EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[D60]

I think we do.



https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1993-01-13a.948.2



https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1993-03-30a.238.3



https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1993-05-20a.389.4



https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-15b.1106.0



https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-15b.1106.0



http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...f-a-forgotten-land/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Reminder of post #7023, in support of post #7080, except the informative quoted extracts haven't come out, oh well..

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The organisation however is made up of its employees, if it you can inculcate [word of the day!] and maintain a spirit of innovation into the work force, this will be reflected in the structures of the organisation.

Competition is one method of applying pressure on the organisation to develop such a spirit, but it is by no means the only method of doing so.
Innovation is seen in numerous organisations that do not experience direct competition, the NHS innovates through new and improved surgical procedures regularly, for example.

With proper workforce culture and proper public scrutiny and demands for better service, advances could be encouraged and achieved.

While I don't disagree directly with any of that, I think the problem is that, if you don't allow competition, then you're preventing innovation coming from outside. Sure, an employee of the (monopolistic) organisation may have some innovative idea and convince his managers of the benefits of it, so it gets adopted. But that doesn't help you if someone who doesn't work for the organisation has an idea for doing things better and wants to try it out. If you allow competition, then that means anyone who has an idea - and also has the skill/drive/etc. to raise the finance and do whatever is required to implement their idea - has the possibility of developing their innovation - and thereby of improving life for all consumers of the product. If you don't allow competition, then you're limiting where ideas or new techniques can come from - and that can only serve to reduce innovation.

The problem as I see it is that allowing competition will usually lead to cherry-picking. In some industries, that's not a problem, but in other industries, (public transport is an obvious example) that conflicts with the need to provide a single integrated network: Cherry-picking parts of an industry damages other parts of the industry. In those cases, it's tricky and not obvious what the best balance is between allowing competition to encourage innovation while avoiding fragmentation/cherry-picking that damages the industry as a whole .

 

[D60]

While I don't disagree directly with any of that, I think the problem is that, if you don't allow competition, then you're preventing innovation coming from outside. Sure, an employee of the (monopolistic) organisation may have some innovative idea and convince his managers of the benefits of it, so it gets adopted. But that doesn't help you if someone who doesn't work for the organisation has an idea for doing things better and wants to try it out. If you allow competition, then that means anyone who has an idea - and also has the skill/drive/etc. to raise the finance and do whatever is required to implement their idea - has the possibility of developing their innovation - and thereby of improving life for all consumers of the product. If you don't allow competition, then you're limiting where ideas or new techniques can come from - and that can only serve to reduce innovation.

The problem as I see it is that allowing competition will usually lead to cherry-picking. In some industries, that's not a problem, but in other industries, (public transport is an obvious example) that conflicts with the need to provide a single integrated network: Cherry-picking parts of an industry damages other parts of the industry. In those cases, it's tricky and not obvious what the best balance is between allowing competition to encourage innovation while avoiding fragmentation/cherry-picking that damages the industry as a whole .

And the interesting thing is that this is now, once again, becoming a legitimate and worthwhile area of political discourse and debate, with the possibility of real choice once again over our governance and the way public services are delivered to us... and it seems that one of the main parties is now opening itself up to alternative models once again...
(Once again, it has been observed that the Labour Party manifesto that secured a 40% vote and an increased vote share and Parliamentary representation for Labour in 2017, and has secured Corbyn in his position as Labour leader.. would not be compatible with or deliverable under EU-Single Market rules..)..

 

[Moonshot]

And the interesting thing is that this is now, once again, becoming a legitimate and worthwhile area of political discourse and debate, with the possibility of real choice once again over our governance and the way public services are delivered to us... and it seems that one of the main parties is now opening itself up to alternative models once again...
(Once again, it has been observed that the Labour Party manifesto that secured a 40% vote and an increased vote share and Parliamentary representation for Labour in 2017, and has secured Corbyn in his position as Labour leader.. would not be compatible with or deliverable under EU-Single Market rules..)..

This is a very valid point, and just underlines to me that a significant number of those who voted leave at the referendum simply didnt understand the long term implications.

 

[WelshBluebird]

This is a very valid point, and just underlines to me that a significant number of those who voted leave at the referendum simply didnt understand the long term implications.

IMO, I think it is more of a case that a significant number of those who voted at all at the referendum simply didn't understand the long term implications.

Something like the EU is so complex, that the average person simply has no chance of understanding the implications and consequences of certain actions. That is why we have experts and politicians involved in that process.

I've said it before and I will say it again, there should not have been a referendum. In my view, having one was nothing more than our politicians being lazy and deciding they didn't want to do their job on this issue.

 

[D60]

This is a very valid point, and just underlines to me that a significant number of those who voted leave at the referendum simply didnt understand the long term implications.

What... that we may once again be offered real and substantive choice at elections..?

 

[HSTEd]

So how much would that cost (by buying out any existing PFI agreements to bring them in house)?

Nominally it would probably be enormous.

But worth noting that the debt market has almost certainly already priced the future obligations to the PFI operators into their budgetary analysis of the health of the British public finances.

So replacing PFI debt with another, cheaper, form of debt should actually improve the interest rates on British government debt as it will make it easier to service and thus less likely to be defaulted on.

The public finances day-to-day would also be improved as the charges on PFI infrastructure often far exceed what it would cost to service the debt that would have bought them had it been issued by the state.

So it will produce a huge upfront figure but it will significantly improve the public finances despite that.

While I don't disagree directly with any of that, I think the problem is that, if you don't allow competition, then you're preventing innovation coming from outside. Sure, an employee of the (monopolistic) organisation may have some innovative idea and convince his managers of the benefits of it, so it gets adopted. But that doesn't help you if someone who doesn't work for the organisation has an idea for doing things better and wants to try it out. If you allow competition, then that means anyone who has an idea - and also has the skill/drive/etc. to raise the finance and do whatever is required to implement their idea - has the possibility of developing their innovation - and thereby of improving life for all consumers of the product. If you don't allow competition, then you're limiting where ideas or new techniques can come from - and that can only serve to reduce innovation.

This is indeed a prickly problem.

One method I have thought of when thinking about the means to capture innovations from outside the service infrastructure is to establish a commission who's only purpose is to consider ways suggested by the public to improve the efficiency of public services.
Prizes could be awarded based on the merits of the ideas and such ideas would then be expected to be adopted (or attempted to be adopted) by the public body in question.

I think that could capture a significant part of the benefits of allowing innovation to come from outside the body - and also has the advantage that the person who innovates does not actually have to be in a position to implement their idea. Just that the idea be a good one.

 

[EM2]

'It's going to be easy for us to do trade deals with the US.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

Theresa May is "bitterly disappointed" the US has opted to impose a tax on the C-Series jet made by Bombardier, one of Northern Ireland's biggest employers.
The PM said the UK would work with Bombardier to protect "vital" jobs after the US Department of Commerce proposed the 220% import tariff.
Rival Boeing complained Bombardier got unfair state subsidies from the UK and Canada, helping it win a major order.
Bombardier said it would fight the "absurd" ruling.
The Government and trade unions fear the imposition of tariffs could make Bombardier question remaining in Northern Ireland.

The ruling damaged the global aerospace industry and was "frankly not what we would expect of a long-term partner to the UK", said a UK government spokesman, while emphasising this was just the first step in a lengthy process.
About 1,000 jobs are linked to the C-Series, the wings of which are made at a purpose-built £520m factory at Queen's Island in Belfast.
The programme is not just important to Bombardier jobs in Belfast, but also to 15 smaller aerospace firms in NI - and dozens more across the UK - which make components for the wings.

The US Department of Commerce ruling, which could triple the cost of a C-Series aircraft sold into the United States, could potentially jeopardise a major order made last year from US airline Delta - a $5.6bn (£4.15bn) deal for up to 125 of the jets.
Bombardier - which employs some 4,100 in Northern Ireland, out of its total workforce of 28,000 - said the decision was "divorced from the reality about the financing of multibillion-dollar aircraft programmes".
The Canadian firm said Boeing was seeking to use US trade laws "to stifle competition".

 

[AndrewNewens]

'It's going to be easy for us to do trade deals with the US.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

Is this an opportunity for the EU to step in and take up the cause of Bombardier and employment in Northern Ireland? If nothing else it would add an interesting twist to the Brexit negotiations (aka Brexit farce).

For me as a Remainer, this move by the US confirms the benefits of EU membership and the dangers of going it alone. However, I fully expect the Leave brigade to come up with some ridiculous argument to the opposite effect along the lines of "Once we leave the EU, the US will give us the deal we want".

Don't forget the Manchester pro-EU march on Sunday folks. It's never too late to do a bit of shouting on the streets (particualry when Tories are gathering for their party conference) and it's not to late to put a stop to this madness.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is this an opportunity for the EU to step in and take up the cause of Bombardier and employment in Northern Ireland? If nothing else it would add an interesting twist to the Brexit negotiations (aka Brexit farce).

For me as a Remainer, this move by the US confirms the benefits of EU membership and the dangers of going it alone. However, I fully expect the Leave brigade to come up with some ridiculous argument to the opposite effect along the lines of "Once we leave the EU, the US will give us the deal we want".

Don't forget the Manchester pro-EU march on Sunday folks. It's never too late to do a bit of shouting on the streets (particualry when Tories are gathering for their party conference) and it's not to late to put a stop to this madness.

There is no way the EU are going to step in on what is ultimately a NI-specific issue. Some sense of proportion would be helpful; it's 1000 jobs at risk, which is very significant when looking at the Belfast/Antrim area, but I think you need to be realistic about the EU taking on the US over 1,000 jobs in a country which is leaving next year.

 

[najaB]

...but I think you need to be realistic about the EU taking on the US over 1,000 jobs in a country which is leaving next year.

1,000 jobs in a Canadian company at that.

 

[EM2]

...it's 1000 jobs at risk, which is very significant when looking at the Belfast/Antrim area...

From the article:
The programme is not just important to Bombardier jobs in Belfast, but also to 15 smaller aerospace firms in NI - and dozens more across the UK - which make components for the wings.

 

[najaB]

From the article:
The programme is not just important to Bombardier jobs in Belfast, but also to 15 smaller aerospace firms in NI - and dozens more across the UK - which make components for the wings.

In total you're probably looking at under 3,000 jobs. Let's be generous and say it's 5,000. That is offset against 130K directly employed by Airbus, and the quarter million or so indirect jobs that Airbus supports.

The EU isn't going to start a trade war over Bombardier.

 

[northwichcat]

in a country which is leaving next year.

You mean in 2019, with potentially a transitional period applying until 2021. As we're still a member of the EU why shouldn't the EU get involved, especially if a number of those workers are citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

 

[Hornet]

For me as a Remainer, this move by the US confirms the benefits of EU membership and the dangers of going it alone. However, I fully expect the Leave brigade to come up with some ridiculous argument to the opposite effect along the lines of "Once we leave the EU, the US will give us the deal we want".

The TTIP secret negotiations between the EU and USA (so that we wouldn't see the stitch up until it was too late) would, and I quote:-

The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower. It has even advised EU members to draw on European support funds to compensate for the expected unemployment.

Examples from other similar bi-lateral trade agreements around the world support the case for job losses. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico caused the loss of one million US jobs over 12 years, instead of the hundreds of thousands of extra that were promised.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

So rather than the EU helping they would have been complicit in greater job losses. And this was being driven by the EU Commission and Obama's administration. In short the EU Commission didn't give a toss regards the democratic right for people to know about what Trade Deals were being negotiated on their behalf. (Why negotiate in secret? Isn't the EU supposed to be open and transparent?). The EU/Canada Trade Deal was held up when the Wallonians saw things in it they were non to pleased about.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...32489554/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

[AlterEgo]

You mean in 2019, with potentially a transitional period applying until 2021. As we're still a member of the EU why shouldn't the EU get involved, especially if a number of those workers are citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

Yes, 2019.

Why do you think the EU should get involved over a thousand (or, let's be generous, a couple thousand) jobs?

Bringing up the citizenship of the workers is not helpful and distorts the issue. I'm an Irish citizen but I'm not going to expect the EU to fight for my job in the UK. Citizenship is not relevant. Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom.

 

[EM2]

The EU isn't going to start a trade war over Bombardier.

I wasn't suggesting that they would, merely pointing out that this isn't a concern limited just to Belfast.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, 2019.

Why do you think the EU should get involved over a thousand (or, let's be generous, a couple thousand) jobs?

Bringing up the citizenship of the workers is not helpful and distorts the issue. I'm an Irish citizen but I'm not going to expect the EU to fight for my job in the UK. Citizenship is not relevant. Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom.

How many people cross the border in Ireland to go to/from work?

 

[AlterEgo]

How many people cross the border in Ireland to go to/from work?

Oh, there's lots. There are probably a few RoI residents working for Bombardier. But why should that matter? Post-Brexit, if a hotel chain in Britain was threatened with closure with the loss of a couple of hundred jobs held by Polish citizens, I don't think we would expect the EU to intervene, much less be successful in doing so.

I have visited this issue of citizenship (which in Ireland is much different to residency - you can never have visited the Republic but still be an Irish citizen in NI) before. It is not realistic to expect the EU to intervene to protect 1,000-3,000 jobs in the UK which are there by dint of a Canadian company. It's particularly unrealistic to expect them to intervene based on the argument that there's an Irish angle. I don't understand how you expect the argument "our justification for intervening in Belfast is, we have to protect Irish citizens" to play out locally.

The EU does not want to directly intervene in any way in Northern Ireland, and wishes the respective Irish and British governments to find their own solutions, which has been the most productive way forward for over 20 years.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't understand how you expect the argument "our justification for intervening in Belfast is, we have to protect Irish citizens" to play out locally.

That isn't what I was saying. I was saying the EU could intervene because we are still members and that some Irish workers working there is something which might prevent the thinking being "It only affects the UK and they're leaving."

 

[AlterEgo]

That isn't what I was saying. I was saying the EU could intervene because we are still members and that some Irish workers working there is something which might prevent the thinking being "It only affects the UK and they're leaving."

The EU is much more invested in Airbus. Boeing is also a much larger employer in Europe than Bombardier Aerospace.

This all came about because Canada has been financially supporting Bombardier and the US Government has responded to that protectionism with more protectionism. The dispute is between the US and Canada with jobs in Belfast a small by-product. How much leverage do you think the EU have, when they're invested in Airbus by $10bn/annum?

The loss of Bombardier jobs in Belfast is not really a concern for the Republic of Ireland, who have said nothing on the matter as far as I can tell.

 

[Hornet]

The EU is much more invested in Airbus. Boeing is also a much larger employer in Europe than Bombardier Aerospace.

This all came about because Canada has been financially supporting Bombardier and the US Government has responded to that protectionism with more protectionism. The dispute is between the US and Canada with jobs in Belfast a small by-product. How much leverage do you think the EU have, when they're invested in Airbus by $10bn/annum?

The loss of Bombardier jobs in Belfast is not really a concern for the Republic of Ireland, who have said nothing on the matter as far as I can tell.

It's not one of the lead stories in the Irish Indo on-line at the moment, although it was mentioned earlier. The lead stories are about Irish escort services and the horrendous rent costs for people in Dublin.

 

[D60]

There is a myth still being perpetuated that 'going it alone' will force the UK into a position of somehow going cap in hand to do a disadvantageous trade deal with America...
Firstly, it's not 'either/or'... Despite their threats and bargaining positions, when it comes down to the brass tacks of business, it simply is not in the interest of the EU to start erecting artificial barriers to trade where none currently exist (reciprocal in nature, obvs) when they sell far more to us than we do to them.. around £30billion more annually in the case of Germany alone, as pointed out by Furnessvale a few pages back.. just a part of the massive trade deficit that we have with the EU that it is surely not in their interest to jeopardise...
Secondly.. trade happens where one party has a product or service available at a price that suits another party... All politicians, bureaucrats and the vested interests they serve, is erect barriers to that trade until they become counter-productive, and then they revert to dismantling those barriers... If these are the sorts of people intent on erecting punitive artificial barriers to trade, it amply demonstrates what sort of people we were supposedly 'dealing' with all along...
Thirdly.. we had free trade with continental Europe as founder members of EFTA from 1960.. proving that it was never necessary to be subsumed into a proto-governmental geo-political supranational superstate to trade fairly and freely with continental Europe..

 

[WelshBluebird]

There is a myth still being perpetuated that 'going it alone' will force the UK into a position of somehow going cap in hand to do a disadvantageous trade deal with America...
Firstly, it's not 'either/or'... Despite their threats and bargaining positions, when it comes down to the brass tacks of business, it simply is not in the interest of the EU to start erecting artificial barriers to trade where none currently exist (reciprocal in nature, obvs) when they sell far more to us than we do to them.. around £30billion more annually in the case of Germany alone, as pointed out by Furnessvale a few pages back.. just a part of the massive trade deficit that we have with the EU that it is surely not in their interest to jeopardise...
Secondly.. trade happens where one party has a product or service available at a price that suits another party... All politicians, bureaucrats and the vested interests they serve, is erect barriers to that trade until they become counter-productive, and then they revert to dismantling those barriers... If these are the sorts of people intent on erecting punitive artificial barriers to trade, it amply demonstrates what sort of people we were supposedly 'dealing' with all along...
Thirdly.. we had free trade with continental Europe as founder members of EFTA from 1960.. proving that it was never necessary to be subsumed into a proto-governmental geo-political supranational superstate to trade fairly and freely with continental Europe..

But apparently, "no deal" is better than a bad one, despite the fact that no deal WILL mean trade barriers being in place.

 

[fowler9]

There is a myth still being perpetuated that 'going it alone' will force the UK into a position of somehow going cap in hand to do a disadvantageous trade deal with America...
Firstly, it's not 'either/or'... Despite their threats and bargaining positions, when it comes down to the brass tacks of business, it simply is not in the interest of the EU to start erecting artificial barriers to trade where none currently exist (reciprocal in nature, obvs) when they sell far more to us than we do to them.. around £30billion more annually in the case of Germany alone, as pointed out by Furnessvale a few pages back.. just a part of the massive trade deficit that we have with the EU that it is surely not in their interest to jeopardise...
Secondly.. trade happens where one party has a product or service available at a price that suits another party... All politicians, bureaucrats and the vested interests they serve, is erect barriers to that trade until they become counter-productive, and then they revert to dismantling those barriers... If these are the sorts of people intent on erecting punitive artificial barriers to trade, it amply demonstrates what sort of people we were supposedly 'dealing' with all along...
Thirdly.. we had free trade with continental Europe as founder members of EFTA from 1960.. proving that it was never necessary to be subsumed into a proto-governmental geo-political supranational superstate to trade fairly and freely with continental Europe..

If we have a trade deficit with the EU then surely that is because they sell us stuff that we don't or can't produce. They can charge what they want, people will still buy it. Brexiters seem to want to carry on the same but without us throwing in to the pot for the EU. Its not going to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

If stuff from Europe becomes significantly more expensive then people will stop buying it and start buying it from someplace else instead.

 

[D60]

But apparently, "no deal" is better than a bad one, despite the fact that no deal WILL mean trade barriers being in place.

Yep, because any 'deal' with the EU is (almost) guaranteed to be a stitch-up on their terms, that's the nature of 'deals' with the EEC/EU, as a full 4+ decades of experience confirms... (the Article 50 process in itself is designed to produce a stitch-up on their terms.. but that's the route that the Govt-without-a-plan has gone down, so we'll see where it takes them... Continued inflexibility from the likes of Juncker, Macron, Barnier, whom none of us have ever voted for, obvs, is increasingly pointing towards 'no-deal'..)

 

[D60]

If we have a trade deficit with the EU then surely that is because they sell us stuff that we don't or can't produce. They can charge what they want, people will still buy it. Brexiters seem to want to carry on the same but without us throwing in to the pot for the EU. Its not going to happen.

What, like trains.. or cars.. or any/many other manufactured goods that we once and still do make in this country..? The long-overdue readjustment of the value of sterling post-referendum, has provided a welcome boost to UK manufacture and export..

 

[fowler9]

If stuff from Europe becomes significantly more expensive then people will stop buying it and start buying it from someplace else instead.

Yeah like where?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yep, because any 'deal' with the EU is (almost) guaranteed to be a stitch-up on their terms, that's the nature of 'deals' with the EEC/EU, as a full 4+ decades of experience confirms... (the Article 50 process in itself is designed to produce a stitch-up on their terms.. but that's the route that the Govt-without-a-plan has gone down, so we'll see where it takes them... Continued inflexibility from the likes of Juncker, Macron, Barnier, whom none of us have ever voted for, obvs, is increasingly pointing towards 'no-deal'..)

This just sounds like putting ideology before realty.

I get you (and many others) don't like the EU having any kind of word in UK's affairs (which sidenote, is hilarious because we were instrumental in the make up of a lot of the EU regulations and processes that some people love to whinge about - including the Article 50 process itself!).

However, having literally no deal is so much worse than having a bad deal I have no idea where to even start. Just very quickly off the top of my head, no deal would:

• Have worse tariffs than even a "bad" deal with the EU would have
• Compromise international security efforts (because the very fact we cooperate internationally when it comes to things like intelligence and anti terrorism efforts are because we have deals in place to do so).
• Limit the ability for Brits to travel throughout Europe (as no deal would mean having to resort to potentially lengthy Visa processes - any deal to not end up in that situation, such as preferential treatment for Brits over other non-EU citizens would be a deal!)
• Restrict international travel between the UK and the EU (because the ability for airlines to fly between the UK and the EU and for the Eurostar to run etc relies on international agreements - aka a deal).

etc etc.

No deal literally means that. No agreements in how things should happen. It would be chaos and would probably bankrupt both us and the EU.

the Article 50 process in itself is designed to produce a stitch-up on their terms

I am quoting this again so you don't miss it. That process was drafted by a Brit. This isn't a EU hates us and wants us to fail thing. Britain has had as much input into much of these things as other large EU countries had (if anything we had more input in many areas).