a negotiating tactic
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  The NI protocol came significantly after the EU decided to turn the NI border into an issue in the Brexit negotiations (iirc, the EU's position paper was published in 2017). The reason why the UK had to look at unilateral action was: because the EU wouldn't negotiate (the original position paper was made with the premise that the UK would actually go back on Brexit and that the issue could be used to force another vote), because NI hadn't had a govt for years as a result, and because terrorist attacks were increasing. This isn't a negotiating tactic, the EU attempted to break up the UK in order to "win" at Brexit. You may call that a "bizarre interpretation" but the Windsor framework accepted this because all the EU's previous reservations were dropped entirely (i.e. they were negotiating tactics). The mistake that previous UK govts made was to accept the EU turning the UK's territorial integrity into an issue over, essentially, a trade deal.