UK newspaper urges readers to buy BDX before Brexit

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:24 pm

You know I love you, Comte, I’ve read every word, including passages that were deleted.
I have enjoyed Mark’s contributions here as well over the years.
I’ve actually enjoyed this discussion — very informative — except for the acerbic stuff.
No need for it to get personal, everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:22 am

Jim
The thread started with a newspaper article about the effect of Brexit on the Bordeaux wine trade.
And I have actually tried to bring it back to that.

My fundamental argument was that supply and demand drive markets, not bureaucratic fiat.

You may also like to know that I made a contribution to the success of various Australian wine brands in international markets through consulting work.
And that includes Yellowtail (I did work for the then Australian Wine Research Institute some decades ago).
And I never said it was bad wine. I just don't like it!!!
I also don't like Coca Cola and other soda drinks but c'est la vie.

If you listen to Comte, it is as if the entire UK will cease to exist due to Brexit.
It won't.
And many issues (eg, the Irish border) can be readily resolved with a simple agreement between the two govts to keep the border open.
It should have nothing to do with the EU.
If the EU sees as its mission to punish the UK as much as it can for its "incorrect" Brexit vote, then the EU will simply make itself a pariah in many circles.
If so, it will intentionally damage the nation states within the EU as well as the UK.
Trade exists as it benefits both parties, and I seriously think that simple analogy has been lost in this debate.

It is also worth noting that the massive growth in recent decades in China (and various other Asian nations) has come because the CCP has actually loosed the reigns, formed special economic zones and actively sought investment.
And no, i do NOT like the CCP nor any other authoritarian govt and that is where my frustration with Europe and the EU starts.
Europe as a whole has experienced low economic growth for the last thirty or so years.
Many EU zone nations have half or more of their GDP controlled by govt. That in fact is well above the Chinese level.
Unemployment especially for young people in high in the EU, especially southern Europe.

And at the same time, the EU which is not a nation state has built a series of empires and spends at least E145B (2015 data - can't find any more recent data).
So my argument is one of economic efficiency.
Change the EU into a common market which is what the UK agreed to (despite being blocked previously) in the first place.

Incidentally, whilst China is a big market for French wine - and realistically the Chinese are still impressed by famous Chateau names - future increases will be hard to come by for numerous reasons I have written about elsewhere.
With the Gilets Jaunes movement continuing in France, I cannot see any chance that the French govt will not be quick to stitch up deals with the UK irrespective of what the EU may want or think.
The same applies for Italy and Spain who are more dependent on revenue from wine sales than France.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:46 am

All very interesting Mark, but I think that when you stick in words like “if you listen to Comte, Britain will cease to exist,” I think that’s some of the type of language that makes it personal and invites some of the bad feelings that have developed in this thread. I certainly don’t think that is what Comte is saying. I just think both sides can make their passionate points without the need to make such personal insults that we know are going to serve no other purpose than to create some bad blood on this otherwise very friendly wine website. None of it bothers me personally, it’s only words, I fight with people all day long every day of the week, but I can certainly see how it can upset others.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:59 am

“If you listen to Comte, it is as if the entire UK will cease to exist due to Brexit.
It won't.
And many issues (eg, the Irish border) can be readily resolved with a simple agreement between the two govts to keep the border open.
It should have nothing to do with the EU.
If the EU sees as its mission to punish the UK as much as it can for its "incorrect" Brexit vote, then the EU will simply make itself a pariah in many circles.
If so, it will intentionally damage the nation states within the EU as well as the UK.
Trade exists as it benefits both parties, and I seriously think that simple analogy has been lost in this debate.

Mark you really do not understand how the EU and the process works. Please read my post of eight days ago, it has quite a few links which will help you understand that none of this is as easy as it may look from the outside.

You need to understand the history of the troubles and the Irish question, how the Good Friday Agreement came about, how it was only possible by being by being predicated on both countries remaining in the EU, how the UK would potentially ride roughshod over Ireland given many in the Conservative Party don’t care about this issue and that a reawakening of sectarian violence on the island of Ireland would be a price worth paying to get a clean Brexit, and how the EU-27 is supporting Ireland and not the country that chose to leave. It is also worth noting that the UK agreed to a frictionless border in 2017. The notion that the EU is trying to punish the UK is appealing but also fundamentally misguided. The EU’s main objective is to protect the union. If it allowed the UK to cherry pick all the best bits the Union might unravel, and they cannot take that risk.

The most risible was your theory that the Commonwealth could come to the UK’s rescue. It is difficult not to be sarcastic when demolishing that canard.

I must admit I lashed out at you in my last post, after your serial insults and abuse, which should have no place on a wine forum. It was out of frustration not so much at your ad hominem attacks...they just reflect badly on you and are water off a duck’s back for me...but your misinformed, populist and dogmatic opinions and sheer reluctance to take on board a reasoned analysis of the facts.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:51 pm

Mark,

Ian is a friend, so I really think it is best to remove the personal stuff and stick to a debate of ideas.

Of course, no one is going to argue that supply and demand are not the keys to the equation! However, “bureaucratic fiat” as you put it can unquestionably change things. Wealthy people will always want, and obtain, whatever they want, whatever the cost. But Joe Bloggs will be guided by the price tag. Therefore, if customs tariffs increase the price of French wine shipped to the UK, demand will inevitably suffer.
No?
Would not French wines be on a level playing field with wines from outside Europe more than they are now, and lose even more market share?
And that would be despite the fact that French wines can, in my opinion, hold their own in the affordable price bracket with wines from anywhere else.
However, the French are unfortunately not very good at marketing, as opposed to a number of extra-European brands.

I wish things were as simple as you way, when you write “many issues (eg, the Irish border) can be readily resolved with a simple agreement between the two govts to keep the border open.
It should have nothing to do with the EU”.
This issue is, in fact, very complex, because Britain’s departure must necessarily create a land border with the EU, and is a huge bone of contention. This is compounded by the fact that Theresa May cannot govern without support of Democratic Union Party MPs…
The British and EU viewpoints on this matter appear to be irreconcilable. Indeed, this is the chief stumbling block to finding an agreement on Brexit.
I would also point out that minds much better than yours or mine have tried to come up with an acceptable compromise, but failed. It’s like saying “The Israelis have only to trade land to form a Palestinian state in exchange for a peace treaty, and problem solved”.
As for the Irish border, it could be that technology will be the answer in years to come, but such technology does not exist today.

A theme you mention is that the EU wishes to “punish” Britain. I really don’t see that since an agreement was hammered out after long arduous negotiations.
It must be said, though, that it would have been impossible for the balance of power to tilt towards the UK (1 against 27…). If things were as simple as changing your socks, other countries would be tempted to follow. Yes, there is that too.
I think that it is far more a case of the British shooting themselves in the foot than the Europeans. While it is true that a chunk of the EUs budget will be amputated, Britain takes in more goods from the EU than the opposite! OK, that is off the subject of just wine, but continuing that line of thought, just imagine the chaos in the City of London:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... cle-course

As you say, efficiency is not the byword of the European Union… Not only are the institutions rather undemocratic (or, shall we say, unaccountable to the people), but the EU fostered economic union *before* political union, thereby putting the cart before the horse – a big no-no.
That having been said, a return to a “common market” is impossible. That page has been turned, forever.
Apparently, a vote on the 12th of March in Parliament will be decisive.
Ain’t much wiggle room left between then and the 29th is there?

Where I agree with you is that the sky will not fall down if no deal is reached by then, which seems likely. A transition period will be instituted
The Brits will continue to drink tea and carry on

.

When I asked a pro-Brexit friend recently, “If the British economy suffers markedly, will the purported increase in sovereignty be worth it?”, he unhesitatingly answered “Yes”.
That just about sums up the Brexit issue.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:28 pm

Alex/Jim
My dad was born in Dublin in 1911 and lived through many yrs of occupation by British troops. Surprisingly he joined the British army but he always resented the occupation of Ireland. He once told me a story where some locals were killed by the Brits for refusing to speak English. So I still wonder about his choice to join them in 1936....
And having heard many stories about the occupation I don’t need anyone else to explaining it to me.
Given the troubles of the past I also can’t really take the issue of the Irish border as being more than a symbolic gesture.

I am glad that supply and demand exists or else being in Singapore I would soon starve to death and never be able to drink wine. And Singapore as a country did not exist prior to 1965 making me older than the country.

Which comes to my point. Markets work more efficiently without large doses of bureaucratic fiat. Maybe “Punish” was not the essence of what I meant. Maybe I should have said agreements that do not focus on achieving rational market access. And I still don’t expect to see the pins denied access to French wines.

I however was NOT kidding when I said that Aust wine companies are watching the events hoping for more market opportunities and I’m sure many others are doing the same. Yet I do hope that some degree of sanity prevails though I am sadly seeing less of that these days.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:58 pm

I truly am enjoying this discussion, I find it very interesting, you all are obviously very knowledgeable and passionate on the subject.
I've been following it on a much more superficial level from this side of the pond.
And I appreciate the effort to respond without personal insults.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:02 pm

+1 to what Jim said.

jal · Post by **jal** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:41 pm

I don't have much to add to this discussion, I can see both sides, and while I agree mostly with the following NYTimes opinion written about six months ago regarding the cause for Brexit: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/opin ... rexit.html It does feel like the UK shot itself in the foot in order to prove a point, though.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:39 pm

JimHow wrote:I truly am enjoying this discussion, I find it very interesting, you all are obviously very knowledgeable and passionate on the subject.
I've been following it on a much more superficial level from this side of the pond.
And I appreciate the effort to respond without personal insults.

Same here. Brexit was just a headline or a soundbite to me before this thread. I've learned a lot.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:28 pm

None of you have learned anything at all from Mark on Brexit. Where are his sources?

All you have from him is reclcyed, vile, cancerous propaganda from the Murdoch tabloids, opinions and myths. Mark has demonstrated he knows nothing about the Brexit, the EU and the Irish question.

He has provided zero references to back up his arguments. He has not even bothered to delve into the Murdoch press, which supports Brexit.

If you want to understand what Brexit is about I can recommend two world authorities, Sir Ivan Rogers and Professor Chris Grey.

I can provide plenty more authorative academic sources on request.

It saddens me that I am the one having been serially abused and insulted gets censored, by the so called team leader, and everyone else sits in the fence saying what an interesting debate and how much they have learned.

Fairweather friends indeed.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:30 am

Ian, actually Alex has added something to the conversation, including

>>
When I asked a pro-Brexit friend recently, “If the British economy suffers markedly, will the purported increase in sovereignty be worth it?”, he unhesitatingly answered “Yes”.
That just about sums up the Brexit issue.
>>

In the USA people voted against their own economic self interests by voting for Trump; in particular, it was obvious pre election that any tax reduction would work to the advantage of the wealthy rather than the middle class. Why? In Brexit it looks the same. I mean, it looks obvious that Brexit is a loser economically for the average UK citizen and nothing said in this thread suggests that the obvious is wrong. But why did people vote against their self interest?

Is the answer in both cases Xenophobia and Nationalism?

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:52 am

stefan wrote:Ian, actually Alex has added something to the conversation, including

>>
When I asked a pro-Brexit friend recently, “If the British economy suffers markedly, will the purported increase in sovereignty be worth it?”, he unhesitatingly answered “Yes”.
That just about sums up the Brexit issue.
>>

In the USA people voted against their own economic self interests by voting for Trump; in particular, it was obvious pre election that any tax reduction would work to the advantage of the wealthy rather than the middle class. Why? In Brexit it looks the same. I mean, it looks obvious that Brexit is a loser economically for the average UK citizen and nothing said in this thread suggests that the obvious is wrong. But why did people vote against their self interest?

Is the answer in both cases Xenophobia and Nationalism?

It's the exact parallel what I was thinking, stefan. In both the cases, I feel it's more than Xenophobia and Nationalism. I feel it's more about unwilling to accept their own mistake about the choice they made, and willing to justify their choice by highlighting the meager gains resulting from their choice instead of weighing them against the higher overall losses....

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:14 am

Chateau Vin/stefan
Whilst you have both quoted the same comment, your interpretation of it is entirely different.

To many Brexiters, including some older relatives of mine, they would define the EU per se as a huge mistake, not Brexit.
And that is why everyone here is not going to agree.

The UK voted 2:1 to join the common market, after the French blocked them previously, and both those points were not lost on Brexiters.
One of the main points made by the Brexit campaigners was that the UK never voted to join the EU in its current form, but DID vote for a trading bloc.
That is why I have repeatedly pointed that out. The younger voters were not even around when the UK joined in Jan 1 1973. My own relatives continually made that point leading up to Brexit (and I was there for the month or so prior to the vote).
Will either sides ever agree?
Of course not, largely as they are seeing the entire issue from a different perspective.

If any of you think I was for Brexit, you are wrong. I had no leaning either way, and in fact was concerned that the UK would be in a weaker economic position after Brexit.
But the events since the actual vote have shown me that the entire process was a disaster to start off with, and nothing has got better.
Yet I also maintain that irrespective of that, the UK must continue with Brexit - the govt gave the people the vote and cannot reasonably complain now.

I just want to make a parallel with Singapore.
SIngapore was in fact kicked out of the union with Malaysia in 1965 as the two countries had both racial and political differences and Malaysia would not accept SIngapore's desire for being a separate state within Malaysia on their own terms. The riots of 1964 (of which the actual scale has arguably been over-stated over the years) hastened the separation but Singapore did not leave voluntarily.
The usual erudite commentators saw the political and economic demise of SIngapore and few thought such a tiny port country would succeed with nil resources, virtually no arable land (nothing grows in the soil here except weeds and certain trees) and a tiny population. Singapore still relies on Malaysia for water supplies let alone food.

Singapore is now in the top handful of countries economically with per capita GDP equivalent to the USA.
Unfortunately, Malaysia has continued being something of a kleptocracy. The 1MBD scandal is simply one example of a Marcos-style political system. Per capita GDP is about one-sixth that of SIngapore despite fertile land and abundant natural resources.

So will there be a period of adjustment, some problems and ongoing disputes over the whole thing?
Of course there will. Any change causes pain, but trade will continue and as I first stated, I cannot see the Poms missing out on French wine.
Having said that, I have been eyeing off the prices of major Aust wine companies and they are starting to look a good buy........

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:39 am

What was Brexit about? Was it about immigration? Xenophobia? An overbearing European super state? The latter does not exist, only in febrile imaginations of Brexit fantasists. The EU is a union of 28 sovereign nation states, with the 19 that are part of the single currency having to pool sovereignty to make the single currency work. The UK is a permanent opt-out from the euro. For the record 1% of UK public spending (0.4% of GDP) is sent to Brussels, and economists variously estimate the return on that investment to between 4% and 5% of GDP, or around 1000%. For the UK being in the EU is a no-brainer.

http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analy ... igh-costs/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 50626.html

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-memb ... 5-million/

The story of Brexit goes back to 1988, when EU Commission President Jacques Delors, who the Murdoch tabloid press depicted as a monster, addressed the Labour Party conference promising a soft socialist nirvana of labor regulations and European integration. Having been suspicious of the EU as a corporatist/capitalist enterprise the Labour Party suddenly fell in love with the EU. Mrs Thatcher in her famous Bruges speech a few weeks later railed against Delors’ vision of a European super-state and British euro-scepticism – the Bruges Group - was born in the Conservative Party.

I will hand the story to Simon Kuper an FT journalist to explain how these Old Etonian Oxbridge elites plotted Brexit. This article was written two weeks after the referendum.

To understand the situation the UK has got itself into, it helps to know that Brexit isn’t simply an anti-elitist revolt. Rather, it is an anti-elitist revolt led by an elite — a coup by one set of public schoolboys against another.

I went to university with both sets, and with hindsight I watched Brexit in the making. When I arrived at Oxford in 1988, David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove had just left the place. George Osborne and the future Brexiters Jacob Rees-Mogg and Daniel Hannan were all contemporaries of mine.

I wasn’t close to them, because politically minded public schoolboys inhabited their own Oxford bubble. They had clubs like the Bullingdon that we middle-class twerps had never even heard of. Their favourite hang-out was the Oxford Union, a kind of children’s parliament that organises witty debates. A sample topic: “That sex is good . . . but success is better”, in 1978, with Theresa May speaking against the motion. May is now running for Tory leader without the usual intermediate step of having been Union president, though her husband Philip, Gove and Johnson did all hold that post. (Beautifully, Gove campaigned for Johnson’s election in 1986.)

You could recognise Oxford Union “hacks” by the suits they wore, though none took it as far as Rees-Mogg, a rail-thin teenager who promenaded along Broad Street dressed like a Victorian vicar with an umbrella. Three times a year, when the Union elected new officers, the hacks would go around town tapping up ordinary students with the phrase, “May I count on your vote?” The traditional climax of a Union election was one Etonian backstabbing another for the presidency.

It’s no coincidence that the Houses of Parliament look like a massive great Gothic public school. That building is a magnet for this set. Whereas ordinary Britons learn almost no history at school except a UK-centric take on the second world war (as evidenced in the Brexit debate), the Union hacks spent their school years imbibing British parliamentary history. Their heroes were great parliamentarians such as Palmerston, Gladstone and Churchill. I don’t think most Union hacks dreamed of making policy. Rather, Westminster was simply the sort of public-school club where they felt at home — or in the case of middle-class wannabes like Gove, aspired to feel at home.

Their chief interest was oratory. From age six they had been educated above all to speak and write well. After Oxford, Union hacks usually found jobs in communications: Cameron went into PR, while Gove, Johnson and Hannan became journalists churning out the kind of provocative essays that are valued at Oxford. Osborne applied to do likewise at the Economist but was turned down at interview by my FT colleague Gideon Rachman. Only Rees-Mogg went into finance, possibly because his dad had already been editor of the Times.

The autumn I started university, Margaret Thatcher gave her legendary anti-European “Bruges speech”, and this set began obsessing about Brussels. Ruling Britain was their prerogative; they didn’t want outsiders muscling in. Tory “Euroscepticism” is in part a jobs protection scheme akin to Parisian taxi drivers opposing Uber.

The public schoolboys spent decades trying to get British voters angry about the EU. But as Gove admitted to me in 2005, ordinary voters never took much interest. Perhaps they didn’t care whether they were ruled by a faraway elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster. And so the public schoolboys focused the Brexit campaign on an issue many ordinary Britons do care about: immigration. To people like Johnson, the campaign was an Oxford Union debate writ large. Once again, their chief weapons were rhetoric and humour. In Britain, humour is used to cut off conversations when they threaten either to achieve emotional depth or to get boring or technical. Hence Johnson’s famous, “My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it”, a line that doesn’t seem quite so funny now.

The moment Brexit was achieved, Johnson and Hannan airily informed Britons that immigration would continue after all. No wonder, because the public schoolboys don’t care about immigration. Whether Poles and Bangladeshis live in unfashionable English provincial towns is a matter of supreme indifference to them.

The public schoolboys turned out to have no plan for executing Brexit. I’m guessing they considered this a boring governance issue best left to swotty civil servants. Johnson actually spent the Sunday after Brexit playing cricket. In the great public-school tradition, he was a dilettante “winging it”.

Now Britain seems headed for recession. When I mentioned this in an email to a privately educated Oxford friend, he chastised me: “You seem unduly concerned about short-term financial impacts. This is a victory for democracy.” I see what he means. If you make £200,000 a year, a recession is just an irritation. But if you make £20,000, it’s a personal crisis, and if you now make £15,000, then soon you may be struggling to feed your children.

Anyway, the public schoolboys have already moved on, first backstabbing each other and now extracting favours from their preferred candidates in the Tory leadership election. “May I count on your vote?” What fun!

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:41 am

As Kuper articulates before Brexit reared its ugly head the British electorate really couldn’t care less, or get agitated about the EU, despite the Murdoch and other right-wing press outlets making up stories about purported intrusive EU bureaucracy and regulations. The disseminator-in-chief of these lies was Boris Johnson, who was fired from the Times for making up lies when he was a journalist in Brussels.

ttps://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

As the link shows these euro myths started in the early 1990s, soon after euro-scepticism was born. The Brits laughed about fictious looney regulations over the shape of bananas but really couldn’t care less. As Kuper observed these anti-EU English nationalist-elitists made no headway in corralling British public opinion on the EU. For many years the top three issues for the British public were the cherished state-run National Health Service (which saved my life), the economy and immigration. Their repeated attempts to conflate the issues of immigration and Europe came to nought.

Until UKIP came along. The UK Independence Party – similar to Le Pen’s Front far right National in France – in around 2011 gained traction on an anti-EU, anti-immigration platform. This was after the accession of eight countries mainly from central and eastern Europe in 2004, after which migration soared. UKIP succeeded where the Conservative (Tory) Party euro-sceptics failed. Alarmingly for then prime minister David Cameron, UKIP began to erode the Conservative vote. By threatening a fissure and defections, UKIP posed an existential threat to the Conservative Party.

Cameron reacted by lurching his party to the right and embracing a softer version of UKIP rhetoric, pledging an in-out referendum from the EU. This was in spite of sage warnings from many quarters that a referendum would open a huge can of worms and would be a dangerous and reckless gamble. But being a gambler by instinct – after all he gambled on the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and won, albeit not without an almighty scare which nearly saw Scotland secede from the UK – he nevertheless ploughed ahead.

Cameron was so complacent, irresponsible and reckless that he did not even plan for the possibility that he might lose the referendum, let along commission studies into the costs and benefits of leaving the EU. Contrast this with Gordon Brown, who was PM between 2007 and 2010, and who commissioned 23 studies into joining the euro, before concluding, on the basis of those studies that it was not in the British national interest to do so.

So the Brexit referendum was held purely for narrow Tory Party tactical advantage, not in the wider national interest. As noted, Cameron lazily assumed that he would win while the Leave campaign funded by opaque outside interests – the likes of Robert Mercer and Vladimir Putin – went into Big Data overdrive. Putin had every incentive to try to influence the Brexit referendum, because it was a great opportunity to undermine the EU, which had imposed sanctions on Moscow for annexing Crimea and occupying eastern Ukraine. Brexit was an expression of the hybrid war that Putin was waging against the west. Brexit comes up as a topic of interest in the Mueller investigation time and time again.

Three years ago was the emerging era of ‘post-truth’ and ‘fake news’ and the Brexit campaign used them in social media to devastating effect by targeting potential waverers. And the leitmotif was that if you are going to lie then lie big. The most infamous lie was that Brexit would save the UK £350m a week and that money could be funnelled into the NHS, the most cherished of national institutions. This figure was arrived at by dividing Britain’s gross annual contribution by 52, failing to take into account that the UK get money back from the EU, and by reducing trade opportunities, the economy would be smaller under Brexit. In fact a doppelganger would suggest the economy is already roughly 2.3% smaller as a result of Brexit uncertainty and we haven’t even left yet – ironically that works out at about £350m a week.

https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-september-2018

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/l ... rexit-lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxWiRz6A9E

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... f-migrants

Another even more egregious lie was that the day after the referendum the EU would start talks for Turkish accession and the country would be inundated with Turkish muslims. The Remain campaign was pathetic, and just warned voters of potentially catastrophic economic implications of leaving, which the nimble and clever leave campaign immediately dismissed as project fear. After the referendum there was massive monetary stimulus which prevented the confidence shock turning into a big economic shock, but rather than hit the wall the economy is bleeding from 1000 self-inflicted cuts.

Of course the sky won’t fall in after Brexit, and there will still be trade – in goods. But if the current deal goes through trade in services, on which the UK thrives, will be significantly curtailed, which will make Britain significantly poorer in the long term, compared to the status quo. Unless we leave without a deal (only 5% probability) we will not be faced with the horrifying prospect of drinking Aussie wine or going teetotal. As for comparisons between Malaysia and Singapore, the comparison is utterly spurious for reasons I could expand on, though I would note in passing Singapore is not really a democracy. Democracy is not always a first best solution – that is another discussion, though it does apply to the Brexit referendum, which was so misguided. Like Lady Macbeth David Cameron will have this damning legacy and blood on his hands for the rest of his life.

Brexit can and should be reversed. At the very least the British electorate should be given the opportunity to think again, because while the sky won’t fall in Brexit will make them poorer in the long term compared to the status quo, they were sold Brexit on a pack of lies and democracy is not a static concept.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clai ... -vgn96mrgm

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:05 am

Mark,
The Irish refused two EU treaties in referendums: the Treaty of Nice in 2001 the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008.

*However*, the treaties were resubmitted, and approved, by later referendums.

This just goes to show that “the people’s choice must be respected” cuts both ways and “never say never”.
The 18th amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1919, and put into law by the Volstead Act a year later, was a huge mistake. It was repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933.

A belief in the immutable nature of democratically-made (either directly or by representative government) decisions and the inability of the voters to make mistakes – and later correct them – is simply off not borne out by the facts.

I’m not saying that the Brits *will* have another referendum. No one knows what in the world is going to happen, least of all Theresa May. What I *am* saying is that there are precedents for a people going back on their decision, and that ones made in the first place are not sacrosanct.

Regards,
Alex R.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:09 pm

A very clever article explaining why Brexit may have a silver lining

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... ain-needs/

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:28 pm

Interesting stuff about Brexit from both sides...

I was just wondering, does anyone have ballpark figures about...

1. how much does Britain sell goods vs buy goods w.r.t. to EU and
2. how much does Britain sell services vs. buy services w.r.t. EU?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:41 pm

A silver lining, perhaps. Certainly something to hope for. It may come to pass, but I suspect the two-party dominance will persist and heels may be even more dug in when the financial pain hits. My worry is that the author may overestimate the typical voter when he writes "the genie has now been released from the bottle, and it is impossible to imagine that the nation will be prepared to surrender control again."

Will "the country" recognize the next scam that comes along? I’m not sure enough in the US are capable of distinguishing between the truth and a con to stop our current craziness. I’m afraid the situation in the US is not so much a learning experience as an ugly and painful character building experience. The mid-term elections were a flicker of hope but no solution. Wish I had more confidence in our electorate going forward. Are things different over there?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:50 pm

I would like to know, if I were a 60 year old white male citizen of the UK, what would be the top 5 ways that Brexit would directly negatively affect my life.
I ask because, as a 60 year old white male in the US, I feel that the election of Orange Head has in absolutely no way directly negatively affected my life.
I understand, of course, I'm a 60 year old white male, not an immigrant, or a young female, or without health care, or living in poverty, etc., etc.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:46 pm

JimHow wrote:I would like to know, if I were a 60 year old white male citizen of the UK, what would be the top 5 ways that Brexit would directly negatively affect my life.
I ask because, as a 60 year old white male in the US, I feel that the election of Orange Head has in absolutely no way directly negatively affected my life.
I understand, of course, I'm a 60 year old white male, not an immigrant, or a young female, or without health care, or living in poverty, etc., etc.

I am not sure about that Jim. The things that you have been affected might not be prominent compared to others that you mentioned, or maybe the things that you might be affected are not there yet....

But the bigger question is, should we take notice only if affects us, and ignore when many others are being negatively affected?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:20 pm

Oh I totally agree, CV.
I'm most concerned about how these issues affect those most in need.
in the US I particularly fear for the welfare of the poor, immigrants, females, the elderly, etc.
I'm just curious how Brexit will affect an average white male like me.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:07 am

Jim,

I think that the well-off, or comfortably-off are conceivably *better* off since Trump became president.

But, of course, it doesn't all come down to money...

As an ex-pat, I have seen the incomprehension and anger at Trump's words and deeds from outside the country, and the serious decline in the US's moral authority.
Trump's cavalier treatment of America's closest allies beggars belief.

Exalting egotism on a personal level and a national level seem to be the main themes of the Trump administration.

As for Brexit, do I think a doctor or a lawyer or IT middle management person in the UK will suffer from Brexit? Possibly not, or not enough to make a real difference. But there are going to be lots of little niggling things, like the need for a visa to go from Dover to Calais, that sort of stuff. Britain's role in the world will have to change.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:35 pm

An excellent article in the New Yorker on the darkest forces, which unleashed the zombie monstrosity that is blighting our lives and consuming our time and resources over this side of the pond:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... -of-brexit

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:26 pm

E.U. Approves a Brexit Extension, but on New Terms
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/worl ... e=Homepage

Does this mean we’ll see you in Denver, Ian?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:27 pm

Just read that.
Brexit delayed.
That means Ian and Maureen can still come to the USA!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:01 am

When Ian and Maureen come to Denver, will that be considered Brexit?

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:34 am

DavidG wrote:When Ian and Maureen come to Denver, will that be considered Brexit?

Applause.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:22 am

I could not travel to San Francisco yesterday given what was going on. Maureen at large there, not sure of her plans. However last night EU came up with a neat solution, which pushes the day of reckoning back until 12 April.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pres ... arch-2019/

Honestly, we would be better off being governed by Brussels.

But which means I look forward to seeing y’all at the convention.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:47 am

Fantastic news, Ian!
Looking forward to seeing you!
I'll be coming in Thursday afternoon.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:08 pm

I wonder if someday historians will look at the EU like the way we chuckle about the Ottoman Empire today.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:01 am

Arv
I think the Ottoman Empire lasted around 600 years (though some put its formal start date at 1453 and not 1299, with the fall of Constantinople) and irrespective of how you count it, that will not be the case for the EU.
Like the Romans, the Ottoman Empire was largely achieved thru the sword. Yet siding with the central powers in WWI followed by the Arab Revolt largely brought an end to it. Though realistically, it was fraying at the edges and was politically isolated before that War.

I actually think the League of Nations, formed in the post-WWI era, is a better example. It existed for around 26 years but it was never a cohesive force and its members were far from a unified group. Members were generally disinclined to do anything that put their own interests at risk, and this was apparent in the Italo-Abyssinian war and in its inability to prevent the aggression from the Axis Powers in the lead-up to WW2. I learned in history that the LoN was a "toothless tiger" and other such hyperbole but it at least did have some gains such as solving territorial disputes which otherwise may have led to conflict. So maybe history has already been tough on it.

I also wonder how well the UN will be judged. In the post-war period, it was somehow respected. Yet when at school, I saw when the USSR flex its muscles in Eastern Europe and stretch its influence in Cuba, SE Asia and China. I still to this day recall seeing the weekend newspaper with Soviet tanks occupying Prague in what was then Czechoslovakia. Whilst the LoN did not stop annexations before WW2, the UN did no better after WW2. It also showed little interest in Stalin's reign of terror, or Mao's GLP and cultural revolution, which together led to the death of (conservatively) 100M people. And I could go on. Yet it DID take action in regions which did not have the power of China or the USSR. Yet even in lesser powerful countries - Rwanda, Cambodia and Bangladesh are examples - genocides were not prevented.

So where does this leave the EU? I wonder. Many authors and critics have already written about its failures, inefficiencies, cronyism and corruption, notably the Oil of Food program, and Somalian crisis in the early 90's, but if member states have different interests, it is hard to achieve much. And I also wonder if many of the achievements of the UN would also have been achieved simply by the co-operation of countries at a tactical level. I have also worked for NGO's (both as an employee and an advisor) which do a lot of work internationally on very limited funds.

Getting back to the EU, I have a feeling that in a few hundred years, it will be seen as another attempt to "unite" a group of nations. I use the term unite loosely. Various erudite historians, economists et al will offer numerous opinions about what it did and did not achieve, and what its legacy will be.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:07 am

Mark,

One of the main reasons the League of Nations never really got off the ground was that the US never joined, despite the fact that America was instrumental in the institution’s founding.

American conservatives are viscerally anti-UN. The US pays for about a quarter of the UN’s budget, but there are frequent calls to pay less or to leave. The US has pulled out of UNESCO and will not fund it. Why? Because of an alleged anti-Israel bias. A number of UN resolutions concerning Palestine have received support from every country in the world except Israel and the United States.
There has been boondoggling and the inevitable sexual harassment at the UN, but I think it is a worthwhile institution.

As for the EU, it is a question of the cart before the horse… The EU gave priority to economic union at the expense of political union and its functioning is very laborious.

Getting back to Britain, it is a bit of a roller coaster ride these days. I don't think *anyone* knows what the bottom line will bie!

Best regards,
Alex R.

tim · Post by **tim** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:17 pm

I haven't been following this thread recently, and see that it got quite heated.

But I do want to make one comment: Mark's dismissal of the Irish border issue is really misguided. It is central to the entire Brexit mess. Northern Ireland did not vote for Brexit.

[Side note: this was one of the big flaws in the referendum. I believe that no UK country should have been torn from the EU without its consent. Just like the American Colonies needed to be unanimous to vote for the Lee Resolution, there should have been a requirement for a majority in all four countries. Instead, you had Wales and England deciding to pull Scotland and N. Ireland out of the EU when their people did not want it. The other big flaw is that the vote should have been a supermajority for something so impactful.]

The Irish border is a customs border if Northern Ireland is no longer part of the EU but Ireland is. It necessitates a hard border unless there is a customs agreement in place. And if you have a customs agreement in place between N. Ireland and Ireland but that excludes Great Britain, then you separate N. Ireland from the rest of the UK (something that N.I. doesn't want to do). The UK being part of the EU makes all that simple.

Brexit is a disaster.

The best summary is by a 16 year old girl.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZhF8VdT0D8

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:09 pm

Tim
I think you are misunderstanding the Irish border comments I make and the the fact that more in nth Ireland voted against Brexit is no different from Scotland or London for that matter.
The troubles in Northern Ireland may be over but sectarian views remain. If the Irish border is a central issue it is simply as some players have made it so and a closed border (whatever that may be) does not help the people of either Eire or NI. My frustration here is not directed at you; rather it is how politics once again may adversely affect the people.

Alex
Yes the USA did not join the LoN but I think history has been a bit harsh on it given it was never a global organization like the UN. By the way I am neither American nor a conservative - I have always been a political moderate and my dislike is of authoritarianism however it is named and wherever it rears its head. Yet the western world in 2019 seems to be more intractably divided than I can ever remember.
I am hoping that common sense will prevail and - aghast - some concern for the needs of the people will emerge.

tim · Post by **tim** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:36 pm

Claudius2 wrote:Tim
I think you are misunderstanding the Irish border comments I make and the the fact that more in nth Ireland voted against Brexit is no different from Scotland or London for that matter.
The troubles in Northern Ireland may be over but sectarian views remain. If the Irish border is a central issue it is simply as some players have made it so and a closed border (whatever that may be) does not help the people of either Eire or NI. My frustration here is not directed at you; rather it is how politics once again may adversely affect the people.

Mark,

Funny that you should call it "the troubles".

I think you are vastly oversimplifying the problems with Northern Ireland. Please explain, how precisely do you maintain an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland without a trade agreement in place? And how can you have an open border unless UK goods meet the same requirements for entry into Europe as European goods?

The issue of the Northern Ireland border isn't simply because "some players have made it so" as you claim. It strikes at the heart of decades of sectarian violence, trade policies, unity of the United Kingdom, freedom of movement, etc.

I really don't want to come down so hard on a fellow BWE'er, but you are really making bold claims that are so far from reality that I feel like I am forced to do so.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:46 am

Tim
Old resentments in Ireland die hard. My father once told me a story (he was born in Dublin in 1911 and was in the British Army from 1936 to 1947) about a local neighbour who was shot after an altercation with the occupying British forces - for the reason that he spoke to them in Irish and not English. I am sometimes amazed that relations in 2019 are as good as they are.

So let me explain my point about "some players" and I am not making this up. It was widely published late last year that: The UK and the EU agreed at the end of the first phase of Brexit negotiations in December that there would be regulatory alignment between both parts of the island of Ireland in the event of no deal. (The Guardian)

That was struck down by the Democratic Unionist Party. Had that action not taken place, substantial progress would have been made on the entire border issue. Unfortunately it did not happen.
At that point, I actually thought that the border issue was going to be amicably resolved.

Next, the EU wanted Northern Ireland to be in a " common regulatory area" with the rest of the EU - and that was never going to happen.
To May, the Northern Ireland issue could not be solved like that, and realistically, it was not an option open to her. It would have moved NI to a "two system" process whereby it would be regulated by the EU as well as part of the UK.
How that would be workable I have no idea.

The Irish government has continually argued that they want the border to stay open to trade, people and services.
That has also been the wish of May's government as well.
Of course there are complexities here, including everything from fishing rights in the seas to how goods can be moved from Northern Ireland to Eire and then to other parts of the EU.
However, technology in 2019 could be able to be applied to that. And the seas issue is hardly new and there have been numerous "cod wars" and other disputes over the years.

Having said that, can I offer another pathway.
Offer the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to re-unite with Eire.
The Northern Ireland Act (1998) allows for Northern Ireland to remain as part of the UK unless a majority of the people of NI vote to re-unite with Eire.
Further, recent opinion polls (eg, LucidTalk) show that a majority (55%) would vote for re-unification.
You are correct that more in Northern Ireland voted to remain - and given that Eire will continue to be an EU member, it would seem to be a good idea at this stage.

Even if a plebiscite in Northern Ireland does not happen, I believe that the common interests of the UK and Eire governments are for an open border and the issues such as seas and goods re-shipments can be resolved amicably if the parties genuinely want to resolve them.

A broader issue is that the EU countries and the UK will all be worse off if agreements cannot be reached that are fair to all parties.
I am sorry if you think I am being dogmatic about this, but I do find it frustrating that after nearly three years, issues that would have been well-known even before Brexit including the NI border issue have not been resolved, and in some cases, the issues seem to be getting more intractable over time. I genuinely feel sad that the people of the UK and EU will end up being negatively affected by all of this, and even worse, it may affect relations across Europe for a long time.

This will be the last note I post on this thread.
I am genuinely hoping that goodwill will prevail and that the EU and UK can resolve their differences.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:29 pm

Some of you might have seen this, but on a lighter note....

Physicians were asked a question in a Hospital - here are the answers...

Should Brexit take place?

The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it,
but the Neurologists thought ‘May’ had a lot of nerve.

Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!"
while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness,
while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands off the whole thing
and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.

The Plastic Surgeons opined that this
proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward,
but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas,
and those lofty Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Parliament.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:59 pm

Ophthalmologists cured the Brexiteers of their myopia, bringing the subject into sharp focus.