Sal Paradise wrote:The only nations wanting out would surely be those who contribute financially to the EU e.g. Germany, France - there is no way they are going to abandon the EU - so that leaves Italy and Netherlands? I agree it is going to be tough for the UK to negotiate no change without any financial contribution. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318 There are a few others that contribute, and if you look at it per capita Sweden would be quite high up, for example. Each country will have it’s own concerns, and like the UK, may want to put sovereignty ahead of immediate economic interest... to a point. Therefore, the EU has to balance its desire for a good deal for us and them, with a need to demonstrate to its member states that they are better off in. Unlike the divorce deal, which was just us agonising about which off the peg offer we wanted, I think here it’ll be more complicated - with each of the EU27 wanting to ‘help’ shape the deal. Assuming there’s no extension, i expect it’ll be a pretty basic and limited initial deal. With a few ‘stop-gaps’ where an extension is needed but they want to pretend that it hasn’t happened. So, as a first step, they’ll need to negotiate and agree on priorities, which’ll run the clock down a bit. Sal Paradise wrote:I agree - I don't think the outcomes will be anywhere as catastrophic as have been predicted - they never are. Business is a very resourceful animal it will cope with change it might be a bit painful to be begin with I don’t think it’ll be catastrophic on a national level. But that ain’t the strongest endorsement. It depends on the shape of the deal, but there’s bound to be some pain and disappointment. ‘Not a catastrophe’ feels like a way of trying to limit the latter. But while there is truth in the ‘no pain, no gain’ exercise mantra, pain isn’t a guarantee of gain, and the gains still look limited to me. Then again, stuff like challenges around managing workplace automation to benefit the many, and environmental stability are of much greater concern and interest to me than the ECJ or EU immigration.

Sal Paradise wrote:The only nations wanting out would surely be those who contribute financially to the EU e.g. Germany, France - there is no way they are going to abandon the EU - so that leaves Italy and Netherlands? I agree it is going to be tough for the UK to negotiate no change without any financial contribution. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318 There are a few others that contribute, and if you look at it per capita Sweden would be quite high up, for example. Each country will have it’s own concerns, and like the UK, may want to put sovereignty ahead of immediate economic interest... to a point. Therefore, the EU has to balance its desire for a good deal for us and them, with a need to demonstrate to its member states that they are better off in. Unlike the divorce deal, which was just us agonising about which off the peg offer we wanted, I think here it’ll be more complicated - with each of the EU27 wanting to ‘help’ shape the deal. Assuming there’s no extension, i expect it’ll be a pretty basic and limited initial deal. With a few ‘stop-gaps’ where an extension is needed but they want to pretend that it hasn’t happened. So, as a first step, they’ll need to negotiate and agree on priorities, which’ll run the clock down a bit. Sal Paradise wrote:I agree - I don't think the outcomes will be anywhere as catastrophic as have been predicted - they never are. Business is a very resourceful animal it will cope with change it might be a bit painful to be begin with I don’t think it’ll be catastrophic on a national level. But that ain’t the strongest endorsement. It depends on the shape of the deal, but there’s bound to be some pain and disappointment. ‘Not a catastrophe’ feels like a way of trying to limit the latter. But while there is truth in the ‘no pain, no gain’ exercise mantra, pain isn’t a guarantee of gain, and the gains still look limited to me. Then again, stuff like challenges around managing workplace automation to benefit the many, and environmental stability are of much greater concern and interest to me than the ECJ or EU immigration.

Then we don't agree; I think it will be bloody awful - and 'not a catastrophe' is setting the bar very low; that allows for all sorts of negative impacts up to but not including a catastrophe, that you deem as acceptable. Either way, 'not a catastrophe' is a very long way from the sunny uplands, Brexit bonanza type bollox that we've been bombarded with for what seems an interminable period of time.

This argument 'it is never as bad as they say' often gets brought out when Brexit or climate change is brought up.

But if Jeremy Corbyn had been elected.....well we'd have seen a mass exodus and the destruction of the UK economy as we know it.

Funny that isnt it?

They wouldn't because what would be the incentive to wanting out....if you have to align standards anyway. You become what Boris calls a 'vassal state'.

I expect the EU will look for a free trade deal that involves free trade in goods, but it won't cover services. Most of the big EU countries are mostly goods-based economies whereas the UK is primarily services-based. Locking down free-trade with the UK so they can access the UK easily for goods exports will satisfy national interests but they will also want to keep barriers up for UK services (particularly financial services) firms so they can try to compete away investment from the UK.

Whilst that kind of deal will be of limited benefit to the UK, Boris would be tempted to go for it as it would be easy to sell as 'comprehensive, tariff free, will mean you don't pay any more for goods you buy from the EU' and his cheerleaders in the media will be ready to paint that as a great negotiating success.

Agrifood will be the big stumbling block for the UK, we will need to exclude agrifoods from a deal with the EU if we want a credible deal from the US but that will be very painful for the UK food industry if they one face cheap, substandard imports coming in from the US undercutting them here, and also face considerable barriers (and the EU by nature is very protectionist to outsiders on agrifoods) when accessing the EU. It would wipe out a large section of the UK's agrifoods industry especially smaller farmers.

I think over the next 2 years we will start seeing the tales of the 'betrayed by Brexit' - groups who mostly voted Brexit and have been sacrificed by the government in pursuit of the wider trade agenda. The first two to look for will be the fisheries and farmers. Fisheries because the EU have a very tight deadline on the UK to get this agreed this summer, and the EU fishing nations basically want access to UK waters, the whole thing that Farage was stirring the fishing communities up about. It will be a difficult compromise to back down on that, but Boris will probably calculate that they are a small interest group overall. Farage has seen the writing on the wall over this, he was saying the other week 'look as a Brexiteer I won't get everything I want, there will be all sorts of compromises made over fishing and so on'.

Yeah I think fishing, being a tiny % of the UK economy, but control over our waters being seen a symbolic of sovereignty will the first trade-off. Trawlermen will be joining the DUP in the pissed-off brexiteers box.

May be a bit of a boost for the SNP, as fishing is proportionally bigger north of the border and whenever the news wanted to find an anti-EU Scot for balance they seemed to head straight for the fishing ports.

It will be interesting to see if the Conservative / right wing media core narrative will be just to burn each group one by one.

One difference I have definitely noticed between the Conservatives in the 1980s/90s and these days is that back then they still argued on some ideological vision of hope: markets are good, we're the party of enabling home ownership, share ownership, enterprise, etc. These days they have retreated in to a variant of "life is tough, the world doesn't owe you a living".

When people talk about housing, back in the 80s/90s it was "we're the party who enables lower-middle income people to get on to the housing ladder", now it's "you don't have a God given right to have a house".

When it comes to student funding, in the 80s/90s it was free tuition fees and grants provided by the Tory government, now it's "why give money to snowflakes to study gender studies".

What's also interesting is how they are willing to burn off groups that would have previously been Tory supporters. In the 80s/90s the Tories would have been the natural party of the solicitor, judge, doctor....now they are all "the metropolitan elite establishment". Down in the southern commuter belt, where the train service is terrible, you see similar attitudes being used when people in the Tory shires complain about the train services. "If you object to the price then use your car, or move house closer to your job". Or you get snarky 'opinion pieces' written by the controversial columnists like one I saw which responded to a story complaining about how lots of South Eastern trains have no functioning toilets available for 2 hour journeys, to give a big lecture on "if you're an adult and you can't go 2 hours without needing the toilet there's something wrong with you".

It's an attitude borne out of knowing there are problems that the Conservatives either don't have the ability or inclination to solve, so instead just have a go at the people complaining.

The Unionists in Northern Ireland used to be seen as natural allies for the 'Conservative and Unionist' party but Boris burned them over the border down the Irish sea and I expect their supporters in the media will eagerly lay in to the unionists if they start kicking up a fuss about it.

And the pattern will continue with groups like the fishermen and farmers and people in northern industries that face closures after Brexit. If compromises are made for a deal with the EU or US that sell them down the river, expect the Conservatives and their media to close ranks and turn on those groups if they start complaining.

Excellent post.

Since 2008, Brits seem to have been made to feel like they don't deserve anything, especially when it comes to investment in education, local and national services, personal reward, etc.

Ever since the crash of 2008, there has been a frightening number of people who bang on about not spending beyond the country's means, reducing the deficit, not expecting pay rises, tightening belts, cutting cloth etc., yet they don't seem to have any problem whatsoever with the top earners multiplying their earnings ten or sometimes a hundred fold in the very same austere times. In fact, as you will see on these very pages, there are people who will happily defend and justify it. It's perverse.

The North of England are still running trains which were supposed to be a temporary measure in the 1980s, but don't upset the billionaires, or tax them too much, they might leave the country with their billions.

But all that was brought out into the open - the stuff about the words on the bus etc all the doom mongers like yourself on the potential downsides of leaving were all known at the time of the GE and still people voted in large numbers for a party that was intent on leaving the EU - as the saying goes "You can fool some all the time, all some of the time but you can't fool all all the time" So what happened?

This post is typical of the left - where meritocracy has no place - we must drag the top down and not the bottom up. If you want the best talent to run your big companies you have to pay them what the market pays - this is a global employment market. Yes you will get some that don't work out but on the whole it works. People don't seem to have a problem paying to watch footballers where the multiple of their earnings to the fans paying to watch them will be stratospheric for what 90 minutes of entertainment - so why is the CEO who actually generates value so despised?

I agree about the trains but that has gone on since Blair - the idea that it takes 1 hour to do the 30 miles from Leeds to Manchester is bonkers. Tax collecting is a delicate balance push it too far and your take is less - I know the top earners 1% of earners paying c30% of the tax is not enough for you but if you push it much more they will find ways around it and who is going to pick up the slack?