Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is true that if the UK is no longer a member of the single market then Scotland, since it is a region of the UK, will also not be a member of the single market.

However it may be possible for Scotland to have free trade access to the single market through the UK achieving a deal with the EU for free trade between the single market and the UK as a whole. Scotland, as part of the UK then benefits from this.

This is best achieved by Nicola Sturgeon working cooperatively with the UK government.

Yes, but that is not what was in the article linked.

Ms Sturgeon has pledged to do all she can to protect Scotland's place in Europe, and to maintain its membership of the single market

Nody

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No it does not. Why are you writing things that are simply untrue? This isn't the Lisbon Treaty. It isn't the case that every instance of treaty change requires a referendum in Ireland, much less a trade deal. . I have no clue what makes you think there is any such requirement in France and Denmark.

Because multiple treaties will need updating stating they don't affect UK anymore and will most likely touch on national policies? Or do you think the Canadian deal was voted on for funsies?

That isn't true. Only the most complex deals straying outside of EU competencies would, once agreed, be subject to individual ratification in national parliaments, i.e. an effective veto.

Like the Canadian deal which is heck of a lot more straight forward than UK leaving EU and getting a new deal.

However, I think you're missing the point of a quid pro quo. In negotiations, both sides almost inevitably have to swallow things they don't like, in order to advance a desirable opportunity for themselves and their allies. This applies to both the British Government and EU leaders.

Except EU has far less to lose than the British government and can happily let things play out; in fact article 50 is intentionally set up to ensure it puts pressure on the party leaving. Seeing how Greenland took 7.5 years to leave I'll be amazed to see this deal done in 2 years (remember the member state don't want the uncertainty of a long drawn out Brexit; Greenland was to small but UK? I could easily see a country say no to any extensions there).

Before CETA, there was no CETA. Genius. That's just tautology. How can there be anything invented to regulate Brexit when Brexit is only beginning?!

It's called article 50 which outlines exactly what will happen; anything beyond that is hoping only.

I'm not missing that point, I agree with it to an extent, but it's one of many considerations, which also include trade, financial stability, and peace in Northern Ireland, which I expect will be keenly stressed by both the Irish and British negotiators, and which is one of the EU's success stories. It just won't do, in Brussels or across 'old Europe', to see sparks of armed conflict inside Western Europe.

Sorry but any issues in NI will be driven by UK deciding to leave the union; if anything this will prove that EU is working and being outside it is a recipe for conflict. But I'm sure London will happily take up the additional cost provided by EU to keep the peace, right?

Although this process is fairly straightforward, the factors which will be taken into serious consideration are decidedly more complex than many people are acknowledging. It won't be a simple case of punishing the Brits, or giving Europe the two fingers, or any other garbage that appears in this thread and in tomorrow's chip paper.

Actually it's very straight forward; if there is no deal in 2 years (there is not going to be one) and if not all 27 member states agree to extend the period there will be no deal at the exit simple as that. Seeing how the uncertainty of Brexit is already annoying the markets I can easily see several countries who'd simply say no to extending it to end that uncertainty; not so much to punish UK as to simply take short term pain for long term gain.

KingBrian2

Before their is a negotiation the British gvt have to have a negotiating position. So far that is not forthcoming. May could call a general election and consolidate her premiership at the moment she has no mandate to govern and the public want their say on a future agreement with the EU which is logical and correct approach to this. If you look at other important votes like here in Ireland their have always been calls for a free vote within the parliament on controversial legislation. Vote in a gvt and let them see through this process. Last thing with want is a bunch of parliamentarians making new agreement with the EU and in a couple of months their all out the door and a brand new group come along and start the process from scratch.

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems overly simplistic. The UK is leaving the EU. That is all that is certain so far.

Exactly. All we have so far is…

UK: Ok, the EU just isn’t for us anymore – we want out.

EU: Ok, so what kind of relationship do you want going forward?

UK: We can remain friends.

EU: Ok, but what does that mean exactly?

UK: We’ll let you know in … eh … March. Yeah, March works.

EU: Ok, talk to you then, but please don’t delay this any longer than is necessary – we all want to get this sorted ASAP.

British Press: Evil Nazi Eurocrats refuse to negotiate with our brave, nobel UK officials ahead of British liberation from EU (British judges are in on it too, apparently).

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Only the most complex deals straying outside of EU competencies would, once agreed, be subject to individual ratification in national parliaments, i.e. an effective veto.

…

Although this process is fairly straightforward, the factors which will be taken into serious consideration are decidedly more complex than many people are acknowledging.

There’s something of a contradiction there.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Because multiple treaties will need updating stating they don't affect UK anymore and will most likely touch on national policies? Or do you think the Canadian deal was voted on for funsies?

Did you even read what I wrote?

Treaty change does not usually mean that there will be a necessity to hold a referendum in Ireland, or anywhere else. That's why Ireland doesn't hold a referendum on every new Member State's accession. Nor does anybody else.

Except EU has far less to lose than the British government and can happily let things play out

I didn't attempt to apportion relative negotiating strengths, but it is indisputable among those of us who are not emotionally invested in Brexit, that both sides have strong arguments and on some occasions, shared interests. I happen to agree that the the EU is in a stronger negotiating position, but this is no way negates the point I made, that both sides will suffer concessions, as well as agreeing on mutual benefits.

Sorry but any issues in NI will be driven by UK deciding to leave the union; if anything this will prove that EU is working and being outside it is a recipe for conflict.

What are you sorry for? For making such a ridiculous statement?

Because I'm interpreting that statement as meaning that a conflict in Western Europe would go down well with the EU, because it would justify European Union to have its hundreds of thousands citizens living in a conflict?

But I'm sure London will happily take up the additional cost provided by EU to keep the peace, right?

No, it won't. This whole process has shown Westminster to be nearly oblivious to the peace process and the security situation in Northern Ireland. I'm not sure why you seem to be framing that question as though I am in some way defending the British government.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Before their is a negotiation the British gvt have to have a negotiating position. So far that is not forthcoming. May could call a general election and consolidate her premiership at the moment she has no mandate to govern and the public want their say on a future agreement with the EU which is logical and correct approach to this. If you look at other important votes like here in Ireland their have always been calls for a free vote within the parliament on controversial legislation. Vote in a gvt and let them see through this process. Last thing with want is a bunch of parliamentarians making new agreement with the EU and in a couple of months their all out the door and a brand new group come along and start the process from scratch.

I wonder how often this will be posted and corrected;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011
Under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, May cannot call a general election without either A - The support of a sizeable portion of the opposition (and her entire party) or B - Asking her party to vote against her in a vote of confidence.

KingBrian2

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how often this will be posted and corrected;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011
Under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, May cannot call a general election without either A - The support of a sizeable portion of the opposition (and her entire party) or B - Asking her party to vote against her in a vote of confidence.

So the Brits can't just call a snap election. They already voted to leave the EU. We know where UKIP and Tories stand while the SNP, Greens, Liberals all have clear positions which leaves Labour which still has to form a consensus view on leaving the EU so have at it let her call an election. This is a new age in British politics.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

There’s something of a contradiction there.

• The procedure relating to Article 50 is straightforward.
• The agreed terms of Brexit might be straightforward, especially if there is a hard Brexit.
• The factors that will be carefully analysed and discussed before arriving at said terms will be various and complex.

Can you point to where you think the contradiction is?

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

Except EU has far less to lose than the British government and can happily let things play out; in fact article 50 is intentionally set up to ensure it puts pressure on the party leaving. Seeing how Greenland took 7.5 years to leave I'll be amazed to see this deal done in 2 years (remember the member state don't want the uncertainty of a long drawn out Brexit; Greenland was to small but UK? I could easily see a country say no to any extensions there).

Good evening!

I disagree with your analysis that Britain has more to lose. The EU will lose out on the trade that Britain does with it which is greater than the amount that the UK sells into the EU. Despite your claims these figures aren't insignificant. It will hurt several member states badly to shut the door on the UK. The arguments in respect to the City and losing Euro clearing look like they would do more harm to the European Union from the analysis that I've read. The EU potentially could lose vital British security intelligence in addition to this.

Mind you - hurting Britain isn't in the EU's interests. What's in the interest of every EU member state is to push for a progressive trading relationship with Britain. Warnings of punitive treatment don't reflect well on the EU.

I don't know why so many on this thread are so keen to see it either. The UK is actually approaching this from a positive perspective. To shape a new and more appropriate link with the EU and to be an open country.

Screaming for punitive treatment isn't good for anyone. It is also suicide for Ireland.

On the 2 year point - I'm pretty sure an interim deal will be made as other posters have highlighted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree with your analysis that Britain has more to lose. The EU will lose out on the trade that Britain does with it which is greater than the amount that the UK sells into the EU. Despite your claims these figures aren't insignificant. It will hurt several member states badly to shut the door on the UK. The arguments in respect to the City and losing Euro clearing look like they would do more harm to the European Union from the analysis that I've read. The EU potentially could lose vital British security intelligence in addition to this.

The EU only exports about 6% of its goods and services to the UK. Not insignificant but not enough for the Brexiteers to hold it to ransom as they made out either.

Hurting the UK is in nobody's interests - Truism.

However, there is no pareto agreement available here and so The EU, in protecting it's own interests, and acting rationally will undoubtedly 'hurt' the UK almost inadvertently. It is really not possible to not.

Nody

Btw if you had any question if the Brexit side were nuts here's the latest example:

Amendment 882 was proposed by Charles Goerens, a liberal MEP from Luxembourg. It will be considered by the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is drawing up a report with recommendations on “Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union”.

The amendment suggests the provision of “European associate citizenship for those who feel and wish to be part of the European project but are nationals of a former Member State; offers these associate citizens the rights of freedom of movement and to reside on its territory as well as being represented in the Parliament through a vote in the European elections on the European lists”.

So an optional way for the UK people to retain their right to travel and be EU citizens etc. which has ZERO impact on Brexit; if anything would help UK side. And the Brexit reaction?

Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership.

“This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said.

“Brexit means laws which impact the people of the UK will be created by accountable politicians in Westminster. It is totally unacceptable for certain citizens in the UK to subject themselves to laws which are created by politicians who are not accountable the British people as a whole. Discriminating against people based on their political views shows there are no depths the EU will not sink to.”

Better never leave UK then Jayne; or you'll be subject to rules by laws not created by British politicians...

KingBrian2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I disagree with your analysis that Britain has more to lose. The EU will lose out on the trade that Britain does with it which is greater than the amount that the UK sells into the EU. Despite your claims these figures aren't insignificant. It will hurt several member states badly to shut the door on the UK. The arguments in respect to the City and losing Euro clearing look like they would do more harm to the European Union from the analysis that I've read. The EU potentially could lose vital British security intelligence in addition to this.

Mind you - hurting Britain isn't in the EU's interests. What's in the interest of every EU member state is to push for a progressive trading relationship with Britain. Warnings of punitive treatment don't reflect well on the EU.

I don't know why so many on this thread are so keen to see it either. The UK is actually approaching this from a positive perspective. To shape a new and more appropriate link with the EU and to be an open country.

Screaming for punitive treatment isn't good for anyone. It is also suicide for Ireland.

On the 2 year point - I'm pretty sure an interim deal will be made as other posters have highlighted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is Britain who for decades supported free trade and only now sees the limitations of free trade and now accuses the European commission of being punitive with Westminster. The European commission has been about laying down the law when the various member states decided to spend money they did not have. Should we see a relaxation of European ruling it is up to the member states to assume a greater role and be effective at providing services.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is Britain who for decades supported free trade and only now sees the limitations of free trade

Mainstream Brexit opinion wasn't anti-free trade, nor is it now.

It was economic garbage, but it wasn't anti-free trade. The thrust of the trade argument was that the EU regulation and European treaties impede Britain's international trade. However false that might be, it's very much a liberal, free trade argument.

Although Germany is sympathetic to Britain's liberal economic outlook, you'd have to conclude that the EU as a whole is much closer to France's quasi-protectionist, dirigiste model of economic development.

Positions are always evolving, but there is no way the EU could be described as inherently more in favour of free trade than the British establishment and the mainstream Brexit campaigners.

solodeogloria

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is Britain who for decades supported free trade and only now sees the limitations of free trade and now accuses the European commission of being punitive with Westminster. The European commission has been about laying down the law when the various member states decided to spend money they did not have. Should we see a relaxation of European ruling it is up to the member states to assume a greater role and be effective at providing services.

Good evening!

I really can't do much better than recedite at the weekend when he said the following:

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?

As far as I know the only entity that insists that free movement is connected to free trade is the European Union, and even then it gets a bit flaky on that principle when you consider the other countries it has free trade agreements with.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

As far as I know the only entity that insists that free movement is connected to free trade is the European Union, and even then it gets a bit flaky on that principle when you consider the other countries it has free trade agreements with.

Nope. The EU insists that free movement of labour is connected to the single market, not free trade.

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I really can't do much better than recedite at the weekend when he said the following:


As far as I know the only entity that insists that free movement is connected to free trade is the European Union, and even then it gets a bit flaky on that principle when you consider the other countries it has free trade agreements with.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I already asked you why would the EU allow Single Market access and restrict the free movement of people . Any chance of a reply ?

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

As far as I know the only entity that insists that free movement is connected to free trade is the European Union, and even then it gets a bit flaky on that principle when you consider the other countries it has free trade agreements with.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Tyrant what was that simple analogy about clubs again???

Peregrinus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Mainstream Brexit opinion wasn't anti-free trade, nor is it now.

It was economic garbage, but it wasn't anti-free trade. The thrust of the trade argument was that the EU regulation and European treaties impede Britain's international trade. However false that might be, it's very much a liberal, free trade argument.

On the one hand, this is true, certainly for the leadership in the various pro-Brexit campaigns.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the pro-Brexit votes came from people to, to put it plainly, have not done well out of globalisation and increased free trade - for example, people whose employment standards and rewards have been diminished, or whose jobs have completely disappeared, because of competition from lower-wage economies in the developing world, or people who live in communities significantly affected by this phenomenon.

If the UK government succeeds in putting in place free trade agreements with fast-developing economies such as China and India, as the Brexit campaign has advocated, those people will not benefit. If anything, their plight will be exacerbated. British industries like steel and shipbuilding didn't collapse in the face of competition from Germany or Spain, but in the face of competition from South Korea and China.

The Brexit vote was essentially a negative vote; "we don't like what we've got" (which is EU membership). But (partly because of the mendacious nature of the Brexit campaign) it's very hard to read it as a positive vote for any particular strategy that the British government could realistically deliver. On specifics, they obviously can't plough 350 million per week into the NHS, and by now everybody understands this. They can't deliver single market participation but with migration controls, as Boris Johnson promised; they never could, and I think everyone understands that by now. On the bigger picture, they can't satisfy both the Tory right who object to EU regulation and want the UK to build up a network of free trade agreeements and the discontented populace who want a greater degree of protection for their own economic interests. And I think a primary reason why the UK government is so reluctant to take its Brexit policy to the House of Commons is that, when they get around to framing a coherent and feasible Brexit policy, they expect it will severely disappoint the expectations of many.

Thomas_...

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

CETA is for EU - Canada trade relations. There isn't anything invented to please the Brits in the same way like the Canadians, yet.

Before CETA, there was no CETA. Genius. That's just tautology. How can there be anything invented to regulate Brexit when Brexit is only beginning?!

There will be an agreement, and it won't be CETA, nor the Peruvian deal, nor the Swiss, nor Norwegian.

Can we grasp this, please?

Further, you're missing the Point the EU is about to make which is to deter other member states to do likewise like the British and hold a referendum about the countries Membership within the EU.

I'm not missing that point, I agree with it to an extent, but it's one of many considerations, which also include trade, financial stability, and peace in Northern Ireland, which I expect will be keenly stressed by both the Irish and British negotiators, and which is one of the EU's success stories. It just won't do, in Brussels or across 'old Europe', to see sparks of armed conflict inside Western Europe.

Although this process is fairly straightforward, the factors which will be taken into serious consideration are decidedly more complex than many people are acknowledging. It won't be a simple case of punishing the Brits, or giving Europe the two fingers, or any other garbage that appears in this thread and in tomorrow's chip paper.

What Invention? The Brits appear to have clue about where to go anyway, just airing some wishful thinking and looking for similar deals like CETA which has yet to pass the EU member states parliaments as well as the ratification by the EU parliament itself.

Everything will be taken into serious considerations and much of the deal that is to be negotiated is depending on the performance of the Brits themselves. If they go for a hard Brexit, they cannot expect to get better terms for themselves and will rather get less than Cameron got from his negotiations with the EU Commission.

Thomas_...

robinph wrote: »

Would have been against Scottish Independence from the UK, but since June I'd be totally for it. No reason for us to drag Scotland down with us just out of spite. Let Scotland go and at least have some chance within the EU whilst the rest of England flushes itself down the toilet.

Me too.

solodeogloria

marienbad wrote: »

I already asked you why would the EU allow Single Market access and restrict the free movement of people . Any chance of a reply ?

Good morning,

That's my point. Every single country that trades with the EU has single market access without free movement. Including countries with free trade agreements like Canada, South Africa, and South Korea.

Membership of the customs union doesn't require free movement. Turkey is a member of the customs union. There are negatives to this because it would stop Britain negotiating free trade deals with other countries.

There's a distinction between single market access and single market membership. Single market membership requires free movement according to Juncker, Schulz and Tusk and some member states.

Agreements and deals require compromise. There are red lines on both sides and I think you'll see movement on both sides but I can't see Theresa May giving up taking some level of increased control on UK borders. All will be seen but there's no justification for claiming the so-called red lines of the EU are less malleable than the British Government's.

A bespoke deal is what will be discussed so there's no point shoehorning it into a Norwegian, Swiss or anything else model. It will be a British model of relating with the EU.

Asking for sovereignty over decision making and immigration isn't unreasonable. It's what countries the world over have for granted.

I hope that helps to understand my position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

there's no justification for claiming the so-called red lines of the EU are less malleable than the British Government's.

Immigration is a red line for the UK. The four freedoms are a red line for the EU.

We are not saying that someone has to break their red line - we are saying no-one will break either, which means hard Brexit.

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

there's no justification for claiming the so-called red lines of the EU are less malleable than the British Government's.

Immigration is a red line for the UK. The four freedoms are a red line for the EU.

We are not saying that someone has to break their red line - we are saying no-one will break either, which means hard Brexit.

Yes, that is what I anticipate.

Last night's result a bit of a disaster for the Brexiteers.
Even though Farage was at both partys the message (other than 'anti establishment') were very very different.

The narrative on Economics and Trade from both Trump & Brexit camps were at odds with each other. Liberalised Free Trade vs Protectionist Policies.

The Brexiteers answer to the issues of globalisation is 'more globalisation of everything but people' while Trump's is 'protectionism'.

Both are bad news for Ireland unfortunately

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the one hand, this is true, certainly for the leadership in the various pro-Brexit campaigns.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the pro-Brexit votes came from people to, to put it plainly, have not done well out of globalisation and increased free trade

This is absolutely correct. That's why I mentioned the 'mainstream Brexit campaign', which is not the same as the campaign that was fought online or in British living rooms, but I should have more accurately written 'main Brexit campaigners'.

The three biggest brains behind the Leave campaign were Boris Johnson, Mathew Elliott and Daniel Hannan, all of whom are intensely anti-protectionism, and altogether liberal economically; the latter of them is the veritable lovechild of Margaret Thatcher and Friedrich Hayek.

There is no logical basis for an anti-globalisation, disillusioned, unemployed Yorkshireman to go along with these three unwise Magi. It makes about as much sense as the self-styled "99%" voting for Donald Trump, a self-styled billionaire.

For that reason, I also agree with you that any substantial reduction in trade barriers between the UK and emerging global economies will worsen the economic prospects of the people who have voted for Brexit, apart from some of the elderly who are not long for this world.

They can't deliver single market participation but with migration controls, as Boris Johnson promised

Well it depends what you mean by participation. CETA will allow Canada to 'participate' in the Single Market without being a member of it, and whilst retaining migration controls.

I don't expect another CETA for Britain, but some mulish bastard of a customs union membership and a CETA cannot be ruled out, with a few symbolic slaps to the City of London e.g. by denial of any associate passporting arrangement for London financial institutions.

recedite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There is no logical basis for an anti-globalisation, disillusioned, unemployed Yorkshireman to go along with these three unwise Magi. It makes about as much sense as the self-styled "99%" voting for Donald Trump, a self-styled billionaire.

The former employer of that Yorkshireman (who campaigned against Brexit) complains that he can't get a Yorkshireman to take up a job. What he really means is that no Yorkshireman will accept the poor pay and conditions that an eastern european or an asian immigrant will settle for.
Now, you may argue that it is not possible for a modern European (or indeed American) state to produce industrial goods in the global market at a competitive price, using its own citizens as the labour force, and treating them well, but I think Germany pre-2015 consistently proved that theory wrong.

As for Trump's supporters, when an American sees a millionaire, he thinks "I want to be like that". When a European sees one, he thinks "I want to tear that guy down". That's why Trump appeals to Muricans but rarely to Europeans.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well it depends what you mean by participation. CETA will allow Canada to 'participate' in the Single Market without being a member of it, and whilst retaining migration controls.

Very good point. CETA will effectively bring Canada into the EEC, which ironically is all the UK ever wanted for itself.

Thomas_...

recedite wrote: »

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There is no logical basis for an anti-globalisation, disillusioned, unemployed Yorkshireman to go along with these three unwise Magi. It makes about as much sense as the self-styled "99%" voting for Donald Trump, a self-styled billionaire.

The former employer of that Yorkshireman (who campaigned against Brexit) complains that he can't get a Yorkshireman to take up a job. What he really means is that no Yorkshireman will accept the poor pay and conditions that an eastern european or an asian immigrant will settle for.
Now, you may argue that it is not possible for a modern European (or indeed American) state to produce industrial goods in the global market at a competitive price, using its own citizens as the labour force, and treating them well, but I think Germany pre-2015 consistently proved that theory wrong.

As for Trump's supporters, when an American sees a millionaire, he thinks "I want to be like that". When a European sees one, he thinks "I want to tear that guy down". That's why Trump appeals to Muricans but rarely to Europeans.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well it depends what you mean by participation. CETA will allow Canada to 'participate' in the Single Market without being a member of it, and whilst retaining migration controls.

Very good point. CETA will effectively bring Canada into the EEC, which ironically is all the UK ever wanted for itself.

Well, the Yorkshireman knew it already before the Brexit vote and this all is no new wisdom, but the Brexiteers don't give a damn about it, they just like to see their streets and estades cleared off the foreign faces, but not taking their low paid Jobs. It is all the same with those right-wing and far-right people (I noticed in your post that that Yorkshireman is no Brexiter himself, so I wasn't to put any blame on him).

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Now, you may argue that it is not possible for a modern European (or indeed American) state to produce industrial goods in the global market at a competitive price, using its own citizens as the labour force, and treating them well, but I think Germany pre-2015 consistently proved that theory wrong.

Actually I don't argue that. I think I'm one of the few people here who believes that Brexit could enhance competition and re-industrialisation in the UK, especially if trade barriers grow larger. But the latter won't happen for a decade or so, if it does happen.