Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, Foxxed said:

You say it's a fudge. You mean it's not extreme.

 

We voted to leave the EU. The EU is the political entity that jointly decides a superset of laws, some involved with non economic issues like security and the environment.

 

But mostly it jointly decides - through treaty signings, the eu parliament and the national ministers - economic laws.

 

These economic laws make up what we call the Single Market. And to have a single market we need goods, firms and people to pass freely through that market.

 

This is not easy to follow but you can abide by the Single Market rules - just like Norway - to benefit from selling your goods and, in our case, services to a larger market without impediments.

 

Our financial sector benefits massively from selling services without impediments. Our chemical and pharmaceutical industry benefits from the lack of impediments making goods in different parts of the Single Market. This names just three industries.

 

And now the financial sector is already moving to Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt. Our chemical industry has already warned it will not be competitive. Our fintech firms needing access to the Single Market are leaving by 2019.

 

You say it's a fudge. You mean it hasn't gone further than the referendum's mandate.

 

You want to erect a border so it's harder for UK firms to be profitable. Some people think this is economic madness. Some think this engagers jobs. Some think this is a retreat from Britain's fine history of economic competence.

Your opinion is always appreciated but please don't try to put words in my mouth or assume my "meaning"/views/degrees of tolerance/extremity etc.

 

"Extreme" always makes me think of Blair and his clandestinely opening the gates of the UK to irresponsible and unmandated mass immigration and his sanctioning of a war in Iraq that cost countless lives, fanned the flames of seemingly unending tragedy and turmoil in the Middle East and far beyond, achieved nothing of positive political consequence that I can see  and cost the UK a fortune that could have been far better spent on health/education/free child care,subsidised travel and/or much more. I wanted a trading co-operation, not back-door federalisation and laws that fostered so much disharmony.        

     

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, SMX11 said:

 

As far as I know both manifestos said or implied that we will leave the single market and customs union, so I don't understand the idea that it will no suddenly stay in. Think it is more of the BBC's wet dream than reality.

I dont.

 

We keep hearing "hard Brexit" is dead yet over 80% of people just voted for parties that effectively had in their manifestos that we'll leave the single market, which is most people's definition of the term.

[Guest]

Everybody seems to be labouring over something of a misunderstanding. We are leaving the EU so we will not be a member of the single market whatever happens. 

 

Both the Tories and Labour proposed access to the single market. If we get that i will consider it a soft brexit. If we were to walk away with no single market access - either because we've said no deal or we've reached an alternative trade agreement  (which would take a decade) then i would consider that a hard brexit.

 

In my opinion, there is absolutely no prospect of either party not reaching an agreement to give us access. If the Tories were to really walk away with no deal they'd end up splitting and be out of government for the next 30 years. It would destroy our economy. For a party that spends so much time talking about its economic record (ignoring the early 70s and early 90s, obviously) and business acumen, it would be the ultimate suicide note. I suspect that the chaotic politics we now have means that we'll end up getting a worse deal than we could have but then no deal was going to be as good as being a member. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Everybody seems to be labouring over something of a misunderstanding. We are leaving the EU so we will not be a member of the single market whatever happens. 

 

Both the Tories and Labour proposed access to the single market. If we get that i will consider it a soft brexit. If we were to walk away with no single market access - either because we've said no deal or we've reached an alternative trade agreement  (which would take a decade) then i would consider that a hard brexit.

 

In my opinion, there is absolutely no prospect of either party not reaching an agreement to give us access. If the Tories were to really walk away with no deal they'd end up splitting and be out of government for the next 30 years. It would destroy our economy. For a party that spends so much time talking about its economic record (ignoring the early 70s and early 90s, obviously) and business acumen, it would be the ultimate suicide note. I suspect that the chaotic politics we now have means that we'll end up getting a worse deal than we could have but then no deal was going to be as good as being a member. 

Soft brexit is staying in the single market but not being in the EU, like Switzerland of Norway. Anyone can have access to the single market, just not tariff free. What we're trying to get is a free trade deal, nobody wants to walk away without a deal, but we we don't want to be held to ransom either.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Soft brexit is staying in the single market but not being in the EU, like Switzerland of Norway. Anyone can have access to the single market, just not tariff free. What we're trying to get is a free trade deal, nobody wants to walk away without a deal, but we we don't want to be held to ransom either.

Both david davis and jeremy corbyn have stated numerous times they want access to the single market. I don't believe for one second that the tories would walk away. They know very well they'll be a bill to pay and concessions to give. And they'll do both.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Both david davis and jeremy corbyn have stated numerous times they want access to the single market.

N Korea has access to the single market, all that means is trading with countries within it. We , including Labour I assume, want a free trade agreement

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

N Korea has access to the single market, all that means is trading with countries within it. We , including Labour I assume, want a free trade agreement

I updated my post above.

 

Yes, tariff free access to the single market would be soft brexit. To get that, however, the government are not going to be able to do all of: stop EU immigration, pay a very low exit bill, leave the jurisdiction of the EU courts, not accept EU Human Rights Laws. The government will have to at least partially back down on most of these issues. My point is that a hard brexit - leaving without tariff free access to the single market (which is how I should have put it earlier) is what the harder brexiteers are prepared to risk will not happen. And if it does it will kill the Tory party.

[Guest]

96% drop in EU nurses registering to work in Britain since Brexit vote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/12/96-drop-in-eu-nurses-registering-to-work-in-britain-since-brexit-vote

[Guest]

Bad EU trade deal 'disastrous' for UK jobs, investment and growth

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/12/eu-trade-deal-uk-jobs-ed-balls-peter-sands

[davieG]

30 minutes ago, toddybad said:

96% drop in EU nurses registering to work in Britain since Brexit vote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/12/96-drop-in-eu-nurses-registering-to-work-in-britain-since-brexit-vote

I think that reflects on how badly the country is and has been run as we shouldn't need to 'import' all these people but should be training our own. If it means in the medium term that's what we do then the short term price may well be worth paying.

 

i'd not be surprised if it also reflects the overall attitude to training by the majority of British businesses and organisations.

[Bobby Hundreds]

The Tories have scrapped nurse training bursaries!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

I think that reflects on how badly the country is and has been run as we shouldn't need to 'import' all these people but should be training our own. If it means in the medium term that's what we do then the short term price may well be worth paying.

 

i'd not be surprised if it also reflects the overall attitude to training by the majority of British businesses and organisations.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

The Tories have scrapped nurse training bursaries!

 

Everybody knows we should be training our own nurses. The fact the tories scrapped nurse training bursaries just shows how short sighted the government is. Appalling decision. Must be rescinded immediately.

[Alf Bentley]

Macron has now said the same as Schäuble, namely that in the unlikely event that the UK chooses to reverse its Brexit decision, we could remain in the EU.

Article 50 is unclear on this issue, but most legal experts seem to think that it would be perfectly legal under EU law.

This would presumably require either a second referendum or a vote in parliament before the negotiations are complete.

 

Something being "legal" and being "politically feasible" are two different things, though. I can see the UK stance shifting from Hard Brexit to Soft Brexit (in Single Market and/or Customs Union or prioritising those over ending free movement), but cannot imagine us reversing the Brexit decision any time soon - maybe in a year's time if the economy is tanking and Brexit negotiations are looking bad, but not before, surely?

If we changed our mind at a late stage, I'm not sure the door would remain open - and there'd probably be a massive price to pay if we did change our mind at the last minute.

 

It's interesting, though, that both France and Germany still seem open to the idea - though some EU types, like Verhofstadt, are opposed....so might depend whether the other EU states could arm-wrestle the EU institutions in the unlikely event that the scenario comes about. I'm still expecting it to be an argument about what type of Brexit happens, though.

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Macron has now said the same as Schäuble, namely that in the unlikely event that the UK chooses to reverse its Brexit decision, we could remain in the EU.

Article 50 is unclear on this issue, but most legal experts seem to think that it would be perfectly legal under EU law.

This would presumably require either a second referendum or a vote in parliament before the negotiations are complete

 

It's interesting, though, that both France and Germany still seem open to the idea - though some EU types, like Verhofstadt, are opposed....so might depend whether the other EU states could arm-wrestle the EU institutions in the unlikely event that the scenario comes about. I'm still expecting it to be an argument about what type of Brexit happens, though.

I'm honestly now not sure what to make of all this.

 

It's certainly giving a lot of ammuniation to those who want to go against the result and puts a spring in the step of those want a second referendum, which is ridiculous given the election results last week - but it also says to me they realise in Europe that this is going to hurt them as well, which gives me hope of achieving a fairly decent deal.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm honestly now not sure what to make of all this.

 

It's certainly giving a lot of ammuniation to those who want to go against the result and puts a spring in the step of those want a second referendum, which is ridiculous given the election results last week - but it also says to me they realise in Europe that this is going to hurt them as well, which gives me hope of achieving a fairly decent deal.

 

 

I cannot imagine either of the main UK political parties changing policy to support a second referendum or parliamentary vote to Remain unless there has been a massive turnaround in public opinion to oppose Brexit by a large margin.

I cannot imagine a massive turnaround in public opinion unless it becomes clear that Brexit is having / will have a hugely detrimental impact on our economy and/or that the only deal on offer is a bad one or a cliff-edge exit.

 

The comparative failure of the Lib Dem election campaign supports that view. Overall, they probably didn't gain any seats based on their second referendum policy. They gained 3 in Scotland as an anti-SNP vote. Several others they won were probably down to the candidate being a well-liked sitting or former MP (Cable, Davey, North Norfolk, Eastbourne, Farron - and he only just survived). They lost several seats to Labour, the Tories or Plaid (Clegg, Leeds NW, Richmond, Southport, Ceredigion). The only seats they might have won on the basis of their EU policy were Bath and Oxford West, I reckon.

 

Might there be a rapid and massive turnaround of public opinion against Brexit? It's possible, but if it happens it will probably take quite a time. Whatever rhetoric comes out of the early negotiations, we wouldn't be looking down the barrel of a bad deal or cliff-edge exit for 18 months. The economy is likely to decline in coming months, I think, but if so it probably won't be some rapid collapse - more like a continued rise in inflation and decline in living standards, staff shortages in the NHS, news of a few companies relocating jobs, maybe a slight uptick in unemployment (but maybe not if lower growth is absorbed by lower EU immigration).

 

The longer that the argument is about what sort of Brexit we have, the more distant any prospect of remaining in the EU will become, surely? Everyone from firms (UK & EU) to national governments to EU institutions will be increasingly making complex plans and financial commitments based on the assumption that Brexit will happen. I'm sure that the EU would prefer us to Remain now - and would prefer a Soft Brexit to a Hard Brexit - as this will damage them....though nowhere near as much as it will damage the UK, in my opinion. But reversing the process at a late stage (say, in 18 months time) would be massively costly and disruptive to firms, governments and EU institutions. They might not fancy such a late reversal at all, even if they'd prefer us to stay now - and the EU would surely impose a massive price for any such late change.

[Guest MattP]

Can't disagree with a word there, public opinion is unlikely to change in a big way for me as we are a very immovable people, we stick to our guns, probably just as likely anti-EU sentiment sticks in and they get the blame, the right wing press will certainly be working against them and supporting us. Aside from the Guardian and the BBC I can't see any British media really going heavy at the government whilst supporting the position of Brussels. As you say, if any change does take place, it might after a downturn long after we have left.

 

Agree on the latter points, if there is going to be a change it has to be quick, we'll probably know the government's position within weeks as the EU has already shown it is happy to leak anything and everything to the German press if they see fit.

 

 

 

[Guest]

I'm not sure public opinion is particularly pro-brexit - the referendum was less than a 2% swing one way - but i think most people accepted the result and said "well get on with it then". I think the election showed that. As the reality becomes clearer and the public becomes more concerned - and surveys already suggest people are less positive about their futures than they were 12 months ago - the question of whether to have a final referendum to agree the negotiated deal may become more urgent. It looks very much as if the tories have given up the fight against their right wingers and would go for hard brexit if given the chance but i see no prospect of them being able to push for that now. In the end i suspect even the brexiteers will become nervous if the deal doesn't look good and it might be their preferred option to let the public have the final say to try to clear themselves in the event that they see problems ahead. It may depend on how bloody minded the right wing tories are as evidence of a poorer future becomes more and more undeniable. I'm just going to hope that at some point sense prevails.

 

[Alf Bentley]

Verhofstadt (European Parliament Brexit coordinator) has modified the view he expressed yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/perks-end-uk-eu-guy-verhofstadt

 

"Guy Verhofstadt picked up on comments made by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday that the door to the EU would remain open to Britain during Brexit negotiations.

'I agree', he said. 'But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity.”

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Verhofstadt (European Parliament Brexit coordinator) has modified the view he expressed yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/perks-end-uk-eu-guy-verhofstadt

 

"Guy Verhofstadt picked up on comments made by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday that the door to the EU would remain open to Britain during Brexit negotiations.

'I agree', he said. 'But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity.”

Is that a new door that can be locked to freedom of movement or no? 

[LiberalFox]

Without the rebate I wouldn't support us remaining.

[Guest]

Ignoring our position in respect of it, i think the eu really need to get a move on with federalism. It makes no sense for rich countries to subsidise poor. If it becomes one country with one set of laws and finances (yes it would have state level laws and finances but governed from the centre) then that becomes irrelevant. I'd have been happy to be part of a federal europe. History will always be there and not forgotten but a single state eu would be incredibly strong. 

 

I realise most people may look upon this opinion in horror.

[LiberalFox]

23 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Ignoring our position in respect of it, i think the eu really need to get a move on with federalism. It makes no sense for rich countries to subsidise poor. If it becomes one country with one set of laws and finances (yes it would have state level laws and finances but governed from the centre) then that becomes irrelevant. I'd have been happy to be part of a federal europe. History will always be there and not forgotten but a single state eu would be incredibly strong. 

 

I realise most people may look upon this opinion in horror.

 

[davieG]

27 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Ignoring our position in respect of it, i think the eu really need to get a move on with federalism. It makes no sense for rich countries to subsidise poor. If it becomes one country with one set of laws and finances (yes it would have state level laws and finances but governed from the centre) then that becomes irrelevant. I'd have been happy to be part of a federal europe. History will always be there and not forgotten but a single state eu would be incredibly strong. 

 

I realise most people may look upon this opinion in horror.

I don't understand this, if it's a one state the provinces/states/countries would still exist and you'd still have within that rich and poorer ones with the richer ones bailing out the poorer ones, I don't see the difference on this issue.

 

That's ignoring all the cultural and language differences for some counties within it it would seem like they're being dictated to and 'ruled' by the bigger more influential ones, isn't that what we've got now? Or am i completely misunderstanding this concept

[Foxxed]

On 11/06/2017 at 21:00, Webbo said:

N Korea has access to the single market, all that means is trading with countries within it. We , including Labour I assume, want a free trade agreement

 

So can North Korea manufacture good and produce services that have no tariffs in the EU?

 

On 11/06/2017 at 17:21, Thracian said:

Your opinion is always appreciated but please don't try to put words in my mouth or assume my "meaning"/views/degrees of tolerance/extremity etc.

 

"Extreme" always makes me think of Blair and his clandestinely opening the gates of the UK to irresponsible and unmandated mass immigration and his sanctioning of a war in Iraq that cost countless lives, fanned the flames of seemingly unending tragedy and turmoil in the Middle East and far beyond, achieved nothing of positive political consequence that I can see  and cost the UK a fortune that could have been far better spent on health/education/free child care,subsidised travel and/or much more. I wanted a trading co-operation, not back-door federalisation and laws that fostered so much disharmony.        

     

I apologise if I'm putting words in your mouth. But we have trading co-operation. It's called the Single Market. And we're opting to leave it. The only person in Parliament that sees this a mistake and understands the difficulties ahread is Keir Starmer. Everyone else is living in cloud cook-cu land.

[Webbo]

Just now, Foxxed said:

 

So can North Korea manufacture good and produce services that have no tariffs in the EU?

 

 

No, but that wasn't what was being discussed.