Brexit Referendum Superthread

K-9

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Going by what she's been saying, it seems May is preparing the public for a hard Brexit, followed by shrugging and asking what people what they thought was going to happen when they voted Leave.

She seems more concerned with Tory party politics than preparing the country for a deal. Cameron mark 2 then!

They are sending out messages that haven't a hope of being met.

We already had a round of negotiations, Cameron and his 5 concessions or whatever it was. For some reason Boatmad and others seem to think the UK are going to get a bunch more concessions this time.

Not picking on you, but I really don't see why there'd be any sense of optimism about a deal when the Torys are demanding stuff that the 27 countries haven't a hope of agreeing to.

This is looking like another Brexit type political campaign.

Thomas_...

BoatMad wrote: »

The EU is faced with issues around immigration in many of its member states. I personally think uncontrolled free movement of people will come to an end , certainly the concept of accepting external migrants will almost certainly be tightened up to the point of non acceptance

The UK govt does not differenciate between non-EU and EU nationals and that was also the way the Brexit campaign was run on the side fo the Brexiteers.

The issue of existing EU workers in each others countries and the UK will be solved certainly the status quo will be maintained in so much that existing EU migrants will have their status unchanged , Much of what is printed is hyperbole

It´s clear to me that you have apparently never lived in another EU member state when EU residence permissions were issued to EU nationals by the Immigration Office of the country in which other EU nationals live. Otherwise you would know that as an EU citizen, you have a privileged status and this status will go with the UK´s Exit from the EU. Remaining UK expats will fall under the same regulations like they apply for any other foreign citizen of non-EU member states and the criterias for granting them residence permissions are a matter of each EU member state itself.

"moods" are very fickle things , money is what matters in the end . Both the UK and the EU need each other , The UK can no more distance itself physically from the continent than the EU can from the UK. There are interdependencies that are extremely difficult to uncouple.

Well, according to Mrs May, it´ll be easy to "uncouple" all EU legislation from the UK in due course.

The net result will be a compromise agreement that will undoubtably be harder for the UK to swallow then the EU states in my opinion and the UK will swallow it

Well, we´ll have to wait and see for that to happen. As I know the Brits, they´ll rather decline if the price is deemed by them as being too high for having Access to the single market.

K-9

BoatMad wrote: »

The net result will be a compromise agreement that will undoubtably be harder for the UK to swallow then the EU states in my opinion and the UK will swallow it

Well I think we all agree on that one!

Thomas_...

BoatMad wrote: »

of course, wise and measured minds in the UK would most likely reset the clock if they could.

However they are were they are and their is a huge volume of water to flow under bridges before we see any clarity . and remember we cant predict the future precisely because you cannot expect the unexpected

Good, we can´t predict the future precisely but we - or at least I - can tell the path this present UK govt has chosen by that sort of policy they´ve come up recently and that´s not a bright perspective.

BoatMad

Well, we´ll have to wait and see for that to happen. As I know the Brits, they´ll rather decline if the price is deemed by them as being too high for having Access to the single market.

no in the end of the day they are great pragmatists, especially when their pocket is taking a hit

Chips Lovell

K-9 wrote: »

Not picking on you, but I really don't see why there'd be any sense of optimism about a deal when the Torys are demanding stuff that the 27 countries haven't a hope of agreeing to.

I've zero expectation of any kind of deal myself. They've painted themselves into a corner on freedom of movement.

BoatMad

Thomas_... wrote: »

Good, we can´t predict the future precisely but we - or at least I - can tell the path this present UK govt has chosen by that sort of policy they´ve come up recently and that´s not a bright perspective.

you cant , because its not a path that will remain consistent , in fact they havent even ordered the paving stones for the path , just making pronouncements about building a path without any clear mechanism for such a path

May could have triggered 50 yesterday, yet she waits till march next year ( already delayed from the " end of the year : )

we shall see how this plays out , but the final path will look nothing like the pronouncements , that I am sure off

Thomas_...

K-9 wrote: »

Well I think we all agree on that one!

I prefer to keep my doubts, at least as Long as this Mrs May is the UK´s PM.

Thomas_...

BoatMad wrote: »

no in the end of the day they are great pragmatists, especially when their pocket is taking a hit

For that it takes different politicians than those who are presently in the UK´s govt.

Lemming

K-9 wrote: »

She seems more concerned with Tory party politics than preparing the country for a deal. Cameron mark 2 then!

They are sending out messages that haven't a hope of being met.

Magical individually tailored Unicorns Ted!

And there's one for every one in the 52% audience ...

wes

K-9 wrote: »

May doesn't seem to be preparing the public for what is possible and probable. Maybe they actually don't want a deal like Switzerland or Norway?

Well, yes, there current rhetoric, leads me to believe they want a hard brexit.

Thomas_...

BoatMad wrote: »

you cant , because its not a path that will remain consistent , in fact they havent even ordered the paving stones for the path , just making pronouncements about building a path without any clear mechanism for such a path

May could have triggered 50 yesterday, yet she waits till march next year ( already delayed from the " end of the year : )

we shall see how this plays out , but the final path will look nothing like the pronouncements , that I am sure off

OK, I agree to disagree with you and I´m rather sure that the Brits will fail to get what they deluded their own people with in promising them to get it.

I´m far from seeing myself as being an anti-Brit, I just despise any sort of arrogance whether it comes form an individual or from a government and when I see either of them getting a good backlash for their arrogance, yes, I can´t hide my "Schadenfreude" and enjoy it to have some good laughs at them when they are on their knees and become as small like a mouse cos often such people really deserve it. Some learn from it, others don´t, but that´s left to a learn process.

As I said before, the Brits are taking themselves too much important than they really are and that makes their appearance more arrogant in the perception of the others. But UKIPers like the arrogance as they like the foul smell of the old gone British Empire.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

The EU is faced with issues around immigration in many of its member states. I personally think uncontrolled free movement of people will come to an end , certainly the concept of accepting external migrants will almost certainly be tightened up to the point of non acceptance

This is not the issue at all. What the EU will not accept is restrictions on movement and employment of EU citizens to the UK. If the Brexiteers are cool will unlimited Poles and Latvians, there is no issue - but they most certainly are not.

The UK already has control of immigration to the UK from outside the EU - despite the rhetoric, they are quite generous with it for some reason.

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not the issue at all. What the EU will not accept is restrictions on movement and employment of EU citizens to the UK. If the Brexiteers are cool will unlimited Poles and Latvians, there is no issue - but they most certainly are not.

The UK already has control of immigration to the UK from outside the EU - despite the rhetoric, they are quite generous with it for some reason.

Thanks for that, it´s been about time that someone mentions that. Farage and chums have taking the EU refugee resettlement quotas into their Brexit campaign in order to gain more support from the electorate and it paid off for them.

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

no in the end of the day they are great pragmatists, especially when their pocket is taking a hit

If this were true the politicians would never have held a referendum, and the voters would never have voted Brexit. Both of those decisions are the exact opposite of pragmatism and will cost them a fortune.

So in this whole Brexit process, you are wrong on two counts so far, and I see no reason to suppose you will be proven right when negotiations start.

Scofflaw

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh dear. Lets see about that.

Oh dear. The State Aid rules were agreed, in Treaty form, around 1957. When the Member States agreed to the recapitalisation measures, they did not amend the relevant legal provisions that govern state aid and the internal market. primary law was unaffected.

The only thing that was amended of any note was the Commission's interpretation of state aid law, including (in 2008) that state aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market where it is intended to "remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State"

See Julia Flavie Collinet, "State Aid in the Banking Sector: A Viable Solution to the ‘Too Big To Fail’ Problem?" (2014) Global Antitrust Review 137, 140.

I can't really see why you've come back with a statement that state aid rules weren't changed, since I didn't suggest they were. They obviously would not have needed to be if the bank bailouts weren't state aid.

Since what I'm saying is that the bank bailouts weren't state aid in the sense we're talking about - that is, material advantages offered to companies/sectors without the state taking ownership - I can't see why you even entertained the possibility I might be claiming this had been facilitated by some change of rules.

Oh dear. A bit like this, then.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/failure-by-aib-to-meet-cash-deadline-costs-state-280m-30216366.html

"Following careful consideration of the interests of the bank and its shareholders, AIB has determined that the dividend of €280m, due 13 May 2014, will be settled in ordinary shares in lieu of a cash payment," it said. "As a result AIB becomes obliged to issue and allot ordinary shares to the NPRFC in accordance with AIB's Articles of Association."
The NPRFC already holds 99.8pc of the bank's 521 billion ordinary shares, the majority issued at a price of €0.01 per share in July 2011, so the new shares will not materially increase the State's stake in the bank.

AIB expects to return to profit in 2014 after making an operating profit of €445m last year when losses on boom-era assets were excluded.
But last month it emerged AIB was in talks with the Government that could see the €3.5bn portion of the bank's bailout loans effectively written off this year – by being swapped for still more shares.

See further comment here

http://www.coppolacomment.com/2014/04/how-to-fleece-government-irish-style.html

Condescendingly cordially,
A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

Again, I can't see what the point of that's supposed to be. The quote you include notes that AIB is 99.8% owned by the State in the form of the National Pension Reserve Fund - as a result of the State's recapitalisation of AIB, and in exchange for it.

Since that's exactly what I said, I have no idea why you think you've successfully contradicted me - unless you didn't realise that the NPRFC was part of the State, of course?

So, allow me to repeat my points - the ability of the UK to offer state aid to companies or sectors after Brexit is not in any sense affected by any precedent set by the bank bailouts, because the bank bailouts weren't state aid in that sense. They (a) didn't distort the single market, since they were pan-European; and (b) didn't provide aid to private companies without exchange, but rather were nationalisations.

If you've anything relevant to add, work away, but so far your responses have either been irrelevant, or repeated what I said.

amused (condescendingly, of course),
Scofflaw

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If this were true the politicians would never have held a referendum, and the voters would never have voted Brexit. Both of those decisions are the exact opposite of pragmatism and will cost them a fortune.

So in this whole Brexit process, you are wrong on two counts so far, and I see no reason to suppose you will be proven right when negotiations start.

Cameron sincerely never expected to loose, thats the reason he decided to run a referendum, he felt he should silence the eurosceptics in the Tory party once and for all and at the same time sink the UKIP

it backfired , from his perspective several years ago a referendum looked pragmatic , but as it transpired, anything but

oppenheimer1

BoatMad wrote: »

we are merely at the opening gambit , all sides tend to take extreme views , expressing their desires, expected outcomes and attempting to " define positions " , rather like rutting stags.

over time pragmatism and the rule of the money men will prevail

You're right though a deal will be reached but it is the details of the uk's opening position that are hard to understand. It's opening position seems to be that it accepts that in order to prohibit free movement it is willing to opt out of the single market. This is the same as the EU opening position so it seems there is little to negotiate on that front.

While it is better for everyone if they stay in, ultimately this will harm the UK economy the most than any other nation. When this eventually dawns on enough in the Tory party policy will change and we may well see May ousted and the exit abandoned (after a 2nd referendum). The best part of that scenario is that the tory party will tear themselves apart in the process.

It may be wishful thinking perhaps however. The xenophobia coming from the tory party conference though, is worrying.

Calina

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The best part of that scenario is that the tory party will tear themselves apart in the process.

I might have more faith in that scenario except the only valid opposition appears to be the SNP at the moment.

ancapailldorcha

Calina wrote: »

I might have more faith in that scenario except the only valid opposition appears to be the SNP at the moment.

I think they had a go at becoming the official opposition recently citing the fact that 80% of Labour MPs did not support Jeremy Corbyn.

Sam Russell

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The xenophobia coming from the tory party conference though, is worrying.

The Tories have always specialised in xenophobia - they also do not like foreigners.

Thomas_...

Some new figures on what Brexit could mean for Scotland:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37564729

Fraser of Allander report: Brexit could cost 80,000 Jobs

Scotland could lose between 30,000 and 80,000 jobs as a result of Brexit, according to an economic analysis.

But the Fraser of Allander Institute said the Scottish economy would be "cushioned" from the likely impact compared with the rest of the UK.

A report suggested that Brexit could lead to more migration to Scotland from other parts of the UK.
...
Holyrood's Europe committee convener Joan McAlpine said the outlook was "grim", and warned there could be a "huge constitutional crisis" if Holyrood was not consulted about the "Great Repeal Bill", which severs ties between the EU and the UK.

The report from the Fraser of Allander Institute examines a series of potential post-Brexit scenarios. These range from an "optimistic" model similar to Norway's relationship with the EU to a "pessimistic" one based on a so-called "hard Brexit" outside the single market, based on World Trade Organisation rules.

The group said the most optimistic outlook would see Scottish GDP drop by 2% within 10 years, causing the loss of 30,000 jobs. The most pessimistic model would see GDP 5% lower within a decade, with 80,000 fewer jobs in the economy.
...

wes

Steven Woolfe collapses after being 'punched' in Ukip meeting – Politics live

Looks like one his colleagues punched him, for considering defecting to the Tory's. Some suggestions from the above link that they both decided to take things outside and fight.

This sort of carry on from UKIP's membership is appalling, and I can only imagine that many in the EU will be glad to see the back of them.

Hopefully the authorities are investigating, as this kind of behavior is ridiculous.

Thomas_...

wes wrote: »

Steven Woolfe collapses after being 'punched' in Ukip meeting – Politics live

Looks like one his colleagues punched him, for considering defecting to the Tory's. Some suggestions from the above link that they both decided to take things outside and fight.

This sort of carry on from UKIP's membership is appalling, and I can only imagine that many in the EU will be glad to see the back of them.

Hopefully the authorities are investigating, as this kind of behavior is ridiculous.

Not much of details on that incident reported in the BBC News article, instead, lots of twitter citations with good wishes etc..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37572377

BlitzKrieg

Guardian reporting that he picked a fight with another UKIP MEP and got knocked into a window. This is coming from a welsh UKIP member reporting it 2nd hand.

He's supposably fine now, conscious again etc.

But it sets a whole new standard for party in fighting.

BlitzKrieg

One thing about the reports is slightly confusing. They say that he went to vote in parliament when he collapsed but I was under the impression UKIP refuse to take part in actual voting etc in the parliament because they didnt recognise it?

Pro Hoc Vice

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

One thing about the reports is slightly confusing. They say that he went to vote in parliament when he collapsed but I was under the impression UKIP refuse to take part in actual voting etc in the parliament because they didnt recognise it?

http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-nigel-farage-2.html#/##vote-tabs-1

Clearlier

Clearlier wrote: »

I have made one assumption throughout this discussion which is that you would think that economic growth is a desirable thing. If that's not the case then we're probably not talking the same language here.

Of course I think economic growth is a good thing, and once again, I cannot fathom why you are imputing such an outrageously stupid opinion to me in the alternative.

I can accept someone disagreeing with anything I say, but with respect, you seem to think I'm either anti-EU (I'm not), in favour of protectionism (I'm not), in favour of Britain withdrawing from the world (I'm not) that I don't understand basic concepts of economic theory (not true), and now, that I may be opposed to economic growth (really, what?). All of these opinions have been based on your jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting what I am saying. For example.

In an ideal economic world everybody focuses on doing what they're best at doing and trades with everyone else for the other things that they want and need.

That is simply beyond debate. There is no question but that Britain should continue to specialise in the export of sophisticated goods and services.

But being pro-computers doesn't make one anti-corner-shop. Corner shops have their place. Lets return to your reference to the Law of Comparative Advantage, which would tell us that when the opportunities for growth in highly efficient sectors diminish, one assigns workers and investment down the line to less efficient sectors with increasing opportunity costs, such as the production of unsophisticated products, and eventually, corner shops.

In a nutshell, the potential growth in high-tech industry post-Brexit is probably weak, meaning that one seeks to assign workers to the next-most efficient sector. And with increasing British cost-competitiveness due to trade barriers, that's probably something like food processing.

You must remember that Britain should always seek to increase its market share in world manufacturing of high-tech products. That's not in dispute. But with unemployment rates of up to 30% in Northern England and Scottish cities, we have to be realistic about the likelihood of new investment in these regions. And it happens to neatly dovetail with the question of relatively price-inelastic imports.

It's a myth that everyone on benefits or who are unemployed are incapable - sure someone who is long term unemployed with little education isn't going to get a job programming but they can certainly work in a factory building airplanes and I've seen for myself people do a short FAS course, get a job in tech support and work their way up in a company.

Ok, perhaps I'm being pessimistic about the unemployed. But tell me this, are you saying you're optimistic about any growth in investment in sophisticated British industry after Brexit is concluded? Because I'm not. Most people in this thread are not.

That's why I think the UK should try to mitigate (not solve) the crisis by developing the next-best thing, which is probably the manufacturing of less sophisticated goods. They won't get rich from it. They might get some stability.

I like the way that you propose imposing tariffs and providing tax breaks yet insist that nobody's talking about protectionism. Spot the problem?

Once again. I do not support the imposition of tariffs. I said I think, and I hope, Britain will join the customs union. I could not have been clearer about that.

I'm simply saying what I think should happen in the worst-case scenario.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't really see why you've come back with a statement that state aid rules weren't changed

Dear cordially scofflaw,

Sorry to be be so formal in our exchanges, it all feels rather grand & antique; I feel like Wordsworth in a time of Brexit, but I shall oblige your ritual.

I replied with a comment on state aid law because your 'context' that bailouts of European banks was agreed at political level, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not state aid rules were breached.

The answer relies solely on the wording of the law itself, and on the Commission's various formal opinions stating that the law was not breached for the reasons I cited (e.g. emergency measures to stabilise the economy).

The political agreement of the politicians is irrelevant without any change to primary law.

Again, I can't see what the point of that's supposed to be. The quote you include notes that AIB is 99.8% owned by the State in the form of the National Pension Reserve Fund - as a result of the State's recapitalisation of AIB, and in exchange for it.

Oh dear. Where did you get the idea that a government-owned firm is immune from State aid law?

There are several important components of state aid law, with which I assume you are completely unfamiliar. But state-control over a firm is not an exemption. That is a foolish thing to think, let alone to assert in public, since it could defeat the purpose of State aid law entirely.

This is the second time you've attempted to define state aid law with respect to bank bailouts. Lets see if you manage it the third time.

Patiently,
A Cordial Tyrant Named Miltiades!

Patser

Sterling in the news big time today, all down to a computer glitch that caused a headline grabbing slump but has still highlighted that Sterling is just slipping lower and lower each month.

This will be very bad news for the likes of Dundalk shop owners, I can see Newry traffic jams not seen for the last 7 years come Christmas. Also terrible news for any Irish businesses that focus on the UK market, farmers especially.

And there's very little silver lining for the UK either. Yippee for Newry and their manufacturering but that pales compared to their trade deficit ballooning, probable inflation and other sneaky losses (remember that NATO thing where they've to pay in dollars)

And article 50 has still to be triggered let alone Brexit decided.