Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't believe it clearly says voting rights are automatically given for all referendums though. Maybe legal interpretations have been published (I don't know) but based on the act alone I don't think you can draw any definite conclusion.

In any case, there was no gesture of any sort made. Not sure where you got that from.

Jim2007

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

Except for the fact that there is no customs union for them to remain in! The EU does not have a customs union with the UK, the UK is a member of the single market

The customs union is a component of the Single Market.

As a member of the EUCU, The UK is already part of the EU's customs union arrangements.

I was ridiculed a few weeks ago by saying that the UK will remain in the customs union, which is a deeply upsetting prospect for the apocalypse fetishists on this forum, because it suggests that there can be life after EU membership.

The UK will retain a customs union arrangement with the EU, the terms of which will probably be slightly altered. It's a pretty neat way of accessing the single market without having to accept all of the Four Freedoms.

You are right that there is a customs element to the Single Market, but the UK's membership is 100% based on there membership of EU and once they exit under article 50 that comes to an end. There is no provision what so ever in the EU treaties to allow a former member to retain any rights under article 50. Now if you can find a provision or a ruling by the ECJ to the contrary by all means lets hear it, otherwise I leave you to your fantasies.

alastair

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't believe it clearly says voting rights are automatically given for all referendums though. Maybe legal interpretations have been published (I don't know and this is why I was asking) but based on the act alone I don't think you can draw any definite conclusion.

Irish citizens resident in the UK are considered exactly the same as UK citizens, and have access to the same voting rights as UK citizens. That's on account of them being 'not foreign' under the law. It very clear, and very definite - as illustrated by Irish people resident in the UK having had the vote in every election and referendum since the act was passed.

Sam Russell

alastair wrote: »

Irish citizens resident in the UK are considered exactly the same as UK citizens, and have access to the same voting rights as UK citizens. That's on account of them being 'not foreign' under the law. It very clear, and very definite - as illustrated by Irish people resident in the UK having had the vote in every election and referendum since the act was passed.

And even becoming Members of Parliament, and Members of the House of Lords.

BorneTobyWilde

Didn't EU sign a free trade deal with Canada recently . That is a kick in the teeth to UK.

Sam Russell

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Didn't EU sign a free trade deal with Canada recently . That is a kick in the teeth to UK.

Should benefit the UK for a short while.

BlitzKrieg

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Didn't EU sign a free trade deal with Canada recently . That is a kick in the teeth to UK.

Actually its more the problems they had in sorting out that deal which will be a kick for the UK.

A single region in Belgium blocked that deal going through for a week, it's back on track now but the delay put most of the brexit *We can negotiate a deal with the EU* people a bit on the nervous side as it reminds them that any such deal needs to be with the consensus of the entire EU. And is a friendly reminder that it will have to go through the national systems of each state, so while most of the politicians in the EU institutions may favour some sort of deal it will be national politics that will decide it and the UK is not loved across the board there and it'll only take one.

And remember what the UK is looking for is far more extensive then what Canada got so that will make it all the more demanding.

I'll be curious if it's pushed far enough there might end up being a new amendment treaty to the EU as a whole. Because by the end of the 2 year process it might require such a change to the EU's relationship with the UK that core EU laws might need to be changed. I know a fair chunk of the amendments in the EU treaties are almost exclusively about the UK so they might push to have those removed and then if the UK somehow does manage to convince the EU for a open trade boarder but not freedom of movement I'd say that's a whole new amendment needing to be added.

The EU is also behind in implementing a few other amendments from the last few years. So this could all lead to a new treaty in 2019/2020

And any amendment treaty means a possible Irish referendum at least?

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not sure what such condescending rhetoric is intended to achieve here.

Good evening!

My point wasn't to be condescending but it was to balance out the hysterical anxiety of some.

It's unwarranted. The talks will happen and the issues will be discussed and a compromise will be made by both parties and Britain will leave the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

twinytwo

People should consider...


Our 3 biggest trading partners are the US, the UK and Belgium. These 3 countries account for approx 55% of our exports. (US and UK account for nearly 50% of our imports)

But countries like Germany, France, Spain etc who make up 13% of our exports and even less out our imports are going to dictate to us our trade with the UK.

When it descends into chaos, which it will. It will once again show the farce that the EU is. And yes it will be tough on the UK but 15/20 years from now they will be the ones laughing at the EU.

And for all those who like to harp on about the benefits of the EU... over the last 40 years, we have received a net of 40 billion. Our exports to the UK last year were 20 billion approx. ( lets not bother accounting for the 200 billion euro in fish stocks alone we lost the day we joined)

BlitzKrieg

twinytwo wrote: »

People should consider...


Our 3 biggest trading partners are the US, the UK and Belgium. These 3 countries account for approx 55% of our exports. (US and UK account for nearly 50% of our imports)

In terms of export we export much more to continental Europe then the UK which alone accounts for 14%, The US is 20%.

Other EU member states are our largest exporting partner

source: (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/irl/#Destinations)

In terms of imports, yes the UK is where we import from the most accounting for 33% of all our imports

but when compared directly against the rest of Europe it again comes out behind europe but not by much

48% vs the rest of europe.

(http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/irl/show/all/2014/)

Deducting non EU/EEC states only removes barely 1% (russia and Ukraine) and if you wanted to be really specific and remove the EEC states (Norway's 2.5%) leaves the EU alone with a 0.5% advantage over the UK.

Remember we have a much higher export value then imports so we value our export partners more.

So to recap

in imports the EU and UK are pretty much on par

in exports the EU is much larger and more valuable then the UK

And for all those who like to harp on about the benefits of the EU... over the last 40 years, we have received a net of 40 billion. Our exports to the UK last year were 20 billion approx. ( lets not bother accounting for the 200 billion euro in fish stocks alone we lost the day we joined)

Our exports to the other EU states was much higher well in excess of double the 20 billion to the UK

*facepalm* not the bloody fish again. This is so ancient that I'm forced to go back and quote myself from 2010.

To put simply if you were to remove all the costs and fore knowledge to establish a large irish fishing fleet and irish navy, then the amount of fish in irish waters would be worth quite a bit.

Problem is of course the costs associated. Considering prior to entering the EU the amount of fishing in irish waters by irish fishermen was miniscule and dwarfed by fleets from other nations (including a very large Russian fleet)

When we joined the EU some of these costs were taken on by the EU, our navy was more firmly established with ships bought with EU money and despite other EU members getting access to fish in irish waters, non EU nations (such as those pesky Russians) were given a firm boot out.

As such due to EU support
the amount of value pulled in by irish fishing industry today > then irish fishing industry prior to joining EU.

It would be higher if it was exclusively Irish. But the costs to secure and properly fish to high enough standards would be also much higher and solely Irish responsibility.

the argument on the actual value usually hits a vicous circle here.

How high are the costs?

How high is the value?

the numbers move up and down constantly. Sometimes to extreme heights that are blatantly lies and irritate people quite a bit.

The simple truth is that this was a value that could have been exploited much earlier in Irish history but the truth is farming was the bigger industry at the time and more culturaly prominant in the Irish identity at the time and as such the government at the time and in following years focused more on farming over fishing. The point of trying to backpeddle and properly exploit irish fishing waters as the chief industry of Ireland is a pointless debate, its impossible to do so now. Could have in 1970's DIDNT

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69786837&postcount=3

K-9

twinytwo wrote: »

People should consider...


Our 3 biggest trading partners are the US, the UK and Belgium. These 3 countries account for approx 55% of our exports. (US and UK account for nearly 50% of our imports)

But countries like Germany, France, Spain etc who make up 13% of our exports and even less out our imports are going to dictate to us our trade with the UK.

When it descends into chaos, which it will. It will once again show the farce that the EU is. And yes it will be tough on the UK but 15/20 years from now they will be the ones laughing at the EU.

And for all those who like to harp on about the benefits of the EU... over the last 40 years, we have received a net of 40 billion. Our exports to the UK last year were 20 billion approx. ( lets not bother accounting for the 200 billion euro in fish stocks alone we lost the day we joined)

How are exports to the UK "ours"?

Peregrinus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

. . . I'll be curious if it's pushed far enough there might end up being a new amendment treaty to the EU as a whole. Because by the end of the 2 year process it might require such a change to the EU's relationship with the UK that core EU laws might need to be changed. I know a fair chunk of the amendments in the EU treaties are almost exclusively about the UK so they might push to have those removed and then if the UK somehow does manage to convince the EU for a open trade boarder but not freedom of movement I'd say that's a whole new amendment needing to be added.

The EU is also behind in implementing a few other amendments from the last few years. So this could all lead to a new treaty in 2019/2020

And any amendment treaty means a possible Irish referendum at least?

This is a good point.

The short answer is "yes"; if there's a treaty amendment there will have to be a referendum in (at least) Ireland. And, referendum or not, each other member state will have to ratify any treaty amendment.

This is something the British need to think about when they finally set out their stall regarding what they are looking for in a post-Brexit relationship with the EU. The more they look for, and the more tailor-made their desired solution is, the more they are exposed to the Maltese veto. (OK, not Malta in particular, but the point is any one member state, however small, can in theory put the kibosh on the whole thing.) If I were the Brits I wold be launching a major charm offensive directly with the governments of other member states, to make sure they are as onside as possible when I finally start to cut a deal with the Commission. Even if Britain wants an off-the-shelf solution, like joining the EEA, that still requires the consent of each individual member state (because you join the EEA by entering into a treaty with each of the existing EEA members) but they're only being asked to consent to something they have already consented to with other states; that's not such a big ask.

My concern is that the UK government might, for political reasons, go for a hard Brexit not because they think it is the best outcome for the UK, but simply because it is attainable - the harder the Brexit, the less consents you need from other states, and the less likely they are to withhold whatever consent they do need to give. So if you say you're seeking a hard Brexit, you can deliver it, and give at least the appearance of being resolute and effective. Whereas if you seek anything softer, you run the double risk of being denounced as a traitor by UKIP, and then being humiliated when Malta gives you the finger.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Have a look at the original post I quoted where the poster was talking about becoming a "second class citizen". This is what I was reacting to; the points discuss here don't describe situations were people are second class citizens, just citizens and non-citizens.

Well that’s just pedantry.

Bob24 wrote: »

Of course we can discuss and have an opinion, and I never said we can't.

Except that you’re not really discussing anything. As is exemplified by posters on this thread, a great many people in the UK are currently quite concerned about how Brexit will impact on their legal right to live and work here. Rather than discuss this point, you chimed in with a rather glib “What’s the problem? You can all just apply for British citizenship?”

Apart from not being very helpful or conducive to a discussion, it’s also obviously not true – people who have not been here for five years and don’t have £1,200 to spare cannot become British citizens.

djpbarry

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

A single region in Belgium blocked that deal going through for a week, it's back on track now but the delay put most of the brexit *We can negotiate a deal with the EU* people a bit on the nervous side as it reminds them that any such deal needs to be with the consensus of the entire EU.

And even with a tremendous amount of goodwill on both sides, it still took seven years to negotiate.

djpbarry

Peregrinus wrote: »

My concern is that the UK government might, for political reasons, go for a hard Brexit not because they think it is the best outcome for the UK, but simply because it is attainable - the harder the Brexit, the less consents you need from other states, and the less likely they are to withhold whatever consent they do need to give. So if you say you're seeking a hard Brexit, you can deliver it, and give at least the appearance of being resolute and effective. Whereas if you seek anything softer, you run the double risk of being denounced as a traitor by UKIP, and then being humiliated when Malta gives you the finger.

Ironically, there may well be greater opposition to a hard Brexit than a soft Brexit amongst nations with large immigrant populations in the UK.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The short answer is "yes"; if there's a treaty amendment there will have to be a referendum in (at least) Ireland.

Well, maybe. Depending on the extent of the required amendment, it may be possible to use the simplified amendment procedure introduced in Lisbon. And if that amendment confers no new competences on the Union (as is a requirement of the simplified procedure), there's no additional transfer of sovereignty, and as such no actual requirement for a referendum.

Now, there may be a political requirement for a referendum, because the Irish electorate is largely under the impression that there's an automatic legal requirement, and it would be a brave government that would deny the electorate its fictional rights. But that's another story.

ambro25

Bob24 wrote: »

Have a look at the original post I quoted where the poster was talking about becoming a "second class citizen". This is what I was reacting to; the points discuss here don't describe situations were people are second class citizens, just citizens and non-citizens.

You do not to be appear very familiar with the legal factuality of EU citizenship and all it entails (currently still, at least).

Including the EU citizenship of British citizens themselves (many of whom appeared completely ignorant of it pre-vote, and still do).

Bob24 wrote: »

If you are concerned about your right to live and work in the UK in the future it is of course very understandable and there is no problem with that, but it doesn't make you a second class citizen.

No?

So, for EU immigrants in the UK, what effect on one's employment prospects (and balance of power with employers and competing job applicants) do you think the expected downgrade in personal rights of residence and employment (from <currently about par with natives> to <same as non-EU>) would have?

What about continuing access to education? social housing? in-work benefits? personal finance? <etc.>

Bear in mind the current government PR and uncertainty in the matter, as employers currently consider an expensive/important hire (potentially filled by EU immigrant applicant), prior to responding.

And I ask this as, currently, a company director in the UK, with responsibility for hiring STEM post-grads at MSc/PhD level, as trainees (long-haul, 3 years minimum pre-qual).

After that, we can compare the average educational and skills profile and socio-cultural background of the lambda EU immigrant vs those of the lambda non-EU immigrant for s**s and giggles, which goes some way to explain my approval of djpbarry's reflexion above that there may well be greater opposition to a hard Brexit than a soft Brexit amongst nations with large immigrant populations in the UK.

You suggested in an earlier post, that I may have forgotten the potential for nationalist policies to upend a situation borne from economical migration. I did not so much do that, as (obviously) lend far too much confidence in the common sense of the notional average Brit (well, at least 52% of that average...perhaps I should have allowed for the statistical error :pac:).

I would contend that it is the UK which appears to have forgotten, what a brain drain does to a national economy. Perhaps unsurprising, when it has been taking foreign brain hoovering for granted for so long, that the skills shortages from its educational policies get to reflect it on such a scale.

KingBrian2

twinytwo wrote: »

People should consider...


Our 3 biggest trading partners are the US, the UK and Belgium. These 3 countries account for approx 55% of our exports. (US and UK account for nearly 50% of our imports)

But countries like Germany, France, Spain etc who make up 13% of our exports and even less out our imports are going to dictate to us our trade with the UK.

When it descends into chaos, which it will. It will once again show the farce that the EU is. And yes it will be tough on the UK but 15/20 years from now they will be the ones laughing at the EU.

And for all those who like to harp on about the benefits of the EU... over the last 40 years, we have received a net of 40 billion. Our exports to the UK last year were 20 billion approx. ( lets not bother accounting for the 200 billion euro in fish stocks alone we lost the day we joined)

Ireland and Malta will shortly become the only English speaking Nations in the EU and with the rise of China, India, Brazil, Iran, Mexico & South Africa that helps us with our transnational trade. What we need to concentrate on is making items or producing services that the world wants and cares about.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

You are right that there is a customs element to the Single Market, but the UK's membership is 100% based on there membership of EU and once they exit under article 50 that comes to an end. There is no provision what so ever in the EU treaties to allow a former member to retain any rights under article 50. Now if you can find a provision or a ruling by the ECJ to the contrary by all means lets hear it, otherwise I leave you to your fantasies.

What on earth are you talking about?

I find it interesting that I keep having to repeat that I am not in favour of any secession from the European Union. It says more about you, and the other keepers-of-the-flame of doom in this thread, that you automatically resist any notion of a path to stability.

My point is that Britain can remain in a customs union, and it is already a member of such a union. It's that simple.

No, the retention of a customs union is not automatic. Nobody ever claimed that. But this is the statement I disagreed with:

Jim2007 wrote:

The EU does not have a customs union with the UK

I'm afraid you're simply wrong there, Jim. And there's no point back-pedaling.

K-9 wrote: »

Fetishists is an odd term to use.

But what will the UK give up for access to the customs union?

They'll have to give up the control over immigration which is the very thing they want.

What a total waste of time.

Where are you getting this? Your answer to your own question is plucked from thin air. Plenty of customs union partners of the EU have not gone as far as providing for the freedom of movement of people.

K-9

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

I find it interesting that I keep having to repeat that I am not in favour of any secession from the European Union. It says more about you, and the other keepers-of-the-flame of doom in this thread, that you automatically resist any notion of a path to stability.

My point is that Britain can remain in a customs union, and it is already a member of such a union. It's that simple.

No, the retention of a customs union is not automatic. Nobody ever claimed that. But this is the statement I disagreed with:

I'm afraid you're simply wrong there, Jim. And there's no point back-pedaling.

Where are you getting this? Your answer to your own question is plucked from thin air. Plenty of customs union partners of the EU have not gone as far as providing for the freedom of movement of people.

You seem to be getting increasingly frustrated in your replies for some reason.

We all know the EU has arrangements but if freedom of movement isn't included the UK will not get the access to trade etc. that it is looking for, nowhere near it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Customs_Union

No customs are levied on goods travelling within the customs union and—unlike a free trade area—members of the customs union impose a common external tariff on all goods entering the union. One of the consequences of the customs union is that the European Union negotiates as a single entity in international trade deals such as the World Trade Organisation, instead of individual member states negotiating for themselves.

Liam Fox says oi.

Peregrinus

K-9 wrote: »

You seem to be getting increasingly frustrated in your replies for some reason.

We all know the EU has arrangements but if freedom of movement isn't included the UK will not get the access to trade etc. that it is looking for, nowhere near it.

I think you may be confusing "customs union" and "single market".

Participating in the single market inevitably involves free movement - if a shoemaker in Genoa isn't free to go and make shoes in Glasgow, then shoemakers in Glasgow and in Genoa are not in a single market. There was a brief period after the vote (and a long period before it) when some Brexit advocates were saying that the UK could remain in the single market, but impose immigration controls. (No names, no pack drill, Boris.) That was idiotic and incoherent, but has now largely stopped. Teresa May gets the realities of life; she has said that the UK wants control over immigration and she acknowledges that this means that they don't want to participate in the single market.

A customs union is different. It's a much more limited thing than a single market. It doesn't involve free movement, or accepting EU legislation on product standards, market regulation, etc ,etc. What it involves is (a) no customs levied on goods moving between countries within the customs union, and (b) applying common customs charges on all goods moving in and out of the customs union. So what the UK would have to give up, to enter a customs union, is the right to set its own customs charges, not only on trade with other countries in the union (where there would be no charges) but also on trade with the rest of the world (where all countries in the union must levy the same charges). And not being able to set your own customs charges severely limits your ability to enter into trade agreements with other countries, since the main thing those other countries are interested in in a trade agreement is reducing or eliminating customs charges.

So, if the British are serious about building up a network of tailor-made trade agreements with other countries to replace the ones they will drop out of when they leave the EU, one consequence of this is that they won't want to enter a customs union with the EU.

ambro25

It may be useful to (re-?) post this logic diagram to (re-?) inform the debate

The whole and current arrangements amongst European countries, at-a-glance:

demfad

If there was no Brexit there would be no issue with Nissan. Nissan have been given a whole lot of promises just to keep the status quo for the next few years. Everybody will now be queuing up for the same deal.

The minister in question Clarke, indicated that Nissan were promised that the car industry at least would remain part of a Customs Union. If you are in the customs union then you must have a common external tariff and that means NO trade deals for the UK.

A kind of hybrid customs deal where certain British industries are in and certain industries are out is in fairness unworkable and impossible for Europe to deliver.

If the UK is not in the customs Union then not only is it WTO rules but the British government will pay all the tariffs for the big industries. This will involve colossal amounts of money. This will subsume public spending and large, medium and small industry will be left to the wolves. It is in effect paying for the charade that Brexit is somehow OK. This is not sustainable and cannot happen.

That means that before any negotiations have taken place the UK have check mated itself. They have promised what they have promised to Nissan. The choice will be stay within the customs Union and obey the rules (ECJ, I think?) or out they go with WTO rules or a an FTA years down the line, paying massive amounts of money to keep industries sweet at the expense of public spending.

Economics will take precedent over politics and the immigration angle will be dropped. It's only a red herring anyway with intra EU immigration significantly less than external immigration. The Tories have been exaggerating it for years including Theresa May as Home secretary.

The correct thing to do is call the farce off. The Tories should focus on finding a way out politically from this mess. They will be leaking bad news stories soon enough themselves.

BlitzKrieg

Bringing the two most recent topics together

My understanding is all decisions related to the EU customs union falls entirely under the control of the EU institutions exclusively

Article 3 of the functioning of the European Union:

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a)
customs union;
(b)
the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c)
monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d)
the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e)
common commercial policy.

Which means the UK has 3 choices

a) Leave the EU customs union

b) Remain in just the custom unions but have no say on its policies

c) Treaty changes are made to accommodate the UK to allow some level of control either via protocol or amendment

demfad

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Bringing the two most recent topics together

My understanding is all decisions related to the EU customs union falls entirely under the control of the EU institutions exclusively

Article 3 of the functioning of the European Union:




Which means the UK has 3 choices

a) Leave the EU customs union

b) Remain in just the custom unions but have no say on its policies

c) Treaty changes are made to accommodate the UK to allow some level of control either via protocol or amendment

d) A very soft Brexit (probably the only deliverable one)

e) Scrap Brexit

djpbarry

demfad wrote: »

They have promised what they have promised to Nissan.

They must surely have assured Nissan that they will at least remain (or aim to remain) within the customs union. Any kind of sweetheart deal would surely be pursued by other businesses.

Charles Babbage

demfad wrote: »

The minister in question Clarke, indicated that Nissan were promised that the car industry at least would remain part of a Customs Union. If you are in the customs union then you must have a common external tariff and that means NO trade deals for the UK.

A kind of hybrid customs deal where certain British industries are in and certain industries are out is in fairness unworkable and impossible for Europe to deliver.

If the UK is not in the customs Union then not only is it WTO rules but the British government will pay all the tariffs for the big industries. This will involve colossal amounts of money. This will subsume public spending and large, medium and small industry will be left to the wolves. It is in effect paying for the charade that Brexit is somehow OK. This is not sustainable and cannot happen.

Under WTO rules you cannot just have no tariffs for cars and tariffs for other things. Nor under WTO rules can the British government pay the tariffs, effectively subsidising their exports. They probably could have new regional grants for Nissan in Sunderland and some other tax changes.

The danger for Ireland is that they may have a customs union for all manufactures, but not for agricultural products.

djpbarry

Been plenty in the news about various retailers/wholesalers/manufacturers putting up prices, but (I believe) the first "official" indication that the weakness of the pound is going to have fairly major repercussions is out today:

Inflation 'set to soar to 4% by late 2017'

UK inflation will quadruple to about 4% in the second half of next year and cut disposable income, a leading think tank has forecast.

...

The revised figure is sharply higher than the 3% it forecast in August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37838087

BlitzKrieg

demfad wrote: »

d) A very soft Brexit (probably the only deliverable one)

e) Scrap Brexit

Heh

I was only relating to the issue of the customs union only