Brexit Mega Thread 16 – Who's Next?

[LouiseCollins28]

We are approaching the 6th anniversary of Brexit, or I suppose the 5th, if you count the period of transition as "in."

Since then, the world has endured Covid-19, seen war in Ukraine and many other things. Brexit has had reduced salience in the minds of many people recently.

When digesting the latest setbacks to befall the elite who govern our islands, a phrase I keep returning to, is “OK, so now do you get it?”

Brexit is undoubtedly the biggest “OK, so now do you get it?” moment directed at our leaders in my life. It’s surely the largest since 1979, since the Labour victory of 1945? or even since the advent of universal suffrage?

The U.K. local elections in 2026, and subsequent national ones, could see a big increase in support for the Green Party and Reform U.K. Two parties with more different attitudes to European integration could scarcely be found, so Brexit’s salience in the U.K. may rise again soon
.
There are many electoral contests in progress or coming across Europe too (the Netherlands and France, for example) which will be worth paying attention to. Maybe the next questions we will face are less about "what next?" and more about "who's next?"

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion, whoever leads the nations of Europe, or leads the E.U. itself.

Sorry, I forgot you are a huge fan of the Orange Overlord.

At least the EU doesn't go out and bomb the he'll out of a country on a whim, sending the fl9bal economy into disaster. I would definitely trust them over Trump. That's basic sanity.

A man who sends the law after the 82 year old he has been civilly convicted as having sexually assaulted is not a man anyone should have any respect for.

I ONLY support the UK becoming involved in a war if UK/NATO allies territory/people/interests are attacked.

If you are referring to the war vs Iran, I think that's a very tricky case to judge.

Were British/NATO territory/people/interests attacked? Well there are two ways to look at this which lead to opposite conclusions.

1. RAF Akrotiri is on Cyprus and Cyprus isn't a member of NATO and, obviously, it isn't in Britain.

However, 2) factually yes they were, RAF Akrotiri (a British base) was subject to a Hezbollah drone strike. I think that's probably enough for a limited UK military response but I'm genuinely torn as to whether one was legit. We've sort of made one anyhow, in sending Naval vessel and figher jets.

If President Trump wants to task the US military with fighting a war against Iran that's up to him and the American people. Taking out Ali Khameni was clearly a desirable outcome all round.

a) British base attacked (minor 0 casualties) + b) America asking for allies to help it's military action means I'd be OK with UK involvement in this war but I'm equally OK with us staying out. So, I could support it, but right now, I probably don't.

Firmly on the fence. not sure how that sits with the UK being deferential to Trump.

Sovereignity not important after all

Not on the fence exactly, like I said, tricky case to judge.

If there were no attack on a UK base, it'd be an easier straight no. Right now I'd probably say stay out.

Where you get into relations with Trump is Starmer's trying to place conditions on what the American President can do with US military assets based in the UK, i.e. his "defensive strikes" line....

Those assets are American and if their Cmdr in Chief want to use them they should be able to, without hindrance.

The Nobel Cttee really should have given him that Peace Prize last year, would have saved so much trouble.

Anyhow we're getting rather a long way from Brexit. Back on topic I think.

It's one of those cases - if Trump is your friend, who needs enemies!

So it's just TDS for many on here. Fine. He'll only be President for the next 2.5 yrs max anyway.

In other news, I geniuinely only just realised today that the French PM has lasted 6 months in his job, which given he initially resigned after about 4 days is actually decent going.

oh and I'm not really a fan of theirs, but getting into the European spirit for one night only, so Vive le Arse (or something) 😁

TDS is the defence of those unwilling to see the man for what he is. A fraudster with felony convictions, a man convicted of sexual assault, a man who calls women 'piggy' while in office. There's nothing deranged about objecting to any of those things - it's called having decent standards for basic good behaviour. If you're an apologist for all of that stuff then there is something wrong with your moral compass.

Maybe the TDS is a result of:

US tariffs applied to EU = 15%

US tariffs applied to UK = 10%

So, the big bloc = big muscle theory doesn’t work.

Who is president of the US is solely the decision of the US voters. Absolute zero business of anyone else.

So why did he try to interfere in our elections?

And the extra costs of doing business post Brexit with the EU monstrously outweigh Trumps petty tariffs...

@MaybeNotBob

How do allegations of Trumps interference in UK elections dictate how US citizens vote?

Wasn’t it Obama that said if the UK leaves the EU, UK would be bottom of the list for trade deals?

And the extra costs of doing business post Brexit with the EU monstrously outweigh Trumps petty tariffs...

Where are the links with measured data which supports that claim?

Remember the TCA does not have any regulations regards services which is over 80% of both the UK economy and employment. Hence growth since Brexit.

As the EU exports more to the UK than UK exports to the EU, the biggest loser due to any increase in administrative costs is the EU.

They do, and let's not forget that it's the people of the US who are aultimately paying these tariffs.

None of that matters though. Anyone who admires Donald Trump lacks morals or decency.

And doesn't understand tariffs

...

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-ten-years-on-the-economy/

Higher tariffs on imported goods or services does increase the price to US citizens if they choose to buy them. However, if they choose to buy local goods and services instead, which is what Trump wants, there is no tariffs to be paid.

The EU trade surplus had with the US has shrank by 60% since tariffs were imposed. Link is:

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/eu-trade-surplus-shrinks-60-as-us-exports-fall-due-to-tariffs/amp_articleshow/130330641.cms

UK export of goods to US declined by £1.5 billion since tariffs were introduced. However, export of services grew by 6% to 143 billion, an increase of £8 billion. So, overall value of exports has increased by £6.5 billion. Link is

www.businesssurrey.co.uk/us-tariffs-support-made-available-by-government/

More significantly, if the EU is the ultimate economic superpower of the World, why have they swallowed higher tariffs than the UK? Why did they not increase tariffs on US imports?

You're showing you still don't understand tariffs...

The problem - and this has been written about extensively - is that US made goods are so much more expensive that people can't afford to buy them. And now they can't afford to buy imported stuff either.

Then there is the effect on manufacturers who source their materials from abroad - small independent businesses making beautiful things who now face the choice between putting their prices up (i.e. passing the cost on to the customer) or going under. Yep, those tariffs have really done a lot of good in the US.

So they've had an effect on the countries they were imposed on - but a greater effect on the US. One could argue that Trump has shown enormous skill in damaging multiple economies at the same time.

is that US made goods are so much more expensive that people can't afford to buy them.

As opposed to goods from where? Cheap and cheerful stuff from China or south east Asia generally made by people in sweat shops?

That, but also things made in places like Canada and Europe. I'm completely in favour of not buying from the likes of Temu and Shein, but when it comes to things you need in your everyday life, it's not easy if your income is already stretched by little things like sky high fuel prices due to a certain person's decision to start a war.

And if many, many more people buy American what do you think happens to prices?

'Gas'/Petrol in the USA btw would be 80p per litre equivalsed for the UK measure/currency, so roughly half as expensive as in the UK. If you think that's a sky high fuel price what about here?!

thanks for the link. Yes I can well imagine how unbiased Johathan Portes will be on Brexit. Used to love reading stuff of that site but they are so biased it's untrue, virtually almost 0 pro Brexit contributors.

There's a reason for that, there are virtually 0 reasons to be pro-Brexit...

The price of gas in the UK doesn't matter to the average American who has seen it almost double because of your favourite president's actions in Iran. It's about their cost of living.

And potential future falls in price because people buy domestic also don't matter when your washing machine has died NOW and the cost of a new one is up substantially.

Look up what the word 'empathy' means.

As a regular traveller to the US (last visit being only a few weeks old) I can absolutely say the CoL crisis over there dwarfs ours. I have NEVER seen such insane petrol and food prices. Ordinary Americans, even ones with a reasonable financial buffer are really feeling it. Of course, not every state is the same, taxes are different from state to state so there are variables, but... the narrative is not good for the MAGA crowd frankly. They should definitely start paying attention to what's clearly more than occasional disgruntled noises...

So, couple of things. Clearly what the price of pretrol is in the UK is of no relevance to the average American. My point is that their fuel prices (increased or not) are still no expensive compared to here.

That said, pretrol in the UK seems to have risen from £1.30/litre to a max of £1.60/litre ish (Data source: RAC) . Where people have rightly corrected me is on the level of increase, which I did not realise has been nearly double as someone pointed out.

Total aside but the Cameron/Boris story from 2016 is interesting, first time i've seen that being reported. Essentially DC tried to buy him off from supporting Leave by offering a cabinet position. Shame, I quite liked Cameron and thought he'd done a decent enough job as PM genrally but that's low.