Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

I'm not aware of her mentioning any plan other than to leave the EU, which action is officially triggered by Article 50. Are you?

No, I’m not, which is why I would like parliament to have a say on what the plan is.

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

If the the EU play hardball as many cheerleaders on this forum want it to, then the negotiations are stalemated until the two year deadline comes up.

Why do people insist on stating that the EU is playing hardball when it is very obviously the UK that is likely to be making totally unreasonable demands?

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

I cast a vote for remaining in the EU.
…
I genuinely believe that in 15 - 20 years time that the UK will not be worse off for making this decision.

Well that’s something of a contradiction.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I hope that the UK will remain an open country (and perhaps become a more open country) as a result of this rather than becoming a more closed country…

How can it possibly if there are going to be greater restrictions on trade and movement of labour?

Bit cynical

djpbarry wrote: »

Why do people insist on stating that the EU is playing hardball when it is very obviously the UK that is likely to be making totally unreasonable demands?

Why do you believe that the UK will be making unreasonable demands?

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

Why do you believe that the UK will be making unreasonable demands?

The Leave campaign. That's why.

Zubeneschamali

Thomas_... wrote: »

I get convinced that Cameron was left with no other choice but to resign upon the result of the Brexit referendum.

Of course he had to resign - he called and then lost the most disastrous referendum ever held in the UK.

I'm not calling him an idiot for resigning, he's an idiot for risking EU membership to settle an internal dispute in the Conservative party in he first place, and then not doing enough to win.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Why do you believe that the UK will be making unreasonable demands?

Because they are still pretending they can have single market access and immigration controls.

djpbarry

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because they are still pretending they can have single market access and immigration controls.

No, they are claiming they can remain within the single market whilst imposing immigration controls.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because they are still pretending they can have single market access and immigration controls.

Why exactly is that unreasonable? Plenty of countries have trade deals that don't involve totally free movement of people. Even the insular EU has such deals with countries outside the bloc.

whatstherush

Bit cynical wrote: »

Why exactly is that unreasonable? Plenty of countries have trade deals that don't involve totally free movement of people. Even the insular EU has such deals with countries outside the bloc.

Because its not a trade deal they are looking for, its access equivalent to their current single market membership.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Why exactly is that unreasonable?

It's like someone leaving the Tennis club and on their way out, asking for a rule change to let non-members play on the courts at peak times.

Eh - no. They couldn't get that change through even if they were remaining as members - why would the members make that change to accommodate them after they leave?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's like someone leaving the Tennis club and on their way out, asking for a rule change to let non-members play on the courts at peak times.

Why does boards love these ridiculous analogies?

Nobody here is an idiot. We are all intelligent people capable of grasping simple enough concepts like single market access, four freedoms, and customs union.

Inane analogies about tennis clubs and peak time membership are entirely devoid of context. For one thing, some countries in the E.U, such as Ireland, have important trading relationships with Britain and our Government's position is probably to seek as favourable a deal for Britain as possible, because that favours Irish trade by default, and also favours peace in Northern Ireland. Your tennis-club analogy is both unnecessary and non-applicable.

whatstherush

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why does boards love these ridiculous analogies?

Nobody here is an idiot. We are all intelligent people capable of grasping simple enough concepts like single market access, four freedoms, and customs union.

Inane analogies about tennis clubs and peak time membership are entirely devoid of context. For one thing, some countries in the E.U, such as Ireland, have important trading relationships with Britain and our Government's position is probably to seek as favourable a deal for Britain as possible, because that favours Irish trade by default, and also favours peace in Northern Ireland. Your tennis-club analogy is both unnecessary and non-applicable.

Because we have brexiteers here who constantly equate a free trade deal to single market membership sans free movement. If thats their view whats wrong with a simple a analogy to expose the absurdity of this position.

whatstherush

whatstherush wrote: »

Because we have brexiteers here who constantly equate a free trade deal to single market membership sans free movement.

I haven't seen anyone doing that, although admittedly I am mostly squinting when I read this thread.

It can all be explained in very basic English and by avoiding analogies that make no sense.

whatstherush

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone doing that, although admittedly I am mostly squinting when I read this thread.

It can all be explained in very basic English and by avoiding analogies that make no sense.

6 posts previously

Bit cynical wrote: »

Plenty of countries have trade deals that don't involve totally free movement of people. Even the insular EU has such deals with countries outside the bloc.

Redcite over the weekend

recedite wrote: »

Its nonsense, we should be campaigning for free trade with the UK, post Brexit. Who's idea was it to irreversibly link free trade with residency permits anyway?

whatstherush

whatstherush wrote: »

6 posts previously


Redcite over the weekend

Free trade does not necessarily mean Single Market access. You know what CETA is, right?

whatstherush

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Free trade does not necessarily mean Single Market access. You know what CETA is, right?

Have I implied something else, the quoted posters think single market membership is just a free trade deal with free movement (unnecessarily)tagged along.

whatstherush

whatstherush wrote: »

Have I implied something else, the quoted posters think single market membership is just a free trade deal with free movement (unnecessarily)tagged along.

Neither of them mention membership of anything, they're suggesting the UK gets a free trade deal.

That's probably what even the Irish Government is seeking, if Britain is to lose Single Market access.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

KindOfIrish wrote: »

There are two option only for the Brexit plan: to accept free movement of people and stay in the single market or not to accept and leave the single market.

This is totally premature. The negotiation hasn't started, and negotiations tend to end in compromise. We don't know what the outcome will be.

Also, it depends on what Britain asks for. There's a distinction between single market membership and good single market access. If Britain is looking for a trade deal then of course it's possible that that can be arranged without free movement of people.

KindOfIrish wrote: »

EU will never compromise on free movement of people, as it will mean the end of the Union.

This just isn't true. South Korea has a free trade deal without accepting free movement. Likewise South Africa has a free trade deal.

The reality is we have to wait to see what the negotiation will bring. Even if the Supreme Court uphold the decision we will see Article 50 legislation coming in the new year.

djpbarry wrote: »

How can it possibly if there are going to be greater restrictions on trade and movement of labour?

Britain isn't asking for restriction on trade with other countries. It's looking to establish new and progressive trade deals with other countries following it's exit from the European Union.

There's no reason to believe that skilled migration will be any lower than it is today. The issue isn't with skilled immigration to Britain, the issue seems to be with unskilled immigration. That's something that the Government will be free to address, but the apocalyptic scenario of Britain being closed to the world is simply something that won't come to pass. The UK is and always will be an outward looking country. London in particular is one of the most multicultural cities in Europe if not the most multicultural. That benefits the UK economically.

I genuinely don't understand the Europhile opinion that divesting great deals of sovereignty to a bloc and agreeing to accept the trade deals that they strike with the outside world is automatically better for the UK in the long term. I personally don't share the undivided passion that some people have for Brussels and the European project on this forum.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

KindOfIrish

djpbarry wrote: »

Why do people insist on stating that the EU is playing hardball when it is very obviously the UK that is likely to be making totally unreasonable demands?

People get information about Brexit from English press and TV.

Bit cynical

Still waiting to hear what those unreasonable demands of the UK are.

solodeogloria

Bit cynical wrote: »

Still waiting to hear what those unreasonable demands of the UK are.

Good evening!

Indeed - sovereignty over domestic legislation and sovereignty over borders seem to be two rights that most countries take for granted.

Yet somehow it's unreasonable to ask for these when leaving the EU.

Bizarre.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is totally premature. The negotiation hasn't started, and negotiations tend to end in compromise.

Why are people refusing to accept that retaining membership of the single market entails free movement of labour – it’s not negotiable.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain isn't asking for restriction on trade with other countries. It's looking to establish new and progressive trade deals with other countries following it's exit from the European Union.

It is beyond delusional to think that, post-Brexit, the UK will have more preferential access to European and global markets than it does as a member of the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's no reason to believe that skilled migration will be any lower than it is today. The issue isn't with skilled immigration to Britain, the issue seems to be with unskilled immigration.

There will very likely be greater restrictions placed on migration to the UK, which will make the UK a less open economy then it is today.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is and always will be an outward looking country.

Except when it comes to Europe, that is.

solodeogloria wrote: »

London in particular is one of the most multicultural cities in Europe if not the most multicultural.

As should have been abundantly clear from the referendum result, London is not the UK.

K-9

Does the South Korean or African deal apply to banking and the financial markets? Would it suit the UK which trades a lot with the EU?

If not, What would the UK give up to get more access?

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

Still waiting to hear what those unreasonable demands of the UK are.

How about Boris Johnson's insistence throughout the referendum campaign (and beyond) that the UK could retain the same access to the single market that it currently has whilst also imposing restrictions on freedom of movement?

wes

K-9 wrote: »

Does the South Korean or African deal apply to banking and the financial markets? Would it suit the UK which trades a lot with the EU?

I think services aren't included at all.

K-9 wrote: »

If not, What would the UK give up to get more access?

I think they would have to do a deal akin to Norway or the Swiss tbh.

Allowing the UK to retain passporting, doesn't really benefit the EU, and many cities would like a slice of that pie.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

djpbarry wrote: »

Why are people refusing to accept that retaining membership of the single market entails free movement of labour – it’s not negotiable.
It is beyond delusional to think that, post-Brexit, the UK will have more preferential access to European and global markets than it does as a member of the EU.
There will very likely be greater restrictions placed on migration to the UK, which will make the UK a less open economy then it is today.
Except when it comes to Europe, that is.
As should have been abundantly clear from the referendum result, London is not the UK.

It seems like you didn't read my post. I distinguished very clearly between single market membership and single market access. In terms of global trade, it is manifest that if the UK is able to strike it's own trade deals in the long term that that is good for it in the long term. I said 15 - 20 years. There will be costs in the medium to short term. Indeed we are already seeing some. Brexit is happening, the question is how do we make it work well for the UK.

I'm really confused as to why you think controls over unskilled labour would be bad for the UK as an economy. It would allow protection for unskilled workers in Britain and enable them to find a better and easier pathway to work. I agree with the principle that the UK should be a country that benefits everyone. That was a genuine concern raised during the referendum campaign.

I don't share the undying love for the EU that exists here, and I don't believe the absurd notion that the UK desperately needs the EU in order to continue being a strong country any more than Canada, the US or Australia would need EU membership to do so.

I think some posters need to open their eyes and see for all the benefits of the EU, there is also a possibility of good things for the UK outside the EU. To claim otherwise, is in my view delusional.

K9: I answered that a few posts ago. They don't, but then again South Africa and South Korea don't do a lot of service trading. Trade deals are by nature bespoke, and this no doubt can and will be discussed if the UK goes down that line. I strongly disagree about prophesying Armageddon before the negotiation starts. I also cited a few articles in the Financial Times that suggests that London will remain a major financial centre after Brexit, and indeed that it would take a very long time for any EU country to match it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm really confused as to why you think controls over unskilled labour would be bad for the UK as an economy. It would allow protection for unskilled workers in Britain and enable them to find a better and easier pathway to work.

You mean except the fact that the business employing unskilled laborers such as the farms etc. have all stated that they can not get UK people to fill their positions (and not only the seasonal once) and need said Eastern European work force to get the crop harvested? Or how about the fact that immigrants have a higher level of employment than UK nationals? You know minor things such as the actual realities on the ground for the companies rather than fancy notions that "Oh well if all the immigrants go our unskilled laborers will now suddenly decide to accept the jobs they refused earlier".

K9: I answered that a few posts ago. They don't, but then again South Africa and South Korea don't do a lot of service trading. Trade deals are by nature bespoke, and this no doubt can and will be discussed if the UK goes down that line. I strongly disagree about prophesying Armageddon before the negotiation starts. I also cited a few articles in the Financial Times that suggests that London will remain a major financial centre after Brexit, and indeed that it would take a very long time for any EU country to match it.

And once again you miss the point by about as much margin as Boris and his ilk does; a trade deal has two partners to benefit from it's signature. There is no significant benefit for EU in such a generous deal with the UK; there is a lot of benefit for UK for such a deal with the EU. Which leads to the question why would EU give it all up for free and let UK reap the benefits compared to drawing a hard line in the sand and insisting on their core principles along with multi billion payments to compensate (such as Norway and Switzerland are paying for said access with free movement of people)?

Bit cynical

djpbarry wrote: »

How about Boris Johnson's insistence throughout the referendum campaign (and beyond) that the UK could retain the same access to the single market that it currently has whilst also imposing restrictions on freedom of movement?

Your example doesn't count as Boris Johnson wasn't a representative of the UK government during the campaign.

But even this is not a good example as there are countries with free trade access to the single market that are not EU members and don't have total free movement of people.

It seems to me that you are equating reasonableness with EU orthodoxy whether or not that EU orthodoxy is, in itself, reasonable (or even consistent with EU practice). For example, it seems to be a tenet of EU orthodoxy that you can't have free trade without free movement of people. But though it is part of the standard doctrine of the EU it is not reasonable. Simple counterexamples are sufficient to prove it incorrect.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

Your example doesn't count as Boris Johnson wasn't a representative of the UK government during the campaign.

He's the MP for Uxbridge and former mayor of London. So yes, the example is perfectly valid.