Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

Comparing the whole EU to Britain isn't sensible.

Of course it is, because the UK is going to be negotiating with the entire EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If it hadn't been widely documented in many forms of media that some other member states and from the European institutions want to make Brexit painful for Britain then I agree the word punitive wouldn't need to be used.

You mean the overwhelmingly Eurosceptic British media?

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is in the interests of the people who are affected.

It’s not in the long run.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Unemployment figures aren't a useful metric because they are for the whole not sector by sector based.

So provide some evidence that natives are being out-competed in the “low-skilled” “sector”.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Controls are only needed where there is an oversupply of labour and where there is an adverse affect on wages for unskilled workers.

But there is no evidence of an over-supply of labour? If anything, there may be an under-supply.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Most people in the UK want skilled migration (migration that satisfies a need in the economy) to continue from polling in the Guardian.

So long as the total number of immigrants is reduced:

Existing evidence also clearly shows high levels of opposition to immigration in the UK. In recent surveys, majorities of respondents think that there are too many migrants, that fewer migrants should be let in to the country, and that legal restrictions on immigration should be tighter.

Figure 2 shows that large majorities in the 2013 British Social Attitudes survey endorsed reducing immigration. Indeed, over 56% chose ‘reduced a lot’, while 77% chose either ‘reduced a lot’ or ‘reduced a little’. The same question yielded similar results on the British Social Attitudes survey in 2008, adding confidence that these are reliable estimates.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern

solodeogloria wrote: »

Surely having sovereignty over their own monetary policy was the very reason why Britain emerged from the Euro crisis relatively unscathed…

Didn’t help Iceland.

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

I wonder why all those "doctors and engineers" living in "The Jungle" of Calais failed to set up a thriving new colonial town then?

First of all, they’re not in the UK, so that’s not relevant.

Secondly, you don’t have to be a doctor or engineer to be more qualified than the average UK native.

recedite wrote: »

The so called "4 freedoms" is not something set in stone, its just the half-arsed mantra that happens to be in vogue at the moment.

recedite wrote: »

Nonsense, its an ever changing treaty; a set of moving goalposts.

Duty free movement of Goods;1993
Services; 2006

No, it’s you who is shifting goalposts.

You said the four freedoms are not set in stone, then went on to point out new treaties and/or changes to existing treaties – not the same thing.

recedite wrote: »

The reason they were in Calais and not in London is because they took advantage of the open borders within the Schengen Zone, and Calais is the westernmost border of the (now destroyed) Schengen concept.

No, Schengen is still there.

recedite

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it’s you who is shifting goalposts.
You said the four freedoms are not set in stone, then went on to point out new treaties and/or changes to existing treaties – not the same thing.

See, that's the difference between stone and say, plasticine...

djpbarry wrote: »

No, Schengen is still there.

Yep, but its been dead for a while. Have you not noticed the smell?
Temporary (ahem) Reintroduction of Border Controls

recedite

Just noticed that all those border controls become illegal in two days time.
I must check back on the website to see if they will sneakily change the dates. Either that, or Schengen gets resurrected and all the checkpoints get dismantled. Or the rules somehow get changed again.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Nonsense, its an ever changing treaty; a set of moving goalposts.

Duty free movement of Goods;1993
Services; 2006

The Treaty of Rome, 1957, sets out the four freedoms explicitly (in Article 3, first off, but they are mentioned repeatedly throughout the treaty). What you describe as "moving goalposts:" since then has been progress in achieving the four freedoms, but the reality is that the "goalposts" - what people are aiming for, the four freedoms - haven't changed at all since 1957.

Seriously, you didn't know this?

Thomas_...

Parliamentary Opposition to triggering Article 50 and who will or is likely to vote against it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37944473

MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

Liberal Democrat, Labour and SDLP MPs have told the BBC they are prepared to vote against triggering Article 50.
Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said his party would oppose it, unless they were promised a second referendum on the UK's Brexit deal with EU leaders.
Several Labour MPs are also willing to vote against it, despite the Labour Party pledging not to do so.
...
For Labour, shadow minister Catherine West, former leadership contender Owen Smith and south London MP Helen Hayes all made clear they were prepared to vote against Article 50 - which begins formal exit negotiations with the EU - if amendments were not accepted.
Former Labour minister David Lammy and Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner have said they would oppose Article 50. Opposition whip Thangam Debbonaire said she would also vote against it, if a vote were held imminently.
The SNP's 54 MPs may join them. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said they will not vote for anything that undermines the will of the Scottish people, and has previously said they will vote against a bill to write EU provisions into British law to prepare for Brexit.
...
Owen Smith confirmed to Today that if his bid for a second referendum failed, he was likely to oppose the bill.
The SDLP's three MPs will also oppose the measure.
Last week the High Court ruled Parliament must be consulted about leaving the European Union.
Unless the Supreme Court overturns the judgement in December, a bill to invoke Article 50 is expected in the new year.
...

All that depends on the ruling of the Supreme Court whether they even get the chance to do so. Some Labour MPs will defy their whips.

Peregrinus

Some Tory MPs will as well. But I seriously doubt if the combined effect of these defections, plus SNP and minor parties whipping against Brexit (assuming that they do) will be enough to defeat Brexit.

All the Tory MPs were elected on the back of an explicit manifesto commitment to "respect" the result of the referendum. That makes it very difficult for them now to adopt an absolute anti-Brexit stance. Some of them may well say that they don't want to authorise the government to serve Art 50 notice until the government has put its exist strategy and long term intentions/aspirations to Parliament, and Parliament is satisified.

The Labour Party doesn't have the same manifesto commitment to implement the referendum outcome, but I think political principle and political self-interest both combine to suggest that they shouldn't be seen to oppose it absolutely. So they, too, will adopt a stance whereby the government can persuade them to support Brexit, or at least not to oppose it.

Between the Tory and Labour enthusiastic Brexiters, and the Tory and Labour doubters-who-can-be-persuaded-if-Brexit-is-not-too-hard, and Tory backbenchers who will swallow their doubts and take the whip for career or loyalty reasons, there is more than a majority that can be got to vote for Brexit. All the government needs to do is offer some concessions, in the form of targetting a softer Brexit than might otherwise be the case, to the middle ground.

In short, it would require extraordinary parliamentary ineptitude for the government to lose this vote.

Peregrinus

[Accidental double post. Lot of that happening today, for some reason.]

Thomas_...

Peregrinus wrote: »

Some Tory MPs will as well. But I seriously doubt if the combined effect of these defections, plus SNP and minor parties whipping against Brexit (assuming that they do) will be enough to defeat Brexit.

All the Tory MPs were elected on the back of an explicit manifesto commitment to "respect" the result of the referendum. That makes it very difficult for them now to adopt an absolute anti-Brexit stance. Some of them may well say that they don't want to authorise the government to serve Art 50 notice until the government has put its exist strategy and long term intentions/aspirations to Parliament, and Parliament is satisified.

The Labour Party doesn't have the same manifesto commitment to implement the referendum outcome, but I think political principle and political self-interest both combine to suggest that they shouldn't be seen to oppose it absolutely. So they, too, will adopt a stance whereby the government can persuade them to support Brexit, or at least not to oppose it.

Between the Tory and Labour enthusiastic Brexiters, and the Tory and Labour doubters-who-can-be-persuaded-if-Brexit-is-not-too-hard, and Tory backbenchers who will swallow their doubts and take the whip for career or loyalty reasons, there is more than a majority that can be got to vote for Brexit. All the government needs to do is offer some concessions, in the form of targetting a softer Brexit than might otherwise be the case, to the middle ground.

In short, it would require extraordinary parliamentary ineptitude for the government to lose this vote.

That is all a realistic assessment of the situation.

K-9

Some Labour MP's may vote as their constituency went but I can't see the House voting against it either. Whole storm in a teacup over this.

BKtje

Temporary (ahem) Reintroduction of Border Controls[/URL]

It was /is under fire in some countries but the fact that I went from Switzerland to Germany to the Netherlands to Belgium to France and back to Switzerland recently without being stopped once shows that Schengen is very much intact.

Thomas_...

K-9 wrote: »

Some Labour MP's may vote as their constituency went but I can't see the House voting against it either. Whole storm in a teacup over this.

By counting those mentioned in the article, of course they are in minority and I also anticipate that the majority would follow suit and thus the govt. secure a win in a Commons vote.

Sam Russell

Thomas_... wrote: »

By counting those mentioned in the article, of course they are in minority and I also anticipate that the majority would follow suit and thus the govt. secure a win in a Commons vote.

It depends on what you call a win. If amendments are allowed, is that a win? If they are not allowed, what does that mean and is that a win?

I think the HC requires a debate in the Parliament, not just a motion in the Commons noting the result.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Labour Party doesn't have the same manifesto commitment to implement the referendum outcome, but I think political principle and political self-interest both combine to suggest that they shouldn't be seen to oppose it absolutely. So they, too, will adopt a stance whereby the government can persuade them to support Brexit, or at least not to oppose it.

Just for the little anecdotal story, I met 3 Labour MPs this morning (Chamber of Commerce event) and a brief chat with them, besides the audience's own + the Q/A session itself. Angela Smith MP, Dan Jarvis MP and John Healey MP.

Whilst they were as non-committal as expected (for political animals of their stature) about their position for voting for or against an Article 50 declaration, they were very clearly sceptical of the current trajectory, pointing out that:

(1) since the Appeal judgement is known to not happen until January 2017, the government would effectively have 11 weeks to lead, conduct and conclude the Parliamentary debate by May's self-imposed March 2017 deadline if the government awaits that milestone to kickstart the debate; and

(2) pending Appeal or not, objectively there is nothing to stop the government from starting that debate right now.

At least one of these MPs was openly for the UK to retain its Single Market membership, and said so verbatim. In and of itself, that does not preclude an Article 50 declaration of course. Though it does preclude shaking off the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Take this as "1st hand noises from the (MPs addressing their-) streets".

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Treaty of Rome, 1957, sets out the four freedoms explicitly (in Article 3, first off, but they are mentioned repeatedly throughout the treaty). What you describe as "moving goalposts:" since then has been progress in achieving the four freedoms, but the reality is that the "goalposts" - what people are aiming for, the four freedoms - haven't changed at all since 1957.

I'll agree with that, but my point is that they were aspirational goals, not rules set in stone.

For example, if I bought a new car in the UK tomorrow, it would be much cheaper than buying the same car in ROI, but I would be required to pay VRT which is effectively an import duty. But the imposition of VRT does not preclude us from other aspects of the single market.

But now the likes of Juncker seem to be saying that any restriction on the free movement of people would preclude the UK from access to the single market.

What I'm saying as that all these things things are aspirational and open to negotiation. The are not mutually exclusive. There is no rule AFAIK to say they are.

BKtje wrote: »

It was /is under fire in some countries but the fact that I went from Switzerland to Germany to the Netherlands to Belgium to France and back to Switzerland recently without being stopped once shows that Schengen is very much intact.

Yes, it seems Schengen is back on its feet again, after a period of being knocked out and on the floor. The legality of all border controls within the Schengen area ends today. Its a little bit wobbly maybe, but standing up.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

At least one of these MPs was openly for the UK to retain its Single Market membership, and said so verbatim. In and of itself, that does not preclude an Article 50 declaration of course. Though it does preclude shaking off the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

I don't think access to the single market requires submitting to all the ECJ rulings though? Only those made in relation to the goods being traded; ie standards and harmonisation.

Is Canada going to allow the ECJ to overrule Canadian courts as as a pre-condition to CETA?

Nody

recedite wrote: »

I don't think access to the single market requires submitting to all the ECJ rulings though? Only those made in relation to the goods being traded; ie standards and harmonisation.

Is Canada going to allow the ECJ to overrule Canadian courts as as a pre-condition to CETA?

CETA will have (taken from the FAQ):

CETA FAQ wrote:

CETA will establish a strong and independent investment dispute settlement system

A permanent tribunal, nominated by the Parties to the agreement will hear cases for breaches of the investment protection standards in CETA.
Cases will be heard by divisions of the tribunal, composed on the basis of a random selection of three members, one from the EU, one from Canada, and a presiding member from a third country.
At the entry into force of the agreement an appellate tribunal competent to hear and review decisions of the tribunal will be established.

Which still would not meet UK requirement of no non UK court having any say over UK.

As for the 4 freedoms; S&P thinks it will be a hard brexit because both parties are not willing to negotiate and the effect will hit UK rather than EU as seen in the ratings (UK lost 2 steps when the vote come through; now they are set to be lowered further while EU lost one step and went from positive to neutral outlook).

Calina

recedite wrote: »

But now the likes of Juncker seem to be saying that any restriction on the free movement of people would preclude the UK from access to the single market.

What I'm saying as that all these things things are aspirational and open to negotiation. The are not mutually exclusive. There is no rule AFAIK to say they are.

A couple of points to raise.

a) this was already negotiated at the outset of the single market. The UK had a big hand to play in that.

b) this particular thing is not aspirational. It is reality. The reason we are having this debate is not because it's aspirational, it's because it's reality and some people want it to not be reality.

c) access to and membership of the single market are two separate things. The UK may well get access to the single market - we will buy anything - but the terms will not match the preferential terms they have as members of the single market. If they want those terms, they have to pony up and accept the conditions. Those conditions include free movement of labour.

The UK is not some special snowflake that gets to have its cake and eat it. Like the rest of us, it gets to pay for that cake before it gets to eat it.

Personally, if I were the heads of government/state/depends on your state which one turns up at Council meetings, I'd be saying to the UK, you voted out, we'll sort out the divorce and then we'll look at the future relationship. However, I recognise that certain individual countries have massive costs associated with that response. Arguably, I'd say Britain should be responsible for those costs because they screwed everything up.

In the meantime, if they want customs union membership, they cannot negotiate their own trade deals independently and if they want single market membership, they get to have free movement of labour. If they want none of the above, then they divorce and negotiate a trade agreement like Canada and Ecuador have done lately. The cost of that will be screwed up supply chains for complex manufacturing, the loss of a good portion of their financial services industry. The vast majority of people who are screaming for Brexit assume this won't affect them. Perhaps they need to understand it will.

Germany has made a massive success of its trade in the last 70 years. The UK has not. I don't believe this is the EU's fault and perhaps the UK needs to look to its own heart to understand why it's not successful when Germany is.

recedite

Nody wrote: »

CETA will have (taken from the FAQ):
Which still would not meet UK requirement of no non UK court having any say over UK.

IMO the UK would be fine with that. Its basically a pre-nup type agreement concerning any future arbitration of the free trade agreement. There is no sovereignty conceded to ECJ over Canadian matters back home in Canada.

Calina wrote: »

b) this particular thing is not aspirational. It is reality. The reason we are having this debate is not because it's aspirational, it's because it's reality and some people want it to not be reality.

Granted, but that doesn't really affect the debate over whether free movement of goods is dependent on free movement of people, does it?

Calina wrote: »

c) The UK may well get access to the single market ...
but they have to pony up and accept the conditions. Those conditions include free movement of labour.
The UK is not some special snowflake...

I'm just trying to establish what treaty makes free movement of goods always conditional on free movement of people?
Junckers and Co. keep repeating the mantra, but the Ceta deal seems to show it up as false.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

IMO the UK would be fine with that. Its basically a pre-nup type agreement concerning any future arbitration of the free trade agreement. There is no sovereignty conceded to ECJ over Canadian matters back home in Canada.

Granted, but that doesn't really affect the debate over whether free movement of goods is dependent on free movement of people, does it?

I'm just trying to establish what treaty makes free movement of goods always conditional on free movement of people?
Junckers and Co. keep repeating the mantra, but the Ceta deal seems to show it up as false.

You have still missed the difference between access and membership. Canada is not a member of the single market. It has a trade agreement.

Nody

recedite wrote: »

IMO the UK would be fine with that. Its basically a pre-nup type agreement concerning any future arbitration of the free trade agreement. There is no sovereignty conceded to ECJ over Canadian matters back home in Canada.

They would rule on trade disputes inc. unfair competition based on British laws; that means they could overrule UK government and declare a law not to be legal under the trade agreement. Remember Canada has to meet the EU standards and laws here; so this would be EU stating UK breaches EU law and the tribunal ruling that it's the case and tell UK to change the law. That would definitely look more like ECJ to me than a prenup agreement.

recedite

Calina wrote: »

You have still missed the difference between access and membership. Canada is not a member of the single market. It has a trade agreement.

I see two main differences; members must agree to free movement of people, and members get a say when the regulations governing the single market are being modified.
Non-members can have free trade on its own. UK is just letting its membership lapse, while negotiating access.

Suppose you were a member of the gym, but you only ever use the swimming pool. So you stop paying the annual membership. You can still use the pool under pay-as-you-go. Then you can't use the gym anymore, which is fine, and you don't have to make the annual contribution either.

Applying this analogy to Ceta, its not clear what, if anything, the pay-as-you go fee is. Maybe there is no fee, but in return the EU gets free access to their ice skating rink

The question then is, why would the UK be charged a fee?

Calina

recedite wrote: »

I see two main differences; members must agree to free movement of people, and members get a say when the regulations governing the single market are being modified.
Non-members can have free trade on its own. UK is just letting its membership lapse, while negotiating access.

Suppose you were a member of the gym, but you only ever use the swimming pool. So you stop paying the annual membership. You can still use the pool under pay-as-you-go. Then you can't use the gym anymore, which is fine, and you don't have to make the annual contribution either.

Applying this analogy to Ceta, its not clear what, if anything, the pay-as-you go fee is. Maybe there is no fee, but in return the EU gets free access to their ice skating rink

The question then is, why would the UK be charged a fee?

Because the UK is not looking for access, it's looking for membership. In the meantime, you probably underestimate the value of being able to contribute to decision making on the regulations. Check with Norway how they feel about this. Oh and they pay.

recedite

Nody wrote: »

they could overrule UK government and declare a law not to be legal under the trade agreement.

Not quite, the neutral arbitrators would only be dealing with EU/Canada trade matters. If some action, say perpetrated by Canada, breached the terms and conditions of the CETA contract, they would rule on it. Not the Canadian courts, and not the ECJ.
Even then, Canada would have a choice whether to backtrack on x, or back out of CETA, or pay agreed compo.
Its not an infringement on the sovereignty of Canadian courts.

An EU national court, by contrast, has no choice but to follow ECJ rulings in all matters, at all times, no matter what they think about the particular issue themselves.

recedite

Calina wrote: »

Because the UK is not looking for access, it's looking for membership.

I don't think so. They're dropping their membership.

Calina wrote: »

Check with Norway how they feel about this. Oh and they pay.

They must be feeling like suckers since CETA :pac:

Nate--IRL--

recedite wrote: »

They must be feeling like suckers since CETA :pac:

In what way is CETA comparable to EEA membership?

Nate

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

An EU national court, by contrast, has no choice but to follow ECJ rulings in all matters, at all times, no matter what they think about the particular issue themselves.

The ECJ only has jurisdiction over EU competences.

recedite

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

In what way is CETA comparable to EEA membership?

CETA eliminates 98% of trade tariffs, but without a free movement of people entitlement.
EEA eliminates 100% of trade tariffs (except VRT :pac: ) requires free movement of people capital etc. and demands a membership fee.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The ECJ only has jurisdiction over EU competences.

...and only makes rulings on those.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

...and only makes rulings on those.

Yes. Like the neutral arbiters will only make rulings on CETA.

Leonard Hofstadter

One thing that doesn't seem to have been considered over the past few days in this thread is the Trump effect. For starters, we can safely dispel any notion that 'impossible' things, such as Trump's election, can't happen. There is a referendum in Italy next month, which is widely predicted to be defeated, and Renzi is likely to resign, so there could be elections in Italy in the New Year. Although, there are two main anti-EU parties (Five Star and Northern Leage), so the pro-EU side ought to win.

There will be a re-run of the Austrian election soon, which is a toss-up between the Greens and some far-right party. There are elections in France and the Netherlands next year, where after all that's happened, it would not be impossible for the FN in France and Wilders in the Netherlands, to win. If the 'impossible' in these elections happens, then we've definitely got the spectacle of the French voting to leave the EU, while the Austrians and the Dutch could hold referendums on the subject. If all of those countries were to leave the EU, there wouldn't be much left of it, and the whole Brexit negotiations might become a bit academic at that point.