Brexit Referendum Superthread

12-07-2016 3:17pm

smjm wrote: »

You and I are listening to him, but coming to different conclusions. His basic withdrawal plan is far less dramatic than (m)any from the Leave side would want. He advocates dropping back to the EEA and keeping free movement etc, while making longer term plans for loosening ties to the EU. That's a fairly moderate, sensible approach in my opinion.

I am listening and reading his pamphlet - http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf

Perhaps you should do the same.

He makes it abundantly clear that the EEA 'fix' would be short term, with a view to then destroying the EEA.

I also note that you don't disagree with my point that he is 'testing' the models unfairly. His criticisms of the EU aren't compared to his UNECE 'New World Order' proposal, though they clearly exist just as much if not more under that!

Stage 6 of his pamphlet is an eye opener.

12-07-2016 3:19pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No its not according to him perfect he wants to throw out the UN convention on Refugees, but use it as a head body. His view is beyond contrariety. If i was watching this in leave camp I would have voted remain. His preferred option is EEA plus he is all over the place no wonder the leave camp did not say this was the plan, he is like a freeman.

page 31 - Stage 6
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf

1. Recognition of our sovereignty: the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations, and our Parliaments and Assemblies;

2. Real local democracy: the foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined). These shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted to the national government;

3. Separation of powers: the executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly;

4. The people's consent: no law, treaty or government decision shall take effect without the consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that none shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;

5. No taxation or spending without consent: no tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures;

6. A constitutional convention: Parliament, once members of the executive are excluded, must host a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It shall recognise their sovereign status and their inherent, inalienable rights and which shall be subject to their approval.

4&5 look familiar

oscarBravo · 12-07-2016 3:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: 'Flexcit'

From the very beginning:

...direct democratic control of both national and local government...

Uh oh.

Deleted User wrote: »

Page 16 of the lite document

If UNECE runs the Single Market, it can take advantage of an already well developed hierarchical structure. Doing so removes entirely the idea of a Europe of concentric circles, where the EU is positioned at the centre, with the peripheral nations in a subordinate position. Instead, the market becomes a partnership of equals.

That's not how the EU works. He should do some reading on the subsidiarity principle.

K-9 · 12-07-2016 4:07pm

Ah Jaysus, I thought the quip about freemen wasn't serious. 4 & 5 would be unworkable and there's a good chance Scotland will be leaving anyway, forced by Brexit.

It's nice and idealistic and fair play to him, but negotiations aren't just going to be agreeing to British demands or what they'd like.

The legal expert is honest when he says this has never happened before so we just don't know. A wise sign that!

Pro Hoc Vice · 12-07-2016 4:25pm

K-9 wrote: »

Ah Jaysus, I thought the quip about freemen wasn't serious. 4 & 5 would be unworkable and there's a good chance Scotland will be leaving anyway, forced by Brexit.

It's nice and idealistic and fair play to him, but negotiations aren't just going to be agreeing to British demands or what they'd like.

The legal expert is honest when he says this has never happened before so we just don't know. A wise sign that!

There was a strong wiff of freeman of the guy while freeman light never the less it's under the surface. Any person with any idea of law would know he is cobbling a few unthought out ideas together with little idea how they interact.

View · 12-07-2016 4:47pm

smjm wrote: »

His preferred first phase of withdrawal is the EEA. Indeed he says that that is really the only sensible option. What's wrong with that?

For starters, to become an EEA member, a country must be either a member of the EU or EFTA - all three of which have the four freedoms as basic principles and all three of which have "supranational" bodies telling you what to do. All now apparently concepts that Leavers disagree with these days.

Second, any existing member can veto the UK joining EFTA and/or the EEA. There is no obligation on an EU state to agree to admit a new EFTA state to the EEA (whereas there is vice-versa).

Third, the EEA was set up to facilitate EFTA states joining the EU should they choose to do so. That was the reason Switzerland refused to accede to it. It was NOT set up to facilitate a departing state and the EU members would not want it to be turned into a wrecking club for the EU by a departing state.

Fourth, the EU member states are not going to agree to this step-by-step disengagement in order to facilitate UK Leavers. Why should they? After all, the UK would be committing to an organisation under false pretences since it would have no intention of working with the other members to achieve its long term goals.

Fifth, the EU will enter into EXIT negotiations with the the UK, not negotiations on what comes next. Once the UK is out, it can join the queue and be treated the same way as Brazil, Nigeria etc are when they want a deal with the EU. Out is out, after all. As with Irish (or possible Scottish) independence, once you've decided you're leaving, you don't get to dictate or vote on what, if any, post departure arrangments the remaining state/organisation will offer you and you have no reasonable grounds to expect you will.

Bob24 · 12-07-2016 5:09pm

View wrote: »

Fifth, the EU will enter into EXIT negotiations with the the UK, not negotiations on what comes next.

If you look at the wording of article 50 your statement above doesn't seem correct. The article does mention the future relationship with the union:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

View wrote: »

Once the UK is out, it can join the queue and be treated the same way as Brazil, Nigeria etc are when they want a deal with the EU.

I think it would be as naive saying the UK won't be treated with higher priority than Brazil or Nigeria as saying negotiations will be easy.

molloyjh · 12-07-2016 5:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

page 31 - Stage 6
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf

4&5 look familiar

Well I was going to take a glance this evening, but having read that I think I'll save myself the trouble. If the last few referenda on the EU have taught us anything it's that direct democracy is a dangerous notion. Taxation by consent!? Seriously....I mean seriously......what the actual!? :eek:

K-9 · 12-07-2016 5:22pm

Bob24 wrote: »

If you look at the wording of article 50 your statement above doesn't seem correct. The article does mention the future relationship with the union:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

I think it would be as naive saying the UK won't be treated with higher priority than Brazil or Nigeria as saying negotiations will be easy.

Hmmm, hard to know what they mean, maybe Britain will have a plan for what it wants which makes sense. Britain can't really go in with 4 or 5 options, it has to pick one?

Brazil might be an exaggeration but if it wants restrictions on immigration it will have to pay some cost, whether that's £350 million a week or giving up some access to the EU in some other important area.

Pro Hoc Vice · 12-07-2016 5:27pm

Bob24 wrote: »

If you look at the wording of article 50 your statement above doesn't seem correct. The article does mention the future relationship with the union:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

I think it would be as naive saying the UK won't be treated with higher priority than Brazil or Nigeria as saying negotiations will be easy.

You forget the big if, if after 2 years and if no extension is granted then it's out and there we stand. There is nothing stopping the UK and Council taking 10 years and have everything agreed including exit and future relationship but that requires the UK plus heads of 27 countries plus 2 others to agree. The only thing we know is we know nothing about how this will work out.

There is one other big issue the UK has not as yet even said what it wants post exit.

Bob24 · 12-07-2016 6:13pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You forget the big if, if after 2 years and if no extension is granted then it's out and there we stand. There is nothing stopping the UK and Council taking 10 years and have everything agreed including exit and future relationship but that requires the UK plus heads of 27 countries plus 2 others to agree. The only thing we know is we know nothing about how this will work out.

There is one other big issue the UK has not as yet even said what it wants post exit.

Not really forgetting anything. My point was just that it was incorrect to say the EU will refuse to negotiate on post exit arrangements during the 2 years.

Bob24 · 12-07-2016 6:22pm

K-9 wrote: »

Hmmm, hard to know what they mean, maybe Britain will have a plan for what it wants which makes sense. Britain can't really go in with 4 or 5 options, it has to pick one?

Yes difficult to know exactly what it means and how far it will go, but I think it is clear that "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" means the discussions will not only be about exit but also about the future relashionship?

K-9 wrote: »

Brazil might be an exaggeration but if it wants restrictions on immigration it will have to pay some cost, whether that's £350 million a week or giving up some access to the EU in some other important area.

Yes absolutely, the UK will need to compromise on other big topics if they want full control over immigration. I was just replying the other poster's comment on whether the EU would prioritise talks with the UK vs other countries, not going into what the terms would be.

smjm · 12-07-2016 6:56pm

The UK's Treasury Select Committee have invited the Flexcit fella, Richard North, to speak to them tomorrow:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/future-economic-relationship-with-eu-evidence-16-17/

Someone must find him interesting!

View · 12-07-2016 11:13pm

Bob24 wrote: »

View wrote: »

Fifth, the EU will enter into EXIT negotiations with the the UK, not negotiations on what comes next.

If you look at the wording of article 50 your statement above doesn't seem correct. The article does mention the future relationship with the union:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

The article clearly refers to concluding an arrangement for withdrawal - an exit agreement as I said.

Obviously if the departing state outlines a possible future relationship that the remaining member states believe is in THEIR interest, the exit agreement would take that into account. There is not much point in having to insist on Schengen visas for business/tourism etc immediately upon a country leaving, if everyone agrees they'll conclude an agreement in short order to ensure such travel will be visa free.

Bob24 wrote: »

View wrote: »

Once the UK is out, it can join the queue and be treated the same way as Brazil, Nigeria etc are when they want a deal with the EU.

I think it would be as naive saying the UK won't be treated with higher priority than Brazil or Nigeria as saying negotiations will be easy.

[/quote]

It would be naive to assume they would have higher priority. The EU has lots of ongoing negotiations. They aren't going to halt membership negotiations with future members or halt negotiations on trade deals with the US etc to give the UK a higher priority. After all, no one would suggest that Ireland could use our former membership of the UK to "trump" negotiations that the UK is involved in with other countries on NATO for instance. :-)

K-9 · 13-07-2016 5:44am

Well the UK leaving is an unforseen event, they'll hardly go to the back of the queue.

Bob24 · 13-07-2016 8:47am

View wrote: »

The article clearly refers to concluding an arrangement for withdrawal - an exit agreement as I said.

Obviously if the departing state outlines a possible future relationship that the remaining member states believe is in THEIR interest, the exit agreement would take that into account. There is not much point in having to insist on Schengen visas for business/tourism etc immediately upon a country leaving, if everyone agrees they'll conclude an agreement in short order to ensure such travel will be visa free.

When the treaty says "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" it is making a clear assumption that a framework exists. For that framework to exist negotiations on the future relationship will need to happen during the 2 years period, as opposed to what your original post mentioned. This of course does not mean negotiations must have been finalised, but that they must have started and be advanced enough to have produced some type of high level framework (or as another poster mentioned, the alternative is for the UK and the EU would fall-back to the clause of the directive describing a unorderly exit, but I think neither will want that).

View wrote: »

It would be naive to assume they would have higher priority. The EU has lots of ongoing negotiations. They aren't going to halt membership negotiations with future members or halt negotiations on trade deals with the US etc to give the UK a higher priority. After all, no one would suggest that Ireland could use our former membership of the UK to "trump" negotiations that the UK is involved in with other countries on NATO for instance. :-)

If you truly think the UK will not take precedence over Brazil or Nigeria in terms of trade negotiations we can only agree to disagree. This is an opinion which seems non-pragmetic to me as obviously there will be loads of pressure both within the UK and within EU member states to maintain trade level as much as possible, as the UK is a much more important export market for most members that these two countries.

13-07-2016 9:01am

smjm wrote: »

The UK's Treasury Select Committee have invited the Flexcit fella, Richard North, to speak to them tomorrow:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/future-economic-relationship-with-eu-evidence-16-17/

Someone must find him interesting!

Looking forward to this.

molloyjh · 13-07-2016 9:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking forward to this.

The line-up is actually quite funny to read:

Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy

Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute

Richard North, Author

So 2 people whose full time job is related to Economics and 1 guy who writes books.

Lockstep · 13-07-2016 9:07am

molloyjh wrote: »

The line-up is actually quite funny to read:

So 2 people whose full time job is related to Economics and 1 guy who writes books.

I hope he brings up his freemen-esque woo. That stuff hitting the news is always gold.

13-07-2016 9:08am

The UK will not go to the back of any queue. If they were to, it would be a prime example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

We (EU members) do enormous business with the UK, and so will want to continue that and have as little change as possible, as soon after Brexit as is physically possible.

The delays will not come from the EU side in any case, the EU 'case' is straightforward. "We have a great package to offer, but you no longer want that, here are the other options available which we have worked on for many years. The pros and cons are well known. Which do you want?". Any changes to those deals that the UK want will have to come from their side, and then offered to the EU side to consider. There is little-to-no work to be done on the EU side until that is done.

If, when that is done, and the 'UK Third Country plan' negotiations have finally began, some members delay the process or interfere unnecessarily, that will cost us all time, us all money, us all investment, us all market confidence, us all certainty. All for what exactly?

Bob24 · 13-07-2016 9:29am

molloyjh wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking forward to this.

The line-up is actually quite funny to read:

Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy

Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute

Richard North, Author

So 2 people whose full time job is related to Economics and 1 guy who writes books.

The other way to look at it is that the committee is giving him a lot of credit for his work by inviting him even though his job title alone doesn't make him a specialist (I haven't reviewed his stuff so I have no opinion on him, but I assume if they thought he was s total lunatic they wouldn't have invited him).

13-07-2016 9:39am

Bob24 wrote: »

The other way to look at it is that the committee is giving him a lot of credit for his work by inviting him even though his job title alone doesn't make him a specialist (I haven't reviewed his stuff so I have no opinion on him, but I assume if they thought he was s total lunatic they wouldn't have invited him).

Or simply they are doing the job that they are supposed to do which involves taking in a broad range of opinions and thoughts on the matter. Given the amount of effort that the author has put into his plan, he could certainly prove to be useful.

And that's totally independent of the efficacy, legality, morality or indeed usefulness of the plan itself.

Bob24 · 13-07-2016 9:52am

Deleted User wrote: »

Or simply they are doing the job that they are supposed to do which involves taking in a broad range of opinions and thoughts on the matter. Given the amount of effort that the author has put into his plan, he could certainly prove to be useful.

And that's totally independent of the efficacy, legality, morality or indeed usefulness of the plan itself.

Yes this is exactly what I mean by giving him credit for his work. They do recognise that he seems to be one of the very few people who seriously thought of an exit plan, so he might have some interesting ideas to throw in. And as with what all their guests are saying it will go into a big pot of information and be assessed against what other speakers said.

Nody · 13-07-2016 11:13am

djpbarry wrote: »

A view on the general subject of free movement of people from within London…

For what it’s worth (and I accept that this is entirely anecdotal), I work in a fairly high-profile scientific institute were about 40% of the staff are non-British EU nationals (myself included). We had our first post-Brexit address from our directors this morning. While the underlying message was very much “keep calm and carry on”, we were all advised to start applying for British residency/citizenship.

But perhaps more significantly, it was revealed that it is becoming increasingly apparent how badly the UK’s international reputation has been damaged by Brexit (or, more specifically, the UK’s anti-immigrant sentiment). A number of new employees who are due to start in the coming weeks and months have either lodged queries regarding immigration status or, in a few extreme cases, have withdrawn their applications entirely.

In other words, we’re already finding it more difficult to attract people from overseas, both EU and non-EU.

It appears to be a more general trend and combined with a 42% increase in hate crimes compared to last year you can't really blame them. Add in the fact of EU funding research projects (big question mark) and there's a big chance of a brain drain happening. But hey; who needs those scientists anyway...

molloyjh · 13-07-2016 12:17pm

Nody wrote: »

It appears to be a more general trend and combined with a 42% increase in hate crimes compared to last year you can't really blame them. Add in the fact of EU funding research projects (big question mark) and there's a big chance of a brain drain happening. But hey; who needs those scientists anyway...

SNIP

Harika · 13-07-2016 12:52pm

If you speak german or can translate in the browser, this guy from Switzerland talks about his hate speech in public forums. https://www.woz.ch/-6f26
What you get out immediately from him is that whatever problems you think UK has, Switzerland has the same, without the EU.

ancapailldorcha · 13-07-2016 1:07pm

molloyjh wrote: »

SNIP

This is a forum for serious discussion. Please read the charter before posting again.

BoatMad · 13-07-2016 2:26pm

The more you read and consider , the more it is obvious that both the Conservative hirachy , Whitehall and even the " leave " proponents never have any thought to what might happen if they won, they clearly never believed they would.

Now the UK is in an incredibly weak bargaining position as Article 50 once triggered , hands all the cards to the EU. ( because in essence , it's an instant out then negotiate your way back , process )

The consequences of decoupling 40 years of cooperation , EU statutes , etc will take the UK a decade or longer to resolve.

All this while the Scottish and perhaps Northeyn Iteland EU situation has equally to be resolved with or without a uk constitutional crisis in tandem.

The U.K. Needs access to the single market and also passporting rights for the euro far more then the EU needs the UK. spprox 50 % of uk trade is with the EU, whereas only 16 % the other way.

Hence there will be enormous pressure on the uk from its internal factions to resolve the exit without severe trade issues. That does not argue well for a strong uk negotiating position.

It's saddens me to hear jingoistic talk as if this was 1970 or even 1870 , the UK cannot reverse time no matter what Farage says.

No to mention that virtually every senior Brexitier has fallen on his sword or been stabbed n the back

Personally I would be suprised if the UK enacts Article 50 anytime soon , far better to pester the EU to lay out a plan and then trigger 50. However the situation in the Uk seems to be almost a death wish at present and anything could happen

There is so much to play out yet on this process , before we see any clarity , there may not even be a " UK " in the end.

What a travesty of democracy , all done to to try and force the hand of the Conservstive euro sceptic wing by Cameron , who gambled a nation to solve a party political issue and lost, what monumental hubris. The sickening sight of him just walking off the stage to applause , is just so wrong. The man is worse then tony Blair

13-07-2016 2:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking forward to this.

And we're off http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-7ed7-48b3-9643-472e6be0462e

Patser · 13-07-2016 8:01pm

Boris Johnson the new Foreign Minister!

The mind boggles. I've seen a quote that they're expecting him to work his charm on European leaders as part of the Brexit negotiations. He's been openly mocking the EU for decades, he frequently made up stuff for the Telegraph about non-existent EU regulations (under 8s not allowed inflate balloons) , he's lead a campaign against EU membership and now he's back to work his charm!!!

Charm! Compared to Farage's input in Brussels last week maybe but the likes of Schultz doesn't deal in charm, just facts.

Brexit Referendum Superthread

Comments