Brexit Referendum Superthread

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's the story the Brexit campaign sold to voters, that people were fed up listening to so-called experts with their so-called knowledge. I think the electorate are about to learn that the experts were not wrong, and were actually speaking rather conservatively.

That is the difference between self-appointed and real experts. The latter are more often right in the end of the day and the populists are just good in seducing the people by their propaganda.

smjm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's the story the Brexit campaign sold to voters, that people were fed up listening to so-called experts with their so-called knowledge. I think the electorate are about to learn that the experts were not wrong, and were actually speaking rather conservatively.

The thing about experts is that you'll always find some that agree with your point of view:

'Don't panic. Britain's economy can survive just fine outside the European Union'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dont-panic-britains-economy-can-survive-just-fine-outside-the-european-union-a7118736.html

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

The thing about experts is that you'll always find some that agree with your point of view:

'Don't panic. Britain's economy can survive just fine outside the European Union'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dont-panic-britains-economy-can-survive-just-fine-outside-the-european-union-a7118736.html

Maybe they can, when putting themselves under the rule of the USA and getting some Brexit tailored "TTIP".

smjm

smjm wrote: »

The thing about experts is that you'll always find some that agree with your point of view:

'Don't panic. Britain's economy can survive just fine outside the European Union'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dont-panic-britains-economy-can-survive-just-fine-outside-the-european-union-a7118736.html

I mean of course it can. It's a truism.

It might not be the economy it could have been within the EU, but it won't become a failed state on the back of leaving the EU!

swampgas

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Maybe they can, when putting themselves under the rule of the USA and getting some Brexit tailored "TTIP".

I can't see any other countries wanting to discuss a trade deal with the UK until they know what the UK-EU deal is going to be. Even if the UK could get a quick deal in the next 12 months with a non-EU country, this could impact whatever deal they want to get from the EU.

The UK foreign office must be fighting a lot of fires right now. Their commercial sections in particular.

joseph brand

smjm wrote:

The thing about experts is that you'll always find some that agree with your point of view:

Around 3% of scientists believe in creationism rather than evolution. So you're correct, it is possible to dig up the opinions of those who are wrong if it suits your argument.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's crazy really when you think about it that we're saying effectively 'until they have a government' when they actually do have one. :eek:

Yes - not having a government doesn't exactly help in times like this, and the urgency is for the UK political elite to pull itself together.

smjm

joseph brand wrote: »

Around 3% of scientists believe in creationism rather than evolution. So you're correct, it is possible to dig up the opinions of those who are wrong if it suits your argument.

"Ashoka Mody is Visiting Professor of International Economic Policy at Princeton University and former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund's European and Research Departments"

He's hardly an economic creationist!

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's the story the Brexit campaign sold to voters, that people were fed up listening to so-called experts with their so-called knowledge. I think the electorate are about to learn that the experts were not wrong, and were actually speaking rather conservatively.

In the short term it certainly wont be easy. In the medium term (5-10 years), neither you nor myself nor any expert can give a definite answer ... even less so in the long term.

EndaHonesty

joseph brand wrote: »

Around 3% of scientists believe in creationism rather than evolution. So you're correct, it is possible to dig up the opinions of those who are wrong if it suits your argument.

Scientists believe in creationism?! Do you have a source for that claim?

EndaHonesty

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Scientists believe in creationism?! Do you have a source for that claim?

Amazingly, some really do - http://creation.com/creation-scientists#presentsci

Thomas_..

swampgas wrote: »

I can't see any other countries wanting to discuss a trade deal with the UK until they know what the UK-EU deal is going to be. Even if the UK could get a quick deal in the next 12 months with a non-EU country, this could impact whatever deal they want to get from the EU.

The UK foreign office must be fighting a lot of fires right now. Their commercial sections in particular.

Sure, you´re right there. I was just thinking about the promise the US President has given to the UK that the Brexit will not alter their relationship.

Well, if not committing herself more to the Commonwealth of Nations or seek to get some relationship with the EFTA states, what is there anything other on Options than to get closer with the USA? Well, that´s of course a matter when things have settled.

Bob24

McWilliams: "Ignore all the shouting - Brits will get their Norway-style trade deal"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-ignore-all-the-shouting-brits-will-get-their-norwaystyle-trade-deal-34860254.html

I tend to share his opinion that Realpolitik and the pragmatism of national leaders (especially Merkel) will eventually force everyone to compromise rather than heading to the political war EU institutions want with the UK.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

McWilliams: "Ignore all the shouting - Brits will get their Norway-style trade deal"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-ignore-all-the-shouting-brits-will-get-their-norwaystyle-trade-deal-34860254.html

I tend to share his opinion that Realpolitik and the pragmatism of national leaders (especially Merkel) will eventually force everyone to compromise rather than heading to the political war EU institutions want with the UK.

The free movement of people from the EU to the UK for work is unnegotiable and the Brits know that. So either they come to terms with the EU on that crucial topic of they will get far less than they expect. The main issue then, if they insist on refusing entry of EU citizens to work in their country, is to deal on the tarifs for goods to have access to the common market. But well, that is also a dual carriage way.

oscarBravo

Bob24 wrote: »

McWilliams: "Ignore all the shouting - Brits will get their Norway-style trade deal"

Oh, they'll probably get such a deal alright. The point is that such a deal is worse than EU membership by almost any metric.

McWilliams is trying to make a case that free movement of labour will go away even within the EU: he doesn't seem to have noticed that it can't go away without treaty change, and treaty change requires unanimous agreement from all the member states.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

McWilliams: "Ignore all the shouting - Brits will get their Norway-style trade deal"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-ignore-all-the-shouting-brits-will-get-their-norwaystyle-trade-deal-34860254.html

I tend to share his opinion that Realpolitik and the pragmatism of national leaders (especially Merkel) will eventually force everyone to compromise rather than heading to the political war EU institutions want with the UK.

I think this article is bizarre to be honest. The Norway deal was always, has always been and still is absolutely on the table. Nothing that has been said by anyone in the EU in the past weeks has said anything contradicting this!

The Norway deal is however at odds with what swung the referendum. So whilst it would be economically the best deal for all parties, with the 'simple' difference being that the UK would no longer be part of the Political Union but still remain within the Economic Union.

The Norway deal however has Freedom of Movement of Labour.

Good luck to the next Government who try to square that with the people who were told (and believed) that this was one of the most important elements of the EU equation that the UK would have to leave to be rid of.

Even further polarisation of the electorate as a result would be close to guaranteed. UKIP would have a field day.

The EEA deal that Hannan and Boris wanted to sell to the electorate was not what they bought. They bought the Farage and Gove version. There is no un-selling that can be done there.

CMOTDibbler

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, they'll probably get such a deal alright. The point is that such a deal is worse than EU membership by almost any metric.

McWilliams is trying to make a case that free movement of labour will go away even within the EU: he doesn't seem to have noticed that it can't go away without treaty change, and treaty change requires unanimous agreement from all the member states.

A point also missed is that the UK has a massive services export industry (excluding banking) which accounts for as much GDP as export of goods. That industry requires free movement of people from the UK to work in other countries of the EU.

Thomas_..

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, they'll probably get such a deal alright. The point is that such a deal is worse than EU membership by almost any metric.

McWilliams is trying to make a case that free movement of labour will go away even within the EU: he doesn't seem to have noticed that it can't go away without treaty change, and treaty change requires unanimous agreement from all the member states.

Looks that some journalists are lost in a whisful thinking dream to ease the shock they had in the aftermath of the Brexit. There´s Little one can do when quitting the membership in a club than from within by keeping the membership. But many UK govts back to Thatcher had Little to None real interest to have a stronger commitment to Europe, instead they preferred to keep maintaining their special relationship with the USA and is another story.

This Thatcherism is the grassroot of the anti-EU Sentiment among many Tories and they still won´t realise that she was wrong all along. Now they can try their luck outside of it, once the Exit is accomplished by implementation.

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

The free movement of people from the EU to the UK for work is unnegotiable and the Brits know that. So either they come to terms with the EU on that crucial topic of they will get far less than they expect. The main issue then, if they insist on refusing entry of EU citizens to work in their country, is to deal on the tarifs for goods to have access to the common market. But well, that is also a dual carriage way.

Everybody will have to come to their senses and soften their positions.

The Brits will likely accept free movement in exchange for the EU introducing specific clauses for the UK to be allowed to restrict access to the job market in certain circumstances (similar to the deal Cameron got pre-referendum but with a bit more control, so that the EU can say it is not giving up on free movement and the UK can say it gained more control on immigration than it had pre-Brexit).

It is also important to keep in mind that the Swiss have also voted to restrict free movement in 2014, in a legally binding referendum which if not overturned by then will force the Swiss government to vote laws which infringe free movements rules by February 2017. If no deal is found by then and no special rules are defined from non-EU EEA members, this will put the EU in a tricky position, having to decide whether to pull the plug on Switzerland in the middle of Brexit negotiations. If you kick out a partner and fail negotiations with another one within a few months, you are starting to look like a bad partner yourself.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Everybody we have to come to there senses and soften their positions.

This will take its time.

The Brits will likely accept free movement in exchange for the EU introducing specific clauses for the UK to be allowed to restrict access to the job market in certain circumstances (similar to the deal Cameron got pre-referendum but with a bit more control, so that the EU can say it is not giving up on free movement and the UK can say it gained more control on immigration than pre-Brexit).

Then they would "betray" those voters who voted for the Brexit because the Immigration Card was the top issue in all the campaign time. That would set up the anti-Immigration bigots in England and Wales and give the UKIP more backing in the "post-Farage-era". I think that the English nationalists have set up their own trap and walked in it with open eyes.

It is important to keep in mind that the Swiss have also voted to restrict free movement in 2014, in a legally binding referendum which if not overturned by then will force the Swiss government to vote laws which infringe free movements rules by February 2017. If no deal is found by then and no special ruels are definied from non-EU EEA members, this will put the EU in a tricky position, having to decide whether to pull the plug on Switzerland in the middle of Brexit negotiations.

Switzerland has already become more reluctant to get closer with the EU because of the refugee debate from last year which is not over yet, cos the Hungarians will have a referendum on that refugee issue on 2nd October this year, initiated by Mr Orban himself. It´s rather clear to me that one has to reckon with a majority of the Hungarian people rejecting the proposals of the EU to supply refugee contingents across their member states.

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

A small number of immigrants are no threat. It's when vast numbers arrive, problems will be experienced, not least infrastructure won't be able to cope.

Another popular claim from the leave camp. Britain has a long history of immigration, yet the infrastructure, much of it built by the Victorians, has still not collapsed.

Besides, infrastructure is often built by immigrants and partially funded by the taxes that immigrants pay.

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd prefer immigrants to stay at home, and would prefer if Western world would help them so that they don't have to travel, rather than try and exploit them by having them working for a few quid.

So now I’m being exploited by the Western World?

smjm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

A point also missed is that the UK has a massive services export industry (excluding banking) which accounts for as much GDP as export of goods. That industry requires free movement of people from the UK to work in other countries of the EU.

As far as I recall, I don't think anyone on the Leave side said that EU citizens wouldn't be allowed to work in the UK, nor UK citizens in the EU. They just said that it would be controlled. The mechanism for control will, of course, be up for debate.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Whilst we must never discriminate based on ethnicity and nationality, I'm not sure religion gets a totally free pass here. If twenty people are members of a ridiculous club which advocates less freedoms for women, and condemnation of homosexuals, I'm not sure we should be tolerating that bigotry.

Of course not, but religion need not come into it. Regardless of whether someone identifies as Muslim, Hindu, Christian or David Icke-ist, we simply judge them based on their behaviour. So if a member of the club you describe moves into my neighbourhood, I don’t care what religion they claim to adhere to, I’ll still call them a dick.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Everybody will have to come to their senses and soften their positions.

The Brits will likely accept free movement in exchange for the EU introducing specific clauses for the UK to be allowed to restrict access to the job market in certain circumstances (similar to the deal Cameron got pre-referendum but with a bit more control, so that the EU can say it is not giving up on free movement and the UK can say it gained more control on immigration than it had pre-Brexit).

It is also important to keep in mind that the Swiss have also voted to restrict free movement in 2014, in a legally binding referendum which if not overturned by then will force the Swiss government to vote laws which infringe free movements rules by February 2017. If no deal is found by then and no special ruels are definied from non-EU EEA members, this will put the EU in a tricky position, having to decide whether to pull the plug on Switzerland in the middle of Brexit negotiations. If you kick out a partner and fail negotiations with another one within a few months, you are starting to look like a bad partner yourself.

The Swiss situation puts Switzerland into a tricky position, not the EU as far as I can see.

They will have to withdraw from the EEA in order to fulfill their referendum. The people have chosen that cost as worth bearing and so that is what will be required of their Government.

If they are no longer fulfilling their part of the deal with the EEA (by revoking freedom of movement) then the EU has little say in the matter, and can do little else bar remove them from the EEA agreements if they do not do so themselves.

The EU knows that Switzerland is leaving the EEA.

djpbarry

smjm wrote: »

The thing about experts is that you'll always find some that agree with your point of view:

'Don't panic. Britain's economy can survive just fine outside the European Union'

Nobody is arguing that it can’t. However, there’s a big difference between “survive” and “prosper”.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

It is also important to keep in mind that the Swiss have also voted to restrict free movement in 2014, in a legally binding referendum which if not overturned by then will force the Swiss government to vote laws which infringe free movements rules by February 2017. If no deal is found by then and no special ruels are definied from non-EU EEA members, this will put the EU in a tricky position, having to decide whether to pull the plug on Switzerland in the middle of Brexit negotiations. If you kick out a partner and fail negotiations with another one within a few months, you are starting to look like a bad partner yourself.

I don't see the position being tricky at all. The Swiss want access to the club, and they decided to change there position, and not the EU. I see no reason why the EU should have to compromise on one of there most fundamental rules for such a small trading partner. What exactly is in it for the EU? What are the Swiss offering to make up for asking the EU to change one of the fundamentals of the single market?

No one has a right to trade with anyone else, and the EU wouldn't be the one who kicked the Swiss out, it would be them leaving, as they decided on the change. If they are unable to offer anything to make up for such a huge request, that is not the fault of the EU. I don't see the Swiss having a lot to bargain with really. Sure the UK, maybe able to get something, due to there size, but the Swiss don't have any leverage really.

smjm

djpbarry wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that it can’t. However, there’s a big difference between “survive” and “prosper”.

The same can easily be said of the EU. It's hardly booming!

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

This will take its time.

Absolutely, which is why it is too early to say what the exact red lines are for each side only 2 weeks after the vote (neither the UK not the EU planned for this and have a proper strategy yet).

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Then they would "betray" those voters who voted for the Brexit because the Immigration Card was the top issue in all the campaign time. That would set up the anti-Immigration bigots in England and Wales and give the UKIP more backing in the "post-Farage-era". I think that the English nationalists have set up their own trap and walked in it with open eyes.

As I said, they just need to make sure there are some kind of exception rules which give the UK a bit more control than it had pre-Brexit and they can say the achieved something (and these rules are needed for Switzerland anyway).

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Switzerland has already become more reluctant to get closer with the EU because of the refugee debate from last year which is not over yet, cos the Hungarians will have a referendum on that refugee issue on 2nd October this year, initiated by Mr Orban himself. It´s rather clear to me that one has to reckon with a majority of the Hungarian people rejecting the proposals of the EU to supply refugee contingents across their member states.

Slightly different matter from free movement of EU citizens, but yes there is also push from within the UE (not only Hungary) to give counties more control over immigration policies. I think the EU can't afford to keep saying no.

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

As far as I recall, I don't think anyone on the Leave side said that EU citizens wouldn't be allowed to work in the UK, nor UK citizens in the EU. They just said that it would be controlled. The mechanism for control will, of course, be up for debate.

But they mean restriction by it, not control because the UK always was in control of her borders, it just had no instrument of restricting the number of new settlers from EU member states and that is the crux. The UK wants restriction on Immigration from EU countries and the UK might have to face the same for their citizens going to EU countries. It all works both ways or it doesn´t work.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote:

I think this article is bizarre to be honest. The Norway deal was always, has always been and still is absolutely on the table. Nothing that has been said by anyone in the EU in the past weeks has said anything contradicting this!

They'll get the UK deal.