U.K. General Election/Government, 4 Jul 2024 - ?

[Brad Sallows]

Yeah, sure, the UK is 10 percent poorer now because of brexit, better?

All the figures that turned up for my quick search are in the range 6% to 8%. "Rounding up" is sometimes OK, even sometimes to the nearest multiple of 10, but not when you're starting with a value in single figures and it distorts the truth by 25 to 65 %. And it's difficult to quantify just how much of that is the EU being spiteful and taking measures to position the UK as more of a warning than a good example to other dissenting factions.

Can the value of sovereignty to people be so easily disregarded? It is easy to do from afar, by those who have no real stake in either the financial or sovereignty aspect. Minds of outsiders are also possibly clouded by one of the many partisan distractions of team-based politics and how they feel about the way they want to see the world evolve, rather than trying to really see from the point of view of different people directly affected. Canada would benefit from a currency union and some closer political arrangements if a North American Union were established. Obviously the participants (Canada, USA, Mexico, and possibly some Caribbean nations) would each have to cede some sovereignty, and it would be unsurprising if the USA were the centre of gravity and made the fewest concessions while Canada had to make more. So now all the reader has to do is imagine how many Canadians would leap at that opportunity to become more prosperous. Similarly, Canada is itself a union of its provinces, and yet a sizeable minority of Quebeckers twice expressed interest in putting sovereignty ahead of financial interests.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

 

[Altair]

All the figures that turned up for my quick search are in the range 6% to 8%. "Rounding up" is sometimes OK, even sometimes to the nearest multiple of 10, but not when you're starting with a value in single figures and it distorts the truth by 25 to 65 %.

Sigh...

A decade of Brexit: Britain falls behind peers in trade and growth

Economic analysis shows UK GDP per capita grew up to 10% less than similar nations as firms froze spending and productivity slipped.View on euronews

ca.finance.yahoo.com

 

[FJAG]

I've tried, unsuccessfully to find a definitive Burnham position on national defence. Just the usual rhetoric, but in light of the recent resignation of Minister of Defence - nothing much.

Anyone come across anything worthwhile?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sigh...

As I wrote: "figures", not "figure". There's a range of estimates and reported syntheses, not just one.

 

[Altair]

As I wrote: "figures", not "figure". There's a range of estimates and reported syntheses, not just one.

Sure.

So they grew 6-10 percent slower than their peers after being in lockstep before.

For a nation the size of the UK, their GDP being 4.3 trillion USD, we are looking at 215-430 billion in lost growth. Tax 30, 40, percent of that, you can fund the NHS. You dont have to shortchange seniors. You can fund the military.

Im not saying the UK is a utopia staying in the EU, but there is something to said about the lost decade putting extra strain on public services, leading to unpopular leaders due to the the brits being at the mercy of the bond markets.

7 leaders in 10 years, 6 leaders in the last 7 years, this is not a sign of a country that has its act together. Its instability brought on by the seismic change brexit caused and is still causing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure.

So they grew 6-10 percent slower than their peers after being in lockstep before.

Yes. Again: Brexit has had a financial cost.

For a nation the size of the UK, their GDP being 4.3 trillion USD, we are looking at 215-430 billion in lost growth. Tax 30, 40, percent of that, you can fund the NHS. You dont have to shortchange seniors. You can fund the military.

UK's revenue-spending problems go deeper than Brexit. "It's worse than it might otherwise have been by now" is all that can be concluded, but not even that is assured because the GDP shift only affects the revenue. What kind of additional spending, or spending priorities, might the EU-favouring British establishment and EU have caused to be? We can't know.

What is different after Brexit: there is only one point of accountability for the political decisions affecting the revenue-spending imbalance.

7 leaders in 10 years, 6 leaders in the last 7 years, this is not a sign of a country that has its act together. Its instability brought on by the seismic change brexit caused and is still causing.

And I continue to assert the instability is primarily the result of a governing establishment that mostly does not want to do what the people governed want it to do. There is enough instability in the federal politics of other European (EU) nations to suggest the problem can't be exiting the EU - they haven't exited, and they have instability. Britain isn't the only country with leaders and governments falling.

 

[Altair]

Yes. Again: Brexit has had a financial cost.

We agree

UK's revenue-spending problems go deeper than Brexit. "It's worse than it might otherwise have been by now" is all that can be concluded, but not even that is assured because the GDP shift only affects the revenue. What kind of additional spending, or spending priorities, might the EU-favouring British establishment and EU have caused to be? We can't know.

Mostly agree. We can speculate.

What is different after Brexit: there is only one point of accountability for the political decisions affecting the revenue-spending imbalance.

Yeah, those who voted leave.

And I continue to assert the instability is primarily the result of a governing establishment that mostly does not want to do what the people governed want it to do. There is enough instability in the federal politics of other European (EU) nations to suggest the problem can't be exiting the EU - they haven't exited, and they have instability. Britain isn't the only country with leaders and governments falling.

You're right, but youre burying the lead.

Sure, there are a few nations which have the turnover rate at the top that the UK has now, but they have always been the basket cases. Its nothing new for them. What is new is that the UK is joining that list.

So you cannot somehow make this seem like business as usual. Its very much not. If andy burnham is ousted, or dumped at the next election, the UK is pretty much confirmed to be ungovernable.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure, there are a few nations which have the turnover rate at the top that the UK has now, but they have always been the basket cases. Its nothing new for them. What is new is that the UK is joining that list.

Germany and France recently had political crises that exceeded the bounds of a PM being ejected by his own party which, in Britain at least, is not considered unusual. I am confident there will be more.

the UK is pretty much confirmed to be ungovernable.

Finally some light humour. "Ungovernable" is a laughing-stock word among people who have noticed that almost every time political establishments run into difficulty having their way, the country is pronounced "ungovernable". It is about as useful a word as "robust".

 

[Altair]

Germany and France recently had political crises that exceeded the bounds of a PM being ejected by his own party which, in Britain at least, is not considered unusual. I am confident there will be more.

Finally some light humour. "Ungovernable" is a laughing-stock word among people who have noticed that almost every time political establishments run into difficulty having their way, the country is pronounced "ungovernable". It is about as useful a word as "robust".

Its ungovernable because the electorate is asking for the impossible.

How does one maintain services like the NHS and pump more money into the military, without raising taxes or borrowing more? All the while stuck with lower growth due to brexit.

Two parties have tried, two parties are going through leaders faster than it takes to go from olympic hosts.

Sure, give reform the reins, its the same math. Math the electorate doesnt seem to understand or care about.

At least when Chretien and Martin had to slash federal spending the public knew it had to be done. Chretien wasnt ousted because of it, Martin didnt have his career ended.

The UK is incapable of that it seems.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Its ungovernable because the electorate is asking for the impossible.

How does one maintain services like the NHS and pump more money into the military, without raising taxes or borrowing more? All the while stuck with lower growth due to brexit.

Who knows? Maybe they just absolutely gut everything providing services and transfers to people on a public teat.

 

[Altair]

Who knows? Maybe they just absolutely gut everything providing services and transfers to people on a public teat.

100 percent what needs to happen. Something needs to give.

But the second someone does, their popularity would plummet and they would be replaced.

Again, I don't use the term ungovernable lightly. Even France, with it's 3 blocs that hate each other can find room to compromise because it's the electorate that is split, not so much the political class. The UK is ungovernable because it's the entire electorate that is split from those who need to face the practical realities of running the country. The electorate is united, left and right, that they don't want the government to touch their services, and the government cannot afford to do it without raising taxes or borrowing more, and the electorate wont stand for higher taxes and the bond market will cripple the UK if they borrow more.

Until such a time as someone gets into power and is willing to pay the price to gut everything while holding on to their job, somehow, that country is going to cycle through PMs faster than the olympics.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I am trying to think of any prior instance I've come across of someone advancing the proposition that moving from resources to services is not entirely a good idea, and coming up short. Usually in Canada we lament our position as "hewers-of-wood-and-drawers-of-water" and dream about moving up.

Well done.

Exiting the EU added transaction costs which resulting in some outflows, but it didn't end the country.

No, but did create enough impediments to the delivery of services as well as their remaining goods which previously had unrestricted access to one of the largest economies on the planet.

It was an act of self harm. The only people that seemed to benefit from it were the criminals and billionaires who can continue to wash and shelter their money in the UK banking system, without the additional EU rules that came in after Brexit. The majority of the population is objectively worse off.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Britain is waking up, and not a moment to soon.
He won't suffer though. He'll take a desk job at WEF, in the NWO deptartment.

 

[QV]

No, but did create enough impediments to the delivery of services as well as their remaining goods which previously had unrestricted access to one of the largest economies on the planet.

It was an act of self harm. The only people that seemed to benefit from it were the criminals and billionaires who can continue to wash and shelter their money in the UK banking system, without the additional EU rules that came in after Brexit. The majority of the population is objectively worse off.

All this advocating for another country (UK) to be a part of a big economic union, but when it comes to Canada and its obvious option — NOPE!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All this advocating for another country (UK) to be a part of a big economic union, but when it comes to Canada and its obvious option — NOPE!

What do you think the PM has been doing? Travelling around Europe, handing out MOU's to his buddies about becoming an unofficial EU trade member. And has been for over a year.

 

[Altair]

All this advocating for another country (UK) to be a part of a big economic union, but when it comes to Canada and its obvious option — NOPE!

With all due respect, who in Canada or this site is saying we shouldn't sign a new CUSMA agreement?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Its ungovernable because the electorate is asking for the impossible.

How does one maintain services like the NHS and pump more money into the military, without raising taxes or borrowing more? All the while stuck with lower growth due to brexit.

Two parties have tried, two parties are going through leaders faster than it takes to go from olympic hosts.

Sure, give reform the reins, its the same math. Math the electorate doesnt seem to understand or care about.

At least when Chretien and Martin had to slash federal spending the public knew it had to be done. Chretien wasnt ousted because of it, Martin didnt have his career ended.

The UK is incapable of that it seems.

I'll bet the money countries spend on illegal immigrant everything would return billions to be used for the country's infrastructure. The problem is governments that do it and end up with that windfall don't use it for that. They always seem to treat it as new money and end up spending it on some other form of woke bullshit.

 

[Altair]

I'll bet the money countries spend on illegal immigrant everything would return billions to be used for the country's infrastructure. The problem is governments that do it and end up with that windfall don't use it for that. They always seem to treat it as new money and end up spending it on some other form of woke bullshit.

yeah, im sure conservatives who were in power from 2010 were doing that woke bullshit.

 

[QV]

With all due respect, who in Canada or this site is saying we shouldn't sign a new CUSMA agreement?

Now thats not quite the same thing as being a full member of the EU now is it? But you knew that.