Brexit Referendum Superthread

Nody

323 wrote: »

The bulk of western media, that ridicule anyone who supported Brexit conveniently ignore the fact that Crimean's voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. How very our EU, the bureaucratic utopia where where only coerced second votes are recognized.

If all of Ukraine voted on the issue you would have a point; a better comparison would be if Jersey decide to have a vote in Jersey only if they want to join France to be part of EU or not and if the vote was successful France now has the right to start guerilla warfare all over UK accordingly "because they voted for it".

oscarBravo

323 wrote: »

Strange, is that not what the EU, USA and NATO have been doing in Ukraine??
They denounced an elected government, replaced it...

It's really weird how people feel they can just substitute their own narrative for historical fact.

Yanukovych was removed by Ukraine's parliament, and Poroshenko won a majority in the first round of the subsequent election. On what planet is that "the EU, USA and NATO" "replacing" an elected government?

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

Well it was a 70% Bremain area so I could see it being used again in contested areas but not sure how well it would work on wider scale.

Well, the Lib Dems are the traditional first resort for pissed-off Tory voters; the Richmond bye-election result just calls attention to that fact in the Brexit context.

The problem for the Tories is this; if their Brexit is too soft, they risk losing seats to UKIP, but if their Brexit is too hard, they risk losing seats to the Lib Dems. Somewhere in the middle there must be a sweet spot (or, at at any rate, a least sour spot) but where is it?

This is a complex calcuation becuse some of the strongest Brexit votes were in areas where the Tories don't do too well anyway - the North of England, parts of Wales. The Tories don't lose too many seats by pissing off pro-Brexit voters in those areas because, to be blunt, they don't have that many seats to lose. On the other hand, some of the Remainiest areas are also not Tory strongholds - much of London, for example - so, again, there's not a huge downside risk.

I think what this means is that the Brexit which does most to shore up the Tories' electoral position is the Brexit that appeals to people in areas where the Tories tend to do reasonably well. And I think that means we're talking about the South of England, outside London, and the Midlands.

So the question the Tories should be asking themselves is, why did those areas vote for Brexit? What did they think, or hope, would happen as a result? And then they need to deliver a Brexit which will (so for as is feasible, which may not be very far at all) deliver on those hopes and expectations (and at the same time not annoy Tory funders too much).

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Isn't this perhaps where a bit of constituency work is required?

For example I think you could get a good view of why people in Havering voted for Brexit by a quick walk around Romford market chatting to people on a Saturday afternoon.

Or even better. Organise a constituency meeting in every Tory leave area and aggregate the results up to Conservative party level. Or if you're a big geek like me do a nationwide poll in every local authority ward in Britain and do some lovely big data and visualisation on a map with colour coding options for the top 5 reasons that leave voters had. I personally think there would be a lot of unanimity but it would be fascinating.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Isn't this perhaps where a bit of constituency work is required?

Or they can be politicians and take the easy way out of simply deciding what their voters want instead and saving all that effort and money for something important such as raising their wages and allowances.

Note I don't really disagree with you but I simply don't see any party doing it because not only would it take to much effort (from their pov) but also potentially lead to answers they don't want (or lack of clear direction). Rather contact a poll company for a national view or ask a local politician and take that as the input instead.

demfad

323 wrote: »

Strange, is that not what the EU, USA and NATO have been doing in Ukraine??
They denounced an elected government, replaced it with the US-selected way extreme far right-wing,anti-semitic, white supremacist, administration and suggest making it a NATO member as part of NATO's push east.

As far as I can see there were no EU. US or Nato troops on the ground in the Ukraine when the protests occurred and the leader was ousted.
If you have any substantiation whatsoever (fake Russian news does not count) that the government is white supremacist or anti-semitic then please share.

The bulk of western media, that ridicule anyone who supported Brexit conveniently ignore the fact that Crimean's voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. How very our EU, the bureaucratic utopia where where only coerced second votes are recognized.

Firstly, The western media does not ridicule anyone that supports Brexit, in fact the biggest read MSM papers in the UK are pro Brexit.
Secondly, Crimea is part of teh UKraine. It did not have right to a plebiscite on independence. Thirdly, Vladislav Surkov Putin's propaganda guru had been to work with fake news, information warfare in Crimea and East Ukraine long before the move. That the Ukraine government were fascist, hated Russian speakers, were going to enact laws against them etc. etc. Kind of like the things you were saying. The idea was to sow division between East and West Ukraine allowing for the Russian invasion tp 'protect' Russian speakers from other Ukranians carrying out the lies reported by the Kremlin..

To put in context who the facists are the plebiscite was 'endorsed' by every right wing (Russian supported) group in Europe.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/strange-bedfellows-putin-and-europe%E2%80%99s-far-right

Putin invited her to Moscow along with other representatives of the FN and other European far-right parties to observe the March referendum on Crimea’s accession to Russia. When she endorsed the Crimean referendum as legitimate, others on the European far right, including Austria’s FPÖ and Britain’s UKIP, followed suit.

Lastly, Russia signed a non aggression treaty with Ukraine in exchange for its nuclear weapons. Russia is carrying out an ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
It is also interfering in Western elections. The fact that Russian media was the cource for teh fake news around the Italian referendum wasnt even disguised. Your assertion that the west is anti-Putin is now a joke in view of the fact that the senior advisor to Donald Trump shares Putins goals of a world of quasi fascist 'strong' nation states able to impose their regressive views on LGBT people, women, and others they despise.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Secondly, Crimea is part of teh UKraine. It did not have right to a plebiscite on independence. .

Why not?

Nody

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why not?

For the same reason Dundalk can't declare it want to succeed to UK or you declare that your house is a unique sovereign country which means you don't need to pay tax; it's not possible under the constitution to do so which means a vote on national level to change the constitution would be required.

K-9

Mod:
Sorry but there's enough to be discussing without going into detail on Russian related matters. Back on topic please.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Isn't this perhaps where a bit of constituency work is required?

Well, not necessarily, for a couple of reasons.

The first is, there's a limit to how useful and reliable such work can be in determining what people want, expect, etc. No offence, but your suggestion of "constituency meetings" is not a good one; the class of people who are sufficiently politically engaged to attend and speak at such meetings is small and highly motivated, and not at all representative of the voters at large. Meetings like that can be useful in helping to gauge the range of opinions out there, but they are pretty useless in determining how much popular support different opinions have.

Surveys, market research, etc are more useful but (a) they're expensive to do well and (b) there's a limit to what even they can tell us. There has been much angst within the industry over the failure of the pollsters to predict the Brexit victory, the Trump election, etc.

The other thing is that, even if these methods are reliable and accurate, what they tell you may not be useful. Surveys in the UK suggest that a large majority - I'm speaking from memory, but it might be something like 75% - of self-identified 'Leave' voters, polled after the referendum result was known, said that they expected Brexit to deliver immigration control. But an almost equally large majority - in the high 60s - expected the UK to continue to have access in the single market. If that's correct, what it tells us is that a large chunk, and probably the majority, of 'Leave' voters voted in expection of a Brexit which they are not going to get and which, if we're honest, they were never going to get.

Which is interesting but, from the government's point of view, is it useful? This group of people hold expectations which simply cannot be met, and any attempt to meet them will end in failure, and voters punish governments perceived to have failed. So what a government will want (or need) to do int his circumstance is not find out what voters want, but rather seek to persuade voters that they want - that they have wanted all along - something that the government can deliver. From that point of view, hard information about what the voters really want is positively unhelpful. It's much easier to persuade the voters that they want X if you can persuade yourself that they want X, and that's easier if you'er not burdened with the knowledge that they want Y.

solodeogloria

Good morning,

My question would be why do you think they can't be met?

There's a distinction between single market access and single market membership.

There are ways of getting preferential access into the single market without being a member of the single market. Even a third party country deal could provide this.

The only way this is unachievable is if you consider single market access to mean single market membership. It's also highly premature to rule options off the table before the negotiation (which is as much dependant on the interests of individual member states as it is on the European Union as an entity) has begun.

It remains to be seen. A transitional deal is also on the cards according to Michel Barnier.

As Mark Carney said last week it is in the European Union's interest to form a good deal with Britain particularly in the area of financial services. They will end up with a bloody nose otherwise due to the fact that their debt and equity securities are raised in London. It is the investment banker of the EU.

Despite what people say Britain's hand is very strong in these negotiations. A member state leaving the EU is also unprecedented which means the negotiation has yet to be seen. We shouldn't be ruling stuff out yet.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Look, I guess it depends on what you think "access to the single market" means.

Every country in the world has access to the single market. Even in the hardest of hard Brexits, the UK will have access to the single market. But I rather think that when British people say that they expect continued access to the single market, they mean access continuing on the terms that the UK currently enjoys. And that, clearly, is not going to happen.

Obviously, the British will want to negotiate the most favourable access terms they can. But if your other negotiating objectives include (a) immigration control, (b) the UK not to be subject to EU legislation or to the rulings of the EU courts and (c) the UK to be free to negotiate its own trade deals and therefor not to be be part of the EU customs union, that puts significant limits on the terms on which you can realistically hope to negotiate. Those limits mean access on terms falling well short of the terms on which the UK currently has access.

And, to the extent that British people voted for Brexit without appreciating that this was the case then, yes, those people are inevitably going to be disappointed. And what the British government will be positioning itself to do is not to be blamed by those people for the disappointment they feel.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Despite what people say Britain's hand is very strong in these negotiations.

Given that what May told the Tory conference they want is a hard Brexit, I agree - no-one can stop them getting exactly what they want.

In fact, there is nothing much to negotiate.

demfad

Very inciteful article here on the hard Brexit lie.

On day one of the court case when the medias eyes were diverted Liam Fox quitely started working on the UKs schedules with the WTO.
He announced that they wanted to be as close as possible with the existing In a WTO situation. The UK will have to replicate exactly the EU tariffs and regulations. This completely nullifies the point of a hard Brexit. The reason it must do this is otherwise it will trigger trade disputes with sanctions and tariff penalties with multiple countries. Infact, knowing that the UK is vulnerable just after leaving its biggest trading block they could dispute anyway and expect an easy capitulation.

An amazing revelation by Fox

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie

In short, despite all the sound and the fury, despite all the attacks against immigrants and the threats against EU citizens in the UK, despite all the Brexit votes and the Richmond rebellions and the sudden change in this country's political dynamic, the government is not aiming to change anything of any substance. Britain will keep the exact EU tariff system which Brexiters for so long said was strangling it.

KindOfIrish

demfad wrote: »

Very inciteful article here on the hard Brexit lie.

There is no soft/hard Brexit option. It's been invented by British press and politicians. First they have to "Brexit". After that UK can join EEC, but it will mean accepting free movement. Simple.

By the way, UK nationals sponging our Social Welfare system. RTE says that unemployment rate for UK nationals living in Ireland is 13.5% compared to 9% for general population. Brexit and hard border with NI now!!!

Laois_Man

This would surely do away with the prospect of a hard border returning between N. Ireland and Rep Ireland. But I think it has a long way to go before everyone agrees to this

EU negotiators will offer Brits an individual opt-in to remain EU citizens, chief negotiator confirms

EU negotiators will offer British people the chance to individually opt-in and remain EU citizens as a proposal in Brexit negotiations, the European Parliament’s chief negotiator has confirmed.

The plan, first revealed in its early stages by The Independent last month, was being considered as a long-term aim by the European Parliament – but has now been fast-tracked to the negotiating table by Guy Verhofstadt, who is in charge of thrashing out a post-Brexit deal.

Mr Verhofstadt said the “very important” proposal had “captured the imagination and hopes” of many British people who wished to retain their rights as EU citizens and would be in his negotiating mandate.

The plan would see Brits offered individual “associate citizenship”, letting them keep free movement to live and work across the EU, as well as a vote in European Parliament elections.

The proposal could potentially give Brits who live and work across borders a workaround to the disruption caused by the Leave vote – and young people looking to flee an increasingly isolated UK greater choice over where to move to.

Depending on the approach taken by EU negotiators, the idea would likely be subject to approval by the British Government.

Mr Verhofstadt is drawing up a report with the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs about proposed long-term changes to the EU’s structure. The plan was originally proposed by Luxembourg MEP Charles Goerens for inclusion in the report, but will now bypass that process and be taken forward independently.

The chief negotiator told the committee’s members: “We come to the vote of this important amendment 882, tabled by colleague Charles Goerens. It is an important amendment that has captured the imagination and hopes of many of the 48 per cent of Brits that have voted to remain in the EU. You will all have received many emails about this – and there has been many articles about this.

“It has therefore become a very important issue that cannot await treaty change – as envisaged by Charles when he first tabled it.

“I am therefore proposing to remove it from my report – which after all is concerned with Treaty change – and to include it in the negotiations we will have with the UK Government. I as Brexit negotiator for the Parliament will ensure that it is included in the parliament’s negotiating mandate.”

In a statement, Mr Goerens said: “Today I decided together with Guy Verhofstadt to withdraw my amendment on associate EU citizenship. We realised that this has become a very important issue that cannot await treaty change – as was my intention when I first tabled my amendment – since this might take years.

“Yesterday evening, the House of Commons decided by a majority of almost 400 to support Theresa Mays plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017. Hence the prospect that this Article 50 will be invoked has become very real indeed.

“The European Parliament will define its position on the Brexit agreement through a resolution during spring 2017. This seems to be the best opportunity to give Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt the possibility to enforce the associate EU citizenship.

“I recognise this might come as a surprise to many of you, but please understand that the abovementioned procedure makes it much more likely for the associate EU citizenship to succeed than through an amendment.”

Lib Dem MEP Catherine Bearder said: “The option of being able to retain EU citizenship offers a glimmer of hope for the millions of British people devastated by the referendum result.

“The fact this proposal is going ahead shows there remains a huge amount of goodwill towards Britain, despite the actions of this Conservative Brexit Government.

“Everyone who supports this should write to MEPs and tell them how passionately they feel about maintaining their rights as EU citizens, including the ability to live, study and work abroad."

In its original form the amendment suggested 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”.

Though the British Government has been coy on what it wants Britain’s post-Brexit future to look like, it is likely that British citizens will lose the automatic right to live and work in the EU after Brexit. This is because Prime Minister Theresa May has made clear that she would like to restrict freedom of movement from EU countries to the UK, a policy that would likely be reciprocated by the EU for British citizens.

Mr Verhofstadt is one of two chief negotiators representing different pillars of the European Union. He represents the Parliament, while former Commissioner Michel Barnier represents the Commission. Belgian diplomat Didier Seeuws will coordinate the European Council’s negotiating position on behalf of the leaders of other EU states.

The House of Commons this week approved a motion calling for Ms May to reveal the Government’s negotiating position on Brexit before triggering Article 50. It also locked in the timetable of triggering the treaty clause – and starting negotiations – before the end of March 2017.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-keep-freedom-of-movement-guy-verhofstadt-chief-negotiator-opt-in-passports-a7465271.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Sam Russell

Would it be reciprocated, I wonder? Makes leaving a bit unnecessary if so - Polish plumbers still able to migrate to Portsmouth.

Enzokk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would it be reciprocated, I wonder? Makes leaving a bit unnecessary if so - Polish plumbers still able to migrate to Portsmouth.

Well it is a concession from the EU to the UK even before negotiations has started. You do wonder why they would offer this before any negotiations or at least if there will have to be some give from the UK side. If there is none then this would be a very generous offer from the EU.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

Well it is a concession from the EU to the UK even before negotiations has started. You do wonder why they would offer this before any negotiations or at least if there will have to be some give from the UK side. If there is none then this would be a very generous offer from the EU.

It's an offer but there'll be strings attached. The UK can't leave with the same access to the single market while opting out of free movement or the whole thing will collapse.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Well it is a concession from the EU to the UK even before negotiations has started. You do wonder why they would offer this before any negotiations or at least if there will have to be some give from the UK side. If there is none then this would be a very generous offer from the EU.

It's not a concession. It's a suggestion about a concession that might be made. Verhofstadt thinks it's a good idea and he's not without influence, but others who need to be onside are not yet. What does Michel Barnier think about it, for instance? If this does turn into something that the EU is willing to offer, it may be they are only willing to offer it on conditions (like reciprocity). But, as of now, it's just an idea that has been floated.

Peregrinus

Laois_Man wrote: »

This would surely do away with the prospect of a hard border returning between N. Ireland and Rep Ireland . . .

Not necessarily. You'll have UK citizens who have opted to retain EU citizenship and those who haven't, and you'll need checks at the border, won't you, to determine whether any particular UK citizen has or has not?

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

If there is none then this would be a very generous offer from the EU.

No, it would be a sensible, practical measure. UK folks are welcome to move and bring their skills anywhere in Europe, good for them, good for Europe. If there is no corresponding freedom for EU folks to move and work in the EU, that may be bad for those citizens who would like to, but it is good for the rest of Europe who don't lose them. The size of the labour force is already a concern in many EU countries - Germany isn't pro-immigration just out of kindness.

It also makes the EU look even better to young British folks who feel abandoned in Brexit Britain. The EU may be playing a long game where the UK eventually applies to re-enter someday.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it would be a sensible, practical measure. UK folks are welcome to move and bring their skills anywhere in Europe, good for them, good for Europe. If there is no corresponding freedom for EU folks to move and work in the EU, that may be bad for those citizens who would like to, but it is good for the rest of Europe who don't lose them. The size of the labour force is already a concern in many EU countries - Germany isn't pro-immigration just out of kindness.

This makes no sense. If I'd stayed at home, I'd either be working in a local pub or be on the dole. Free movement allowed me to seek better opportunities abroad and some people do return home with the skills they've gained. It's up to governments to encourage enterprise. There is a reason that countries want to join the EU and free movement is part of it.

solodeogloria

Laois_Man wrote: »

This would surely do away with the prospect of a hard border returning between N. Ireland and Rep Ireland. But I think it has a long way to go before everyone agrees to this



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-keep-freedom-of-movement-guy-verhofstadt-chief-negotiator-opt-in-passports-a7465271.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Good afternoon!

It's meaningless posturing. Nobody is proposing that skilled European workers are going to find it hugely more difficult to enter the UK. In fact in some unskilled sectors this would also be the case.

The Independent also wreaks of editorial bias nearly to the same extent as The Daily Express on the other side. Britain won't be "increasingly isolated" from the rest of the world. The UK is a very open country and will remain so. Light immigration controls on unskilled workers and issuing permanent residence visas to those who stay here won't change that.

More freedom of movement isn't what the British people voted for either. What would be really "generous" of the EU would be beginning to chart a new trading relationship with Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

323

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's an offer but there'll be strings attached. The UK can't leave with the same access to the single market while opting out of free movement or the whole thing will collapse.

Why Not? Is that not pretty much what the EU has just agreed to with Canada and has with South Africa and others for years.
I can't see Germany being all that keen on cutting off its third largest trading partner. no matter what the bureaucratic numpties in Brussels are saying ATM.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This makes no sense. If I'd stayed at home, I'd either be working in a local pub or be on the dole. Free movement allowed me to seek better opportunities abroad and some people do return home with the skills they've gained. It's up to governments to encourage enterprise. There is a reason that countries want to join the EU and free movement is part of it.

It makes no sense for the UK, but it makes sense for the EU. The EU gets all the travelling Brits, the UK gets...

First Up

323 wrote:

Why Not? Is that not pretty much what the EU has just agreed to with Canada and has with South Africa and others for years. I can't see Germany being all that keen on cutting off its third largest trading partner. no matter what the bureaucratic numpties in Brussels are saying ATM.

Who said anything about markets being "cut off"? The EU will agree terms of trade with the UK, same as it has with Canada, US, China and everywhere else. Companies in the UK will continue to do business with the EU; it will just be on less advantagous terms than when they were in the Single Market.

ancapailldorcha

323 wrote: »

Why Not? Is that not pretty much what the EU has just agreed to with Canada and has with South Africa and others for years.
I can't see Germany being all that keen on cutting off its third largest trading partner. no matter what the bureaucratic numpties in Brussels are saying ATM.

Not really. CETA still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. In addition, it does not include financial services, the UK's biggest export. In addition, a post-Brexit UK loses access to the dozens of trade deals the EU has already negotiated.

Regarding Germany, nothing is being cut off. The problem is the possible introduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers. German banks for instance have a strong incentive to avoid competing with those in the UK. The EEA option circumvents any such protectionism but comes with free movement.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It makes no sense for the UK, but it makes sense for the EU. The EU gets all the travelling Brits, the UK gets...

It's the other way around. UK citizens get the perks of being in the EU, EU citizens get diddly-squat. Older Brits can still claim benefits in Ireland and burden Spain's healthcare system.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

323 wrote: »

Why Not? Is that not pretty much what the EU has just agreed to with Canada and has with South Africa and others for years.
I can't see Germany being all that keen on cutting off its third largest trading partner. no matter what the bureaucratic numpties  in Brussels are saying ATM.

Not really. CETA still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. In addition, it does not include financial services, the UK's biggest export. In addition, a post-Brexit UK loses access to the dozens of trade deals the EU has already negotiated.

Regarding Germany, nothing is being cut off. The problem is the possible introduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers. German banks for instance have a strong incentive to avoid competing with those in the UK. The EEA option circumvents any such protectionism but comes with free movement.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It makes no sense for the UK, but it makes sense for the EU. The EU gets all the travelling Brits, the UK gets...

It's the other way around. UK citizens get the perks of being in the EU, EU citizens get diddly-squat. Older Brits can still claim benefits in Ireland and burden Spain's healthcare system.

Good evening,

As has been explained a few times. Canada argued for a deal that was bespoke to Canada. Britain will argue for a deal that is bespoke to Britain. Britain isn't looking for a deal that suits Canada or Norway or Switzerland but a deal that will be bespoke to Britain's specific needs and interests.

That's what countries do when they argue for trade deals. The idea that Britain has to ask for what another country has asked for is absurd.

Edit: As for the point about German banks not competing with British banks, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean in terms of retail banking? Because as far as I can tell in Investment Banking and in Wealth Management German banks (and for that matter Swiss and American and others) are competing very fiercely with British banks (at least I know that Deutsche Bank have a huge presence with several office buildings in the City).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

UK citizens get the perks of being in the EU, EU citizens get diddly-squat.

Yes, that is true, but it is not the citizens who will negotiate this deal.

What, for example, does Germany get? Loads of young UK citizens ready to travel and work. What does the UK get? Loads of young UK citizens shagging off elsewhere to travel and work.

The EU needs citizens.