Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[ealingfox]

On 10/04/2018 at 15:49, MattP said:

Whatever Lineker supports politically seems to go totally tits up anyway.

 

Bet he hasn't tweeted the news about the "child refugees" he pontificated over being in the main proven to be adults this week.

 

402 out of 2952 is not 'in the main'.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43719284

 

Going ahead on this without a Parliamentary vote will see you damned by history like Blair, Mrs May.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

No I think you misunderstand me, I'm saying growth in general will pay for any tax revenue lost. The last quarter alone (I read it was estimated at 0.2% or 0.3%) will have probably paid for it if we removed almost all duties on imports. Who says I'm a Tory? I certainly don't have a membership and I've voted for other parties in the past (would probably vote Lib Dem if not for their EU and defence policies). I'm fiscally conservative for sure, but ultimately I believe helping the consumer. I'm a boring centrist. Vietnamese Dong vs the Dollar is steady and has been for ages, however against the Euro it has also dropped. Regardless, imports from Vietnam are better in this situation, same goes for Bangladesh.

 

This goes without saying we're now running a £3.6bn current budget surplus (government revenue minus all spending (other than capital spending)), so really, no new taxes or cuts are even necessary.

Right so you're saying that because the economy is growing, we can remove tariffs (in effect cutting taxes) and not have to recover the money because it's paid for by growth?

 

That's fine, but the government have always had the power to cut taxes. If the government wanted to pass the benefits of growth onto the people (which they don't, but that's probably for another discussion), then they could do so by reducing any of the myriad taxes they have full control over already. Therefore the ability to cut another tax (tariffs on Vietnamese clothes in this example) doesn't confer any additional benefit. Hence it's not something you can describe as a positive consequence of brexit.

[Sampson]

23 hours ago, Strokes said:

The guardian can’t be trusted not to push its agenda regarding brexit, it couldn’t help jumping the gun over Cambridge Analytica and proved it would be prepared to make up facts to help whip up anti brexit hysteria. A poor mans independent these days.

I'm no fan of the Guardian, but that's beyond harsh.

The Independent is the Daily Mail of the Left these days and definitely much worse than the Guardian, Since it's gone online order it's turned into really lowest common denominator clickbait. It's sad. I never read the paper but it at least was launched with noble aims of being bipartizan, but it reads like Buzzfeed these days.

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Right so you're saying that because the economy is growing, we can remove tariffs (in effect cutting taxes) and not have to recover the money because it's paid for by growth?

 

That's fine, but the government have always had the power to cut taxes. If the government wanted to pass the benefits of growth onto the people (which they don't, but that's probably for another discussion), then they could do so by reducing any of the myriad taxes they have full control over already. Therefore the ability to cut another tax (tariffs on Vietnamese clothes in this example) doesn't confer any additional benefit. Hence it's not something you can describe as a positive consequence of brexit.

What? Removing barriers for cheaper goods in your eyes is not a benefit? UK businesses sell those goods for cheaper than we would otherwise sell them, those retail businesses make money and therefore pay more tax, the consumer gets cheaper goods.

 

Okay then. That's fair, but I strongly disagree.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

402 out of 2952 is not 'in the main'.

Of the ones suspected, two thirds were found to over age.

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

What? Removing barriers for cheaper goods in your eyes is not a benefit? Okay then.

Why not just reduce income tax if there is money available to do so? The effect on the consumer would be exactly the same. And surely reducing a tax that impacts almost everyone would be better than reducing a tax that only impacts people who buy clothes made in Vietnam?

 

We've always had the power to reduce taxes, this is not a new power brought about by brexit. To imply this is a positive impact of brexit is simply wrong I'm afraid.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43719284

 

Going ahead on this without a Parliamentary vote will see you damned by history like Blair, Mrs May.

Bit of an exaggeration Mac, a few airstrikes as retaliation to a chemical weapons attack isn't going to see her damned in the same way as guy who led an invasion on a pack of lies.

 

Besides, Tony Blair went to parliament and got a vote.

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why not just reduce income tax if there is money available to do so? The effe t on the consumer would be exaxtly the same. And sudely reducing a tax that impacts almost everyone would be better than reducing a tax that only impacts people who buy clothes made in Vietnam?

 

We've always had the power to reduce taxes, this is not a new power brought about by brexit. To imply this is a positive impact of brexit is simply untrue I'm afraid.

It wouldn't though. We'll soon be raising interest rates, so people will start saving more than they are currently doing, meaning less spending. Having retailers lower their prices by selling cheaper goods (the same that we sell now but they cost the businesses less) would mean the businesses makes money but also hopefully spurs the public's spending more. There would literally be no loser since our basic textiles industry is so dead anyway.

 

Why are you trying to twist my argument to pretend I'm arguing for lower income taxes and then proving my non-argument wrong? That's weird.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Alf Bentley]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Mine was Calais camp moving to Kent.

 

7 hours ago, Beechey said:

Yes, and in response we dedicated £150m to help defend Calais. There won't be any treaty tearing.

 

Looks just like he's gearing up to rip that treaty up, doesn't it?

 

As Beechey's article points out, British border controls have only been in France since 2003 - though Eurostar border controls have been at the Gare du Nord, Paris, since the 1990s under a different agreement.

My Dad worked for the immigration service at Dover. He and his colleagues dealt with would-be immigrants on British soil at Dover, deciding whether they could enter, were refused but stayed with right of appeal or were sent back on the next boat.

In his early days, they occasionally got to carry out immigration controls on the boats (by agreement with the ferry companies, I presume) - but never on French soil.

 

Will Macron tear up the agreement? I've no idea. Those of you who are confident that it couldn't happen, what is the provision in the agreement that makes you say that? Is the new agreement binding and unchangeable for a fixed number of years? Does it have a particular notice period if either party wants to withdraw? If not, what is your confidence based on, apart from Brexiteer bluster?

 

The current circumstances would certainly have encouraged Macron to moderate his stance compared to his election rhetoric. He's a new President embarking on a massive, controversial domestic reform programme - and the Calais camp had been dismantled. He would hardly have sought unnecessary confrontation with a close ally at such a time - particularly when, along with the rest of the EU, he's keen that the UK should opt for the softest possible Brexit, if not reconsider its departure. A massive confrontation over immigration would hardly have helped that cause, would it?

 

I'd suggest that whether France wants to change or abandon the border agreement will depend greatly on French politics, British politics and Brexit politics.

- If the UK opts for a Hard Brexit and tries to undercut the EU on tariffs, social/employment regulations and external trade deals, then the Le Touquet Agreement could be just another weapon in a new confrontational relationship. That will be particularly true if (as is very likely) Macron faces unpopularity at home over his reforms and immigration becomes a big political issue in France, as it has been for years already (Le Pen, Islamist terrorists of N. African stock etc).

- If the UK opts to stay close to EU trading and social regulations, and the relationship remains cooperative on defence, security and other issues, then there's less chance of him seeking to tear up the agreement - likewise if his reforms are accepted, immigration isn't a domestic hot potato and migrant camps don't start appearing again.....

 

I reckon the new May-Macron agreement, maintaining Le Touquet but with a bit more British cash was a short-term compromise. Macron avoided an unwanted confrontation with the UK but was able to take some concessions back to wave before French voters....let's hope the relationship - and French politics - don't deteriorate so that he sees such a confrontation as beneficial to France. If border controls moved back to Dover/London, would French immigration bother about undocumented migrants heading to the UK, and would the ferry companies/Eurostar/airlines refuse to sell them tickets if the UK govt asked them not to?

[Beechey]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why not just reduce income tax if there is money available to do so? The effect on the consumer would be exactly the same. And surely reducing a tax that impacts almost everyone would be better than reducing a tax that only impacts people who buy clothes made in Vietnam?

 

We've always had the power to reduce taxes, this is not a new power brought about by brexit. To imply this is a positive impact of brexit is simply wrong I'm afraid.

Also, if you're so set on income tax, what about the very poorest who pay none, but still have to buy clothing. It would absolutely assist them. They pay no income tax anyway so your presented argument is absolutely non-existent. Lower clothing costs in that instance is a great way to not only try and better their lives, but try to lift them, even by a little, out of poverty.

[Beechey]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

As Beechey's article points out, British border controls have only been in France since 2003 - though Eurostar border controls have been at the Gare du Nord, Paris, since the 1990s under a different agreement.

My Dad worked for the immigration service at Dover. He and his colleagues dealt with would-be immigrants on British soil at Dover, deciding whether they could enter, were refused but stayed with right of appeal or were sent back on the next boat.

In his early days, they occasionally got to carry out immigration controls on the boats (by agreement with the ferry companies, I presume) - but never on French soil.

 

Will Macron tear up the agreement? I've no idea. Those of you who are confident that it couldn't happen, what is the provision in the agreement that makes you say that? Is the new agreement binding and unchangeable for a fixed number of years? Does it have a particular notice period if either party wants to withdraw? If not, what is your confidence based on, apart from Brexiteer bluster?

 

The current circumstances would certainly have encouraged Macron to moderate his stance compared to his election rhetoric. He's a new President embarking on a massive, controversial domestic reform programme - and the Calais camp had been dismantled. He would hardly have sought unnecessary confrontation with a close ally at such a time - particularly when, along with the rest of the EU, he's keen that the UK should opt for the softest possible Brexit, if not reconsider its departure. A massive confrontation over immigration would hardly have helped that cause, would it?

 

I'd suggest that whether France wants to change or abandon the border agreement will depend greatly on French politics, British politics and Brexit politics.

- If the UK opts for a Hard Brexit and tries to undercut the EU on tariffs, social/employment regulations and external trade deals, then the Le Touquet Agreement could be just another weapon in a new confrontational relationship. That will be particularly true if (as is very likely) Macron faces unpopularity at home over his reforms and immigration becomes a big political issue in France, as it has been for years already (Le Pen, Islamist terrorists of N. African stock etc).

- If the UK opts to stay close to EU trading and social regulations, and the relationship remains cooperative on defence, security and other issues, then there's less chance of him seeking to tear up the agreement - likewise if his reforms are accepted, immigration isn't a domestic hot potato and migrant camps don't start appearing again.....

 

I reckon the new May-Macron agreement, maintaining Le Touquet but with a bit more British cash was a short-term compromise. Macron avoided an unwanted confrontation with the UK but was able to take some concessions back to wave before French voters....let's hope the relationship - and French politics - don't deteriorate so that he sees such a confrontation as beneficial to France. If border controls moved back to Dover/London, would French immigration bother about undocumented migrants heading to the UK, and would the ferry companies/Eurostar/airlines refuse to sell them tickets if the UK govt asked them not to?

Great points to be fair, I'd argue it's a binding agreement (it is legally binding anyway, but treaties can be ended - although when the UK threatens to do it we're awful, and when France threatens to do it to us, it's totally fair apparently...) because it's been inextricably linked to greater defence cooperation after the Lancaster House Treaty. I'm sure there's always going to be a small chance the agreement could be ripped up since the politicians in and around Calais hate it, but France's top politicians and top military advisers won't want to risk their military cooperation with us. It actually even says that in the article. They even called it the Sandhurst Treaty since it was signed at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

 

"Officials said France was anxious not to prejudice Brexit negotiations on any future relationship between the UK and the EU, but was determined that Anglo-French ties “must not be weakened”. France hopes that Britain, described as a “vital” defence partner, will continue to play a strong role in European defence cooperation after Brexit, if not via a “special status” with the EU then through its ties with France."

 

There's just nothing in it for them to end it and ruin relations with us at all. We are vital to their (and EU in general) defence, and they'll be well aware of that.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, Beechey said:

It wouldn't though. We'll soon be raising interest rates, so people will start saving more than they are currently doing, meaning less spending. Having retailers lower their prices by selling cheaper goods (the same that we sell now but they cost the businesses less) would mean the businesses makes money but also hopefully spurs the public's spending more. There would literally be no loser since our basic textiles industry is so dead anyway.

 

Why are you trying to twist my argument to pretend I'm arguing for lower income taxes and then proving my non-argument wrong? That's weird.

You said brexit is good because we can reduce or remove tariffs (import taxes). I questioned how we could afford to reduce tax. You said we could afford to reduce tax because it would be paid for by economic growth. I said if we can afford to reduce taxes why not just reduce income tax as that will have the exact same effect on consumer spending with the additional advantage of spreading the benefit of a tax reduction widely instead of confining it to people who buy vietnamese clothes. Is that a fair summary?

 

Your latest post doesn't really add much, as far as I can see. Assuming the business passes the saving onto consumers then they make no more or less profit so there is nothing in it for them. Consumers would have more money to spend, but as I've stated above the same effect could be achieved by lowering income or any number of other taxes. I'm not saying that reducing or removing taxes doesn't make sense in some situations, it may well make great sense, but it is not an advantage of brexit because we have always had the power to reduce taxes.

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Also, if you're so set on income tax, what about the very poorest who pay none, but still have to buy clothing. It would absolutely assist them. They pay no income tax anyway so your presented argument is absolutely non-existent. Lower clothing costs in that instance is a great way to not only try and better their lives, but try to lift them, even by a little, out of poverty.

VAT instead then.

 

[Beechey]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

You said brexit is good because we can reduce or remove tariffs (import taxes). I questioned how we could afford to reduce tax. You said we could afford to reduce tax because it would be paid for by economic growth. I said if we can afford to reduce taxes why not just reduce income tax as that will have the exact same effect on consumer spending with the additional advantage of spreading the benefit of a tax reduction widely instead of confining it to people who buy vietnamese clothes. Is that a fair summary?

 

Your latest post doesn't really add much, as far as I can see. Assuming the business passes the saving onto consumers then they make no more or less profit so there is nothing in it for them. Consumers would have more money to spend, but as I've stated above the same effect could be achieved by lowering income or any number of other taxes. I'm not saying that reducing or removing taxes doesn't make sense in some situations, it may well make great sense, but it is not an advantage of brexit because we have always had the power to reduce taxes.

I'm failing to see how you're not grasping my point:

 

• When we raise interest rates, people will save more money, meaning they will spend less, because that gains them more interest.
• Lowering income tax by whatever the equivalent of reducing tariffs on some clothing would be (probably something unbelievably low like 0.1%) would do nothing for poor people who pay no income tax anyway.
• If people are saving more because of higher interest rates (which they will), then a logical step would be to try and urge them to spend, one way to do so would be to try to lower prices.
• To do so you have basically two choices: subsidise UK industry (there basically isn't one), or lower tariffs so imports become cheaper.

 

Lowering VAT (just saw the last post, VAT is a good option for the poor, it's frankly too high anyway) or income tax by the same cost as it would cost the Treasury to remove some tariffs (again I'd imagine like £300-£500m of the £3bn total at most, probably overestimating it by a long shot), the effect would be minimal. Lower prices helps the poor because they, as a proportion of total income spend vastly the most on shoes and basic clothing items. Lower prices helps spur the economy. With higher interest rates, people will spend less, so we also have to try and get people to spend, which lower prices will do. Lower VAT (by whatever the same proportion of lower tariffs would be, let's say £300m, which I still think would be far too high), would only account for 0.2% of the total VAT intake, it's just not as good as targeting the lower prices on items that people require frequently and also the poor spend disproportionally more on.

 

How are you not seeing the obvious benefits? There's a reason people like trade agreements, because it makes goods cheaper. This also makes goods cheaper, except we can't do it inside the EU.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

Bit of an exaggeration Mac, a few airstrikes as retaliation to a chemical weapons attack isn't going to see her damned in the same way as guy who led an invasion on a pack of lies.

 

Besides, Tony Blair went to parliament and got a vote.

That's true, spun the lie and got the MP's to follow - guess that's worse in a few books than not consulting them at all.

 

If what happens next was guaranteed to be limited to a few airstrikes then I'd likely agree with the general sentiment but does anyone think it'll really end there when Trump knows he needs a good war as an (almost) last resort to shore up the approval ratings and stop a bloodbath in November and afterwards?

[Innovindil]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's true, spun the lie and got the MP's to follow - guess that's worse in a few books than not consulting them at all.

 

If what happens next was guaranteed to be limited to a few airstrikes then I'd likely agree with the general sentiment but does anyone think it'll really end there when Trump knows he needs a good war as an (almost) last resort to shore up the approval ratings and stop a bloodbath in November and afterwards?

So what's your answer to kids getting chimical bombed then? Some harsh words? 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So what's your answer to kids getting chimical bombed then? Some harsh words? 

Depends. Is there an option on the table that will result in less of those kids dying now or later than the present situation? Will the US and UK limit their action to air and missile strikes only, and warn the Russians well ahead of time about where they're coming down? Is there a plan in place - at all - for a successor to Assad who won't be as bad?

 

It's easy to say Assad is a nasty piece of work and should be chucked out on his ear (and he is and he should be), but this seems an awful lot like foolhardiness to me.

[Innovindil]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Depends. Is there an option on the table that will result in less of those kids dying now or later than the present situation? Will the US and UK limit their action to air and missile strikes only, and warn the Russians well ahead of time about where they're coming down? Is there a plan in place - at all - for a successor to Assad who won't be as bad?

 

It's easy to say Assad is a nasty piece of work and should be chucked out on his ear (and he is and he should be), but this seems an awful lot like foolhardiness to me.

Considering the US, UK and France are all drawing up plans of action together, I'd expect whatever is decided to be proportional to the crime. 

 

I'm the last person to go warmongering, I believe it's mostly a massive waste of life and money, but we can't let dickheads popping off chemical weapons go unchecked.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Considering the US, UK and France are all drawing up plans of action together, I'd expect whatever is decided to be proportional to the crime. 

 

I'm the last person to go warmongering, I believe it's mostly a massive waste of life and money, but we can't let dickheads popping off chemical weapons go unchecked.

You're right. However, right now this doesn't seem proportionate and is drawn up solely on jingoistic emotionalism.

 

I hope that I'm wrong and there is, in fact, a careful plan, though.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

402 out of 2952 is not 'in the main'.

 

Its enough to create a moral panic...

 

which is discussed more here: https://articulatelive.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/new-media-new-moral-panics/#more-5295

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I'm no fan of the Guardian, but that's beyond harsh.

The Independent is the Daily Mail of the Left these days and definitely much worse than the Guardian, Since it's gone online order it's turned into really lowest common denominator clickbait. It's sad. I never read the paper but it at least was launched with noble aims of being bipartizan, but it reads like Buzzfeed these days.

 

I don’t know, have you seen the stuff buzzfeed are doing lately? 

 

Evening Standard keep flooding my Twitter feed with non-stories too.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

Great points to be fair, I'd argue it's a binding agreement (it is legally binding anyway, but treaties can be ended - although when the UK threatens to do it we're awful, and when France threatens to do it to us, it's totally fair apparently...) because it's been inextricably linked to greater defence cooperation after the Lancaster House Treaty. I'm sure there's always going to be a small chance the agreement could be ripped up since the politicians in and around Calais hate it, but France's top politicians and top military advisers won't want to risk their military cooperation with us. It actually even says that in the article. They even called it the Sandhurst Treaty since it was signed at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

 

"Officials said France was anxious not to prejudice Brexit negotiations on any future relationship between the UK and the EU, but was determined that Anglo-French ties “must not be weakened”. France hopes that Britain, described as a “vital” defence partner, will continue to play a strong role in European defence cooperation after Brexit, if not via a “special status” with the EU then through its ties with France."

 

There's just nothing in it for them to end it and ruin relations with us at all. We are vital to their (and EU in general) defence, and they'll be well aware of that.

 

I'm sure the French are keen on continued military cooperation. They're also keen on continued economic/social/regulatory/trade cooperation, but it looks as if we're heading for divergence there (if not, then what's Brexit all about - taking back control, then choosing to stay aligned?!). To be fair, military cooperation is probably even more important. I'm sure that the French/EU could live with conflict with the UK over trade/regulations, but military/diplomatic divergence would be a lot more disruptive - particularly at a time when Russia is aggressive and opportunistic, the USA more unpredictable than ever before, and when there are multiple flashpoints globally that could easily escalate.

 

But the importance of that close diplomatic/military alliance applies on both sides. Just as France/EU could be vulnerable or destabilised if the alliance fragmented, so could the UK. Maybe I'm misreading you, but I sense a bit of the old "they need us more than we need them" argument that Brexiteers used to make over EU trade, suggesting that the EU would capitulate to our demands because the Germans needed to export their cars to us. It wouldn't be a good idea for either the UK or France to use military cooperation to try to hold the other to ransom over border control, trade or anything else. I cannot imagine the other side accepting that and just capitulating over border control or whatever.

 

Of course, there are multiple different aspects to military/diplomatic cooperation: foreign policy, defence in Europe, research etc. In foreign policy outside Europe, we often cooperate but occasionally diverge already: France stayed out of Iraq, but seems more keen than the UK to take a hard line on Syria. Defence in Europe is the area where continued cooperation seems particularly important to both nations - and to the whole of Europe. With an unpredictable US President inclined towards isolationism and an aggressive, opportunistic Russian leadership, divisions between the two main military powers in Western Europe could cause dangerous weakness. In the longer-term, the EU clearly wants to develop a more united EU defence capability - whether that happens and how quickly is another matter. If it did, we might lose some influence - though if relations were good, presumably extensive cooperation could continue bilaterally or via NATO? It sounds as if the UK wants to pursue involvement in a lot of joint research (though much military research is national, anyway, I presume?). So we could be aiming for a close relationship on defence and research, but a much more fractious rivalry over economic/social frameworks and the terms for trade both in Europe and beyond. Whether good relations could be maintained under those circumstances is anybody's guess - possible, but less likely, I imagine.

 

Anyway, I'm just rambling and thinking aloud really. Defence isn't an area I'm knowledgeable about. Time for bed! 

[Beechey]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm sure the French are keen on continued military cooperation. They're also keen on continued economic/social/regulatory/trade cooperation, but it looks as if we're heading for divergence there (if not, then what's Brexit all about - taking back control, then choosing to stay aligned?!). To be fair, military cooperation is probably even more important. I'm sure that the French/EU could live with conflict with the UK over trade/regulations, but military/diplomatic divergence would be a lot more disruptive - particularly at a time when Russia is aggressive and opportunistic, the USA more unpredictable than ever before, and when there are multiple flashpoints globally that could easily escalate.

 

But the importance of that close diplomatic/military alliance applies on both sides. Just as France/EU could be vulnerable or destabilised if the alliance fragmented, so could the UK. Maybe I'm misreading you, but I sense a bit of the old "they need us more than we need them" argument that Brexiteers used to make over EU trade, suggesting that the EU would capitulate to our demands because the Germans needed to export their cars to us. It wouldn't be a good idea for either the UK or France to use military cooperation to try to hold the other to ransom over border control, trade or anything else. I cannot imagine the other side accepting that and just capitulating over border control or whatever.

 

Of course, there are multiple different aspects to military/diplomatic cooperation: foreign policy, defence in Europe, research etc. In foreign policy outside Europe, we often cooperate but occasionally diverge already: France stayed out of Iraq, but seems more keen than the UK to take a hard line on Syria. Defence in Europe is the area where continued cooperation seems particularly important to both nations - and to the whole of Europe. With an unpredictable US President inclined towards isolationism and an aggressive, opportunistic Russian leadership, divisions between the two main military powers in Western Europe could cause dangerous weakness. In the longer-term, the EU clearly wants to develop a more united EU defence capability - whether that happens and how quickly is another matter. If it did, we might lose some influence - though if relations were good, presumably extensive cooperation could continue bilaterally or via NATO? It sounds as if the UK wants to pursue involvement in a lot of joint research (though much military research is national, anyway, I presume?). So we could be aiming for a close relationship on defence and research, but a much more fractious rivalry over economic/social frameworks and the terms for trade both in Europe and beyond. Whether good relations could be maintained under those circumstances is anybody's guess - possible, but less likely, I imagine.

 

Anyway, I'm just rambling and thinking aloud really. Defence isn't an area I'm knowledgeable about. Time for bed! 

You half misunderstood me. In terms of raw military capability, we are a more important ally to them than they are to us, we just have a more generally capable and deployable military (intelligence too, specifically signals intelligence from GCHQ). But that's not me attempting to downplay their importance to us, they're nothing short of vital for us. We work together on more or less every issue that could exist cross-border. I'd possibly put them as our most important ally right now, not in terms of strategic or military importance, but certainly in terms of diplomatic importance. They're more in-step with us, and we with them, than either of us are with the USA on a myriad of issues. Again it's all silly speculation, we're never going to break off military relations. It's unthinkable. I think at worst there'd be some bluster about Calais, we'd give them some support and that would be it for another 5-10 years.

 

The issue with a united EU defence policy is its mental fighting capacity. They'd need an entrenched European identity, similar to a national one, where soldiers from Portugal would want to fight for Polish land or security. Then there's how to deal with neutral nations like Ireland and Austria, and the EU's deployability and command structures. A proper military won't happen for a very long time, but they'll crawl towards it, building capabilities. We'll probably help them because we gain nothing from a weak Europe, when clearly our main adversary is Russia. We would probably use the influence we have to try and steer the EU capability (and they would probably do it naturally anyway) towards combating Russia. And yeah, we're going to continue with NATO and so will they, everyone recognises its the cornerstone of European defence.

 

Night bud!

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Rogstanley]

7 hours ago, Beechey said:

I'm failing to see how you're not grasping my point:

 

• When we raise interest rates, people will save more money, meaning they will spend less, because that gains them more interest.
• Lowering income tax by whatever the equivalent of reducing tariffs on some clothing would be (probably something unbelievably low like 0.1%) would do nothing for poor people who pay no income tax anyway.
• If people are saving more because of higher interest rates (which they will), then a logical step would be to try and urge them to spend, one way to do so would be to try to lower prices.
• To do so you have basically two choices: subsidise UK industry (there basically isn't one), or lower tariffs so imports become cheaper.

 

Lowering VAT (just saw the last post, VAT is a good option for the poor, it's frankly too high anyway) or income tax by the same cost as it would cost the Treasury to remove some tariffs (again I'd imagine like £300-£500m of the £3bn total at most, probably overestimating it by a long shot), the effect would be minimal. Lower prices helps the poor because they, as a proportion of total income spend vastly the most on shoes and basic clothing items. Lower prices helps spur the economy. With higher interest rates, people will spend less, so we also have to try and get people to spend, which lower prices will do. Lower VAT (by whatever the same proportion of lower tariffs would be, let's say £300m, which I still think would be far too high), would only account for 0.2% of the total VAT intake, it's just not as good as targeting the lower prices on items that people require frequently and also the poor spend disproportionally more on.

 

How are you not seeing the obvious benefits? There's a reason people like trade agreements, because it makes goods cheaper. This also makes goods cheaper, except we can't do it inside the EU.

VAT can be reduced or removed selectively as well. There are already various different rates and exemptions for different types of products so it wouldn't be anything new. The fact is that if the government wanted to use a growth-generated surplus on helping the poor or increasing consumer spending they could do so in a myriad ways pre-brexit. The new option of being able to reduce or remove tariffs is indeed a new option, and more options are generally better than fewer options, but will these new powers ever be used for the purpose you're describing? Quite frankly I'll believe it when I see it.