Brexit Referendum Superthread

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Nody:
What makes you think that the EU wouldn't benefit from a trade deal?

That's the absurdity behind your position. Your answer when I stated that many member states have a high trade volume is that they don't care.

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense.

The negotiation has yet to begin so I don't know why anyone should assume that anything that Juncker, Schulz or Tusk says is gospel.

You didn't reply on the City and Euro clearing. Which apparently happens in New York also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The negotiation has yet to begin so I don't know why anyone should assume that anything that Juncker, Schulz or Tusk says is gospel.

Compared to May, Johnson & Davis who have said diddly squat.

whatstherush

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

I mention membership because the phrase single market access is meaningless. Any country has accessto the single market, only EU countries and EEA countries have membership. Single market Membership bestows more advantages then a third country style Free trade agreement. So when the quoted posters ask why can't they have free trade without free movement they are implying that the free trade agreement bestows the same level of advantages as membership does. Which brings us back to the original point of using a simple analogy that you can't leave a club and expect to pick and choose the benefits of that club.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

All he was during the campaign was MP for Uxbridge. The most he can do is speak on behalf of his constituents and as a private individual and he was speaking as a private individual when campaigning for brexit.

He's now Foreign Secretary and does in fact represent the UK government in that particular capacity. However I have not heard him say that one of the demands of the UK was identical access to the single market as at present (i.e. one of the members of the single market) and at the same time complete control over movement from the EU.

If he thinks it is possible to have a free trade access along the lines of other countries and at the same time have some restrictions on freedom of movement from EU countries, then I don't think that is totally unreasonable.

Therefore I'm still waiting for this list of unreasonable demands.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Compared to May, Johnson & Davis who have said diddly squat.

Good evening!

My point was - that it's too early to say what's going to happen.

It isn't true that nothing has been said on the UK's negotiating strategy.

Davis today has said they are looking for immigration controls and sovereignty over UK laws with the best access possible to the single market. May from the Tory conference seems to have said the same.

Now, do we know the full details? No. That defeats the point of a negotiation.

Things will become clear. But it's too early to say that we know what deal Britain will get.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Nody:
What makes you think that the EU wouldn't benefit from a trade deal?

EU would benefit far less than UK; which is why you need to answer the question why UK would get a better deal than Norway or Switzerland who also pay significant amounts for said access with freedom of movement attached. Heck if it's all about free trade we might as well give it to USA and China because those REALLY would give a boost compared to small little UK by comparison.

That's the absurdity behind your position. Your answer when I stated that many member states have a high trade volume is that they don't care.

You tried to use the fact individual countries would care as a reason why they would give up such a deal; I pointed out the flaw in your argument by the fact the governments of said economies have already stated such a deal is not on the table. So you still have not explained how UK is suppose to get a superior deal to every other nation in EU for free.

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense.

Fully agree; you've yet to make a single argument for why UK would get a free ride that's hold up to scrutiny.

The negotiation has yet to begin so I don't know why anyone should assume that anything that Juncker, Schulz or Tusk says is gospel.

Oh I don't know; how about we add the major governments in EU who say the same thing? Start to get an idea that there's a coherent message coming yet from EU on the position?

You didn't reply on the City and Euro clearing. Which apparently happens in New York also.

You are aware that New York is also outside of EU, yes? The intended rule states any location OUTSIDE OF EU will be affected; does not matter if it's New York or London then now does it?

K-9

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

But then the actual counter examples, as brought up on this thread, are Norway and Switzerland, the latter maybe the best.

Basically we don't know what the UK will give up for access the likes of those 2 countries have. A South Korean or African deal isn't going to cut it with lots of the manufacturing sector and definitely the city.

It's a Tory government, free trade and keeping the city happy will be part of any deal.

As for trade outside the EU, India are already looking for concessions on immigration controls as part of any deal.

I put deal in bold because those putting forward the Brexit argument seem to be ignoring that a deal involves compromise and giving up things. It also means keeping the likes of Nissan and the city happy.

That doesn't square with something like South Africa! The frustrating part of this is it seems precedent doesn't matter on the Brexit side, some brand new arrangement will be thought up and the UK accommodated.

I suppose Switzerland and the UK could do some partnership but the Swiss see Britain as competition, not partners.

Really until the UK come up with concrete, realistic proposals, one that the other countries can work with, we're just going around in circles. But it's the Internet and politics so feel free!

whatstherush

whatstherush wrote: »

when the quoted posters ask why can't they have free trade without free movement they are implying that the free trade agreement bestows the same level of advantages as membership does.

I think this is all in your head, frankly. You're deducing things that nobody seems to have said. Membership of the Single Market is not the same as having a free trade agreeement.

The original point I responded to was this statement made by you:

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

I don't see anybody doing that.

If anything, it is you who seems to be reading any mention of free trade as being synonymous with Single Market membership.

What others seem to be saying, and probably our own Government too, is that Britain should reach a Free Trade deal, even if there is no agreement of freedom of movement of people. That's the case with almost every free trade deal that the EU enters into.

Bit cynical wrote: »

it seems to be a tenet of EU orthodoxy that you can't have free trade without free movement of people.

As above, that isn't a tenet of EU orthodoxy.

Free trade agreements without freedom of movement is the norm, when dealing with non-EU members.

CETA doesn't mean Canadian workers will be exempted from visa conditions in the E.U., nor vice versa

whatstherush

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think this is all in your head, frankly. You're deducing things that nobody seems to have said. Membership of the Single Market is not the same as having a free trade agreeement.

If that's not what they are implying why even ask the question?

Bit cynical

K-9 wrote: »

Really until the UK come up with concrete, realistic proposals, one that the other countries can work with, we're just going around in circles. But it's the Internet and politics so feel free!

Another poster has made the (quite important) point that what is possibly not realistic is expecting a detailed document stating exactly what the UK wants at the outset. Such documents no doubt exist to be provided to the negotiating teams. The EU will also, no doubt, have detailed plans for negotiation set out once they can get some sort of agreement among their member states. But what you seem to be expecting is for the UK to show its hand while the EU does not. Is that realistic?

Bit cynical

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

This is a point that is often forgotten on this forum.

Some of us here like be cheerleaders when a hard line is taken taken towards the UK. Yet at the same time we expect Enda Kenny to thanklessly do his bit to protect Irish interests behind the scenes.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Nody wrote: »

EU would benefit far less than UK; which is why you need to answer the question why UK would get a better deal than Norway or Switzerland who also pay significant amounts for said access with freedom of movement attached. Heck if it's all about free trade we might as well give it to USA and China because those REALLY would give a boost compared to small little UK by comparison.

So it's not in anyone's benefit to protect billions of Euro in trade with the UK?

A punitive treatment if the UK will hurt EU member states in addition to the UK. This isn't a positive argument for the EU's approach. The UK isn't asking for a punitive deal. It's looking for the most open arrangement in respect to trade while listening to the British public.

I really hope this isn't how the Irish Government will approach Brexit in the council because that'd be a suicide mission.

Nody wrote: »

You tried to use the fact individual countries would care as a reason why they would give up such a deal; I pointed out the flaw in your argument by the fact the governments of said economies have already stated such a deal is not on the table. So you still have not explained how UK is suppose to get a superior deal to every other nation in EU for free.

I never argued that the UK would get a better trade arrangement with the rest of the EU than today. It may well not. But it will get some arrangement and it will be in a position to negotiate with other countries.

Sweden has already asked for the Article 50 negotiations not to be punitive. Opinion in the member states is mixed and is not immutable.

Nody wrote: »

Fully agree; you've yet to make a single argument for why UK would get a free ride that's hold up to scrutiny.

I'd love it if you would read my posts. I'm not arguing for a free ride. Clearly the UK wants a more appropriate relatonship with Europe. That will come at a cost. There's still no reason why an amicable trade deal can't be reached.

Nody wrote: »

Oh I don't know; how about we add the major governments in EU who say the same thing? Start to get an idea that there's a coherent message coming yet from EU on the position?

There isn't a coherent message amongst member states.

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that New York is also outside of EU, yes? The intended rule states any location OUTSIDE OF EU will be affected; does not matter if it's New York or London then now does it?

You've missed my point. My point is that Euro clearing happens outside of the EU. There's no reason to think that it can't continue to happen in London. The reasoning is offered in the Financial Times article.

Pulling Euro clearing out of London and New York the two largest trading centres in the world wouldn't benefit the EU but would hurt it. Yen and dollar clearing already happen in London and New York removing Euro clearing would isolate Europe from the trading world.

I think you need to listen to what I'm saying rather than what you would like me to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

K-9

Bit cynical wrote: »

Another poster has made the (quite important) point that what is possibly not realistic is expecting a detailed document stating exactly what the UK wants at the outset. Such documents no doubt exist to be provided to the negotiating teams. The EU will also, no doubt, have detailed plans for negotiation set out once they can get some sort of agreement among their member states. But what you seem to be expecting is for the UK to show its hand while the EU does not. Is that realistic?

Well I suppose the UK has to put proposals to the EU before it can respond. I'm sure they've a rough idea of how they'll respond to different proposals.

If the UK wants banking included, well here's Switzerland's deal. We can work around this.

EEA? Norway.

No freedom of movement? Here's South Africa or Canada. Oh Nissan and the bankers wont be happy? Let's go back to the Swiss deal.

No freedom of movement? Ok, let's go back to the Canadian deal.

130Kph

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.

I was beaten to it but

A Favell wrote:

At lower ends of the scale, British workers will be now privileged to take up the low paid, dirty, dangerous, dull, flexible and insecure work that a few years before they would have been delighted to leave to others. Many will still avoid taking such employment; there will therefore be fresh demand for cheaper, irregular immigrants from further afield.

People in Surrey might now have to learn a few words of Pashto to get their car washed post April fools day 2019.

K-9

Bit cynical wrote: »

This is a point that is often forgotten on this forum.

Some of us here like be cheerleaders when a hard line is taken taken towards the UK. Yet at the same time we expect Enda Kenny to thanklessly do his bit to protect Irish interests behind the scenes.

We aren't going to get everything we want. I do think a large part of our electorate do realise the EU comes with pros and cons to it, but the good out weighs the bad. The British people decided it wasn't for them. The UK will have to do some soul searching and see what parts of a deal they can stomach to get as much access to the EU as they can.

It's difficult for any Irish Government, but as the old saying goes, "Britain's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" will also be on their minds. The DUP are already uneasy at what the likes of the IDA are doing behind closed doors.

We aren't known for long term thinking when it comes to stuff like this unfortunately.

solodeogloria

K-9 wrote: »

Well I suppose the UK has to put proposals to the EU before it can respond. I'm sure they've a rough idea of how they'll respond to different proposals.

If the UK wants banking included, well here's Switzerland's deal. We can work around this.

EEA? Norway.

No freedom of movement? Here's South Africa or Canada. Oh Nissan and the bankers wont be happy? Let's go back to the Swiss deal.

No freedom of movement? Ok, let's go back to the Canadian deal.

Good evening!

In the same way as Norway and Switzerland argued for a model that worked for them the UK will have to do the same. I don't know why people are insisting that the UK will have to take a model suited for another country. Trade deals are bespoke by nature.

In response to "Britain's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" it might be worth reminding ourselves of where that led to in the 1930's. The obvious truth is that it's in Ireland's interests to support the UK getting the best possible deal. That means backing the UK rather than only being in friendly relationship with the UK when it suits.

Now really isn't the time for Ireland to redo Eamon DeValera's mistakes.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Well I suppose the UK has to put proposals to the EU before it can respond. I'm sure they've a rough idea of how they'll respond to different proposals.

If the UK wants banking included, well here's Switzerland's deal. We can work around this.

EEA? Norway.

No freedom of movement? Here's South Africa or Canada. Oh Nissan and the bankers wont be happy? Let's go back to the Swiss deal.

No freedom of movement? Ok, let's go back to the Canadian deal.

Going by this weak logic, there could never have been a Swiss deal, or a CETA, or a Norwegian deal, because there was no template for any of them prior to their ratification.

There will be a bespoke deal for Britain which will promote the mutual trade, financial and political interests of both Britain and the E.U.

First Up

solodeogloria wrote:

Good morning!

solodeogloria wrote:

Much thanks, solodeogloria

Could you spare us this pretentious sh*te?

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

Why did you vote to remain if it is bizarre?

solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why did you vote to remain if it is bizarre?

Good evening!

I voted remain because I believed it was better for Britain to remain and to argue for tangible reforms in the EU and I believed that it would be better than causing market instability. I've been Eurocritical the whole time.

Now that the referendum is over I'm keen to see Theresa May honour the people's vote. If there was a referendum tomorrow again I would vote to leave because that is what the British people asked for and democratic referendums should be respected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I voted remain because I believed it was better for Britain to remain and to argue for tangible reforms in the EU and I believed that it would be better than causing market instability. I've been Eurocritical the whole time.

Now that the referendum is over I'm keen to see Theresa May honour the people's vote. If there was a referendum tomorrow again I would vote to leave because that is what the British people asked for and democratic referendums should be respected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why would the EU give up free movement of people for a trade deal ?

KingBrian2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I voted remain because I believed it was better for Britain to remain and to argue for tangible reforms in the EU and I believed that it would be better than causing market instability. I've been Eurocritical the whole time.

Now that the referendum is over I'm keen to see Theresa May honour the people's vote. If there was a referendum tomorrow again I would vote to leave because that is what the British people asked for and democratic referendums should be respected.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The whole of Britain has been Eurocritical and all your politicians have been moaning about the EU this entire decade about everything in the EU is broken or lets get rid of the European Commission or European Parliament. The EU works well when the members cooperate and a social contract with the citizens of Europe is seen and exists. Participation in local European elections has been paltry due in part to British Euroscpeticism looking out for British only interests.

K-9

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

In the same way as Norway and Switzerland argued for a model that worked for them the UK will have to do the same. I don't know why people are insisting that the UK will have to take a model suited for another country. Trade deals are bespoke by nature.

In response to "Britain's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" it might be worth reminding ourselves of where that led to in the 1930's. The obvious truth is that it's in Ireland's interests to support the UK getting the best possible deal. That means backing the UK rather than only being in friendly relationship with the UK when it suits.

Now really isn't the time for Ireland to redo Eamon DeValera's mistakes.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'm agreeing with you on the opportunity thing!

Unfortunately Irish economic planning often does look at it that way. Our whole strategy is based on attracting investment other countries have/want. IFSC, Apple etc.

Unfortunately what I'd like often does not get transferred to actual politics and Government thinking! Something those putting forward the Brexit argument are struggling with grasping on this thread.

Bit cynical

K-9 wrote: »

It's difficult for any Irish Government, but as the old saying goes, "Britain's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" will also be on their minds. The DUP are already uneasy at what the likes of the IDA are doing behind closed doors.

That may be the case in some aspects of brexit. For example, there may well be companies that Ireland can attract and the IDA will take advantage of brexit if it can.

However it has been suggested that a hard brexit (this would include a situation where talks fail to conclude within the two year period due to EU intransigence) would actually hit Ireland harder economically than the UK.

The point is it is easy to cheer when some EU leader says, for example, that trade talks between the EU and the UK can't begin until after the two years are up (such things have been said), but we need to remember that were this allowed to happen, hard brexit would occur and Ireland would suffer disproportionately.

K-9

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Going by this weak logic, there could never have been a Swiss deal, or a CETA, or a Norwegian deal, because there was no template for any of them prior to their ratification.

There will be a bespoke deal for Britain which will promote the mutual trade, financial and political interests of both Britain and the E.U.

That paragraph doesn't really mean anything though!

Of course it wont be a copy and paste of previous agreements. We'll see in time what concessions the UK will have to give to ensure Nissan and the city are happy with any deal. There will be a downside to the UK and they'll have to agree to things they don't particularly want to. The UK have a lot of competing concerns to keep onside, keep Nissan and the city happy, restrict immigration, keep the Eastern European countries sweet, Belgium etc.

ancapailldorcha

There was an article from The Economist about what one might refer to as the new "Irish question".

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21709354-making-it-one-few-european-countries-wants-be-kind-britain-ireland-may-suffer

K-9

Bit cynical wrote: »

That may be the case in some aspects of brexit. For example, there may well be companies that Ireland can attract and the IDA will take advantage of brexit if it can.

However it has been suggested that a hard brexit (this would include a situation where talks fail to conclude within the two year period due to EU intransigence) would actually hit Ireland harder economically than the UK.

The point is it is easy to cheer when some EU leader says, for example, that trade talks between the EU and the UK can't begin until after the two years are up (such things have been said), but we need to remember that were this allowed to happen, hard brexit would occur and Ireland would suffer disproportionately.

Well I doubt a hard Brexit will happen as it wouldn't suit both sides. If the UK decides to go that route there wont be much for anybody to negotiate really, Ireland included. If Britain decides to go that route it will have consequences, but I don't think it will as it doesn't suit industry and the city.

K-9

First Up wrote: »

Could you spare us this pretentious sh*te?

Mod:

Cut it out, that's irrelevant to the debate.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

The point is it is easy to cheer when some EU leader says, for example, that trade talks between the EU and the UK can't begin until after the two years are up (such things have been said), but we need to remember that were this allowed to happen, hard brexit would occur and Ireland would suffer disproportionately.

It's also difficult to believe.

EU Governments don't only speak to one another when the Council of the EU or the European Council is in session.

They telephone one another, they whatsapp each other, and so do their senior civil servants. There is a constant dialogue, and for anyone to think, to be so credulous as to believe that there are no informal discussions happening, is quite strange.

If anyone genuinely subscribes to that opinion, PM me today for some magic beans, available now at a very competitive price.

K-9 wrote: »

That paragraph doesn't really mean anything though!

Of course it wont be a copy and paste of previous agreements.

Then why are you portraying the UK as dithering between the extant agreements?

It will be none of those.

There will be a downside to the UK and they'll have to agree to things they don't particularly want to.

Absolutely. You've made that remark a few times, but negotiation is a two-way process. There will be quid pro quos and Britain (aided by Ireland, probably) will undoubtedly secure concessions that some Europeans will find difficult to swallow.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

The point is it is easy to cheer when some EU leader says, for example, that trade talks between the EU and the UK can't begin until after the two years are up (such things have been said), but we need to remember that were this allowed to happen, hard brexit would occur and Ireland would suffer disproportionately.

Who said that? The process couldn't be clearer; exit negotiations start when 50 is invoked. Negotiations END two years later, not start.