Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As it relates to their workers travelling to the UK then they should have a say. Britain could make multilateral agreements with these countries on free movement. A very vibrant Polish community resides in the UK. The Bulgarians and Romanians also have large communities. Europeans have to position themselves to safeguard their citizens many of them are EU citizens in the UK. Switzerland and Norway don’t have as many EU citizens I happen a guess whereas the UK has huge numbers of citizens and tourists. If not the EU than National gvts will have to get involved in looking out for them.

Apologies for the font my machine is going on he blink at the moment.

I took the liberty of fixing it. Hope that's ok.

Regarding your post, such agreements on free movement would take many years to negotiate with the Eastern countries wanting as much of the status quo as possible. What would the wording of such referenda be exactly?

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Beyond the now fairly hardcore May government (possibly too much), can you quote many vocal remainers who are genuinely trying to analyse the cause of the vote beyond the simplistic explanations I mentioned and offer a compromise?

Yes.

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I took the liberty of fixing it. Hope that's ok.

Regarding your post, such agreements on free movement would take many years to negotiate with the Eastern countries wanting as much of the status quo as possible. What would the wording of such referenda be exactly?

Thanks by the way.

Yes I do believe Europeans should have a big say. Immigration what with the refugees and the Fiscal rules agreed by the € Nation being flexible and the sanctions on Russia. All of the parliaments should help to forge policies that have mutual agreements at the European level. Internal EU border agencies need to cooperate ever closer on new arrivals into Europe and deescalating the conflicts currently raging around Europe. I would be in favour of European parliaments deciding who they want to let in. Doing away with extra benefits that come from admitting many people in. A nation needs to absorb incoming population. Some nations need more migrants due to their age population.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the issue and why I think that there's an argument to be made that they're undemocratic (setting aside the fact that it was a ploy to maintain Tory unity).

Take the 2 stances. If you're a remainer, do you favour a reformed EU with a greater emphasis on the government and more public spending? Do you think it's perfect as it is? Would you like it to move in a more capitalist direction? If you're a leaver, would you like to avail of the EEA option and trade with the EU but be freer of the central government? Should the UK sever all ties? Should the UK remain if immigration can be capped?

Indeed. You could end up with 70-80% wanting a relationship with the EU, be that remain or an EEA type situation.

I'd say 20-30% would want a hard Brexit or cutting all ties solution.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Thanks by the way.

Yes I do believe Europeans should have a big say. Immigration what with the refugees and the Fiscal rules agreed by the € Nation being flexible and the sanctions on Russia. All of the parliaments should help to forge policies that have mutual agreements at the European level. Internal EU border agencies need to cooperate ever closer on new arrivals into Europe and deescalating the conflicts currently raging around Europe. I would be in favour of European parliaments deciding who they want to let in. Doing away with extra benefits that come from admitting many people in. A nation needs to absorb incoming population. Some nations need more migrants due to their age population.

You mentioned referenda. How would this work?

The idea of parliaments controlling numbers has been mooted several times. I'm against it as it's just going to create inefficiency, waste and will hinder growth.

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You mentioned referenda. How would this work?

The idea of parliaments controlling numbers has been mooted several times. I'm against it as it's just going to create inefficiency, waste and will hinder growth.

A parliamentary vote could do it just as well.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A parliamentary vote could do it just as well.

You specifically stated referenda. That's what I was enquiring about.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Thanks by the way.

Yes I do believe Europeans should have a big say. Immigration what with the refugees and the Fiscal rules agreed by the € Nation being flexible and the sanctions on Russia. All of the parliaments should help to forge policies that have mutual agreements at the European level. Internal EU border agencies need to cooperate ever closer on new arrivals into Europe and deescalating the conflicts currently raging around Europe. I would be in favour of European parliaments deciding who they want to let in. Doing away with extra benefits that come from admitting many people in. A nation needs to absorb incoming population. Some nations need more migrants due to their age population.

But the problem is the UK has voted to leave the EU for 2 big reasons, immigration and not wanting EU influence. So the UK is free to set out its own terms and ignore what the EU countries think, for now.

It's a bit like the Swiss situation, they voted against the latest EU/Swiss deal on immigration but that's a Swiss political matter, it doesn't really put much pressure on the EU.

The UK is free to set out what it thinks it can get but for a deal to be done, 27 countries have to be relatively happy with the agreement.

The East European countries involved could form a bloc to ensure their nationals right are respected.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

The East European countries involved could form a bloc to ensure their nationals right are respected.

This won't be necessary. They all need to agree on it. Incidentally, The Economist doesn't think that German carmakers are the saving grace that the Brexiteers made them out to be.

K-9

It depends, the Russian sanctions met resistance from some vested interests in German industry and Merkel still went ahead.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

An argument could made that a European referendum should be held for all the European nations...

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Wasn't proposing any referendum...

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes.

I see they have a manifesto explaining what they want Brexit to mean, but what analyse of the causes of the no vote and offer for compromise is there on this site? Their vision is clear but I don't see it taking into account the key concerns of leave voters.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This won't be necessary. They all need to agree on it. Incidentally, The Economist doesn't think that German carmakers are the saving grace that the Brexiteers made them out to be.

How many purchasers of BMW and Mercedes cars will worry about a 10% tariff on their car purchase, and how many Europeans will worry about a 10% tariff on the Nissan car?

How fast will Nissan take to move production from Sunderland to Hungary?

The same applies to other marks of premium cars, and non-premium one as well. Whether BMW moves production of the Mini or the Rolls Royce production will depend - but there is little sentimental attachment to UK production. Look at what happened to Waterford Glass.

At the end of the day, tariff will cause shifts of production - that is what they are there for. Remember, the EU is a much larger market than the UK, and freedom of movement within an open economy is a very large advantage.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I said an argument could made not advocating one.

Thomas_...

Some Video with an interview with Mr Elmar Brok who also says that the Brits have no clue regarding their Brexit proceedings at all:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37698916

Proves my point.

Peregrinus

No surprise there. I think its plain to all that the UK government didn't think Brexit was in the UK's best interests, didn't expect the Brexit referendum to be carried, didn't prepare a Brexit plan and woke up on 24 June committed to exiting the EU and with no f@cking clue how they were going to do it. Since then they've been trying to put together a Brexit strategy that somehow reconciles the aspiration to Brexit with the British national interest, which they mostly believe is an impossible circle to square. Is it any wonder that Brexiters expect betrayal at every turn?

whatstherush

Peregrinus wrote: »

No surprise there. I think its plain to all that the UK government didn't think Brexit was in the UK's best interests, didn't expect the Brexit referendum to be carried, didn't prepare a Brexit plan and woke up on 24 June committed to exiting the EU and with no f@cking clue how they were going to do it. Since then they've been trying to put together a Brexit strategy that somehow reconciles the aspiration to Brexit with the British national interest, which they mostly believe is an impossible circle to square. Is it any wonder that Brexiters expect betrayal at every turn?

Au contraire, they have the let them eat jam plan!
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/788452647535775744

Peregrinus

It's a more solid plan than some that have been offered!

Thomas_...

Peregrinus wrote: »

No surprise there. I think its plain to all that the UK government didn't think Brexit was in the UK's best interests, didn't expect the Brexit referendum to be carried, didn't prepare a Brexit plan and woke up on 24 June committed to exiting the EU and with no f@cking clue how they were going to do it. Since then they've been trying to put together a Brexit strategy that somehow reconciles the aspiration to Brexit with the British national interest, which they mostly believe is an impossible circle to square. Is it any wonder that Brexiters expect betrayal at every turn?

Like that idiotic Cllr chap who set up a petition to brand any pro-EU stance as treason. They've gone more nuts than ever before, fecking idiots. Some of them are more exposing their fascist mindset these days.

CMOTDibbler

whatstherush wrote: »

Au contraire, they have the let them eat jam plan!
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/788452647535775744

Not sure how they're going to have jam when they're killing all the bees.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

I see they have a manifesto explaining what they want Brexit to mean, but what analyse of the causes of the no vote and offer for compromise is there on this site? Their vision is clear but I don't see it taking into account the key concerns of leave voters.

Other than the fact that they accept the UK is leaving the EU? Was that not the key concern of Leave voters?

Roanmore

whatstherush wrote: »

Au contraire, they have the let them eat jam plan!
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/788452647535775744

British tea?

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Other than the fact that they accept the UK is leaving the EU? Was that not the key concern of Leave voters?

Accepting that the UK is leaving is not an analysis/understanding of the causes of the leave vote though, and leaving can mean many things. I am of course not saying people who voted to remain need to agree with the concerns of leave voters, but if they want to influence the course of events in he coming months they need to understand the motivations of the winning side and take them on board in their proposals. If they don't do that they will struggle to be heard (and they of course deserve to be heard especially since the result was close, but it is also their responsibility to understand that they are not the majority and if they offer a leave framework purely based on their own concerns it is unlikely to be acceptable to the overall population).

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Accepting that the UK is leaving is not an analysis/understanding of the causes of the leave vote though, and leaving can mean many things. I am of course not saying people who voted to remain need to agree with the concerns of leave voters, but if they want to influence the course of events in he coming months they need to understand the motivations of the winning side and take them on board in their proposals. If they don't do that they will struggle to be heard (and they of course deserve to be heard especially since the result was close, but it is also their responsibility to understand that they are not the majority and if they offer a leave framework purely based on their own concerns it is unlikely to be acceptable to the overall population).

Leavers need to consider the EU27, but what we have instead is Farage and his ilk pissing everyone off, and the rest of UKIP having fist fights in Brussels. Leavers have done nothing but piss everyone in the EU off, and I doubt they have many friends left.

I am sure there are people in Europe who welcome hard Brexit, as they refuse to be black mailed by the UK.

Leavers should also remember that both Scotland and Northern Ireland want to stay in the EU, and they may very well be facing a new Scottish indy ref, as well as potential trouble in Northern Ireland.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Leavers need to consider the EU27,

Leavers should also remember that both Scotland and Northern Ireland want to stay in the EU.

Yes of course.

Having said that the type of discussions between British leavers and remainers is very different from the one between the UK and the EU27: in one case you have 2 groups within one nation state deciding what common future they want for their country, and in the other you have one nation state negotiating with other ones.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Accepting that the UK is leaving is not an analysis/understanding of the causes of the leave vote though, and leaving can mean many things. I am of course not saying people who voted to remain need to agree with the concerns of leave voters, but if they want to influence the course of events in he coming months they need to understand the motivations of the winning side and take them on board in their proposals.

Specifically, what concerns of leave voters are Open Britain failing to address?

Peregrinus

Roanmore wrote: »

British tea?

As I say, it's a more solid plan than some that have been offered! :rolleyes:

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Specifically, what concerns of leave voters are Open Britain failing to address?

There are multiple discussions to be had on the desired model of society and how it is possible within the proposed Brexit framework, but in immediate practical terms the elephant in the room is the ask from leave voters to permanently end or restrict free movement of EU citizens. The only practical long term proposal on the website seems to be "One option is to examine tying the free movement of labour to offers of employment. ". However this would actually not change anything compared to the current situation, because as per EU directive 2004/38/EC it is already a rule that in order to remain in another EU country for more than 3 months an EU worker needs to be engaged in an economic activity. So it is doubtful any leave voter who quoted immigration as one of their top issues would find their concern is being addressed by this.

Beyond that there is wishful thinking that "an influential European think tank has proposed the UK have full access to the Single Market without the free movement of people". If this was possible great for the UK (not so much for the EU) as it would make everyone happy, but realistically remain campaigners have kept saying other European countries will never accept that and they are probably right (unless some kind of new deal is put on the table to completely revamp the way the current market and free movement is put on the table which satisfies everyone, but I don't see any proposal of how this could work in the document).

I look forward to the open and honest discussion on EU immigration that would be needed for that to happen.

I think we'll all learn a lot.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

I look forward to the open and honest discussion on EU immigration that would be needed for that to happen.

I think we'll all learn a lot.

Great, more extremists on either side shouting loudly and hijacking the issue.

Unfortunately a significant section of the leave side do not want immigration or contact with the EU. Sovereignty stands above all else.

That's a valid political belief, but good luck negotiating with it or trying to move forward to an agreement.