Brexit Referendum Superthread

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm also thankful for the announcement that Hammond seems to be in favour of a slower transitional deal leading to a gradual breaking away from the European functions that the UK doesn't want to be a part of as being best.

Hang on, weren't you just arguing that the UK won't and shouldn't show its hand before negotiations start?

But now you are thankful for Hammond stating his preferences before negotiations start?

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hang on, weren't you just arguing that the UK won't and shouldn't show its hand before negotiations start?

But now you are thankful for Hammond stating his preferences before negotiations start?

I think the British civil service are applying pressure now.
My prediction is 3 years to get half out and another 3 years to get back in.

robinph

demfad wrote: »

I think the British civil service are applying pressure now.
My prediction is 3 years to get half out and another 3 years to get back in.

But then it will be as part of the Euro as well, that will please the Brexiters no end. :eek:

Nody

robinph wrote: »

But then it will be as part of the Euro as well, that will please the Brexiters no end. :eek:

Only if they meet the requirements for it; it's quite easy to make sure you never meet the requirements of the euro even if it's "a long term goal to join the euro" by having an unstable exchange rate or having it exceed the fixed limits every two years etc.

First Up

Nody wrote: »

Only if they meet the requirements for it; it's quite easy to make sure you never meet the requirements of the euro even if it's "a long term goal to join the euro" by having an unstable exchange rate or having it exceed the fixed limits every two years etc.

All new EU members are required to adopt the Euro. No Euro, no EU membership.

FreudianSlippers

Nody wrote: »

Only if they meet the requirements for it; it's quite easy to make sure you never meet the requirements of the euro even if it's "a long term goal to join the euro" by having an unstable exchange rate or having it exceed the fixed limits every two years etc.

They'd still have to join ERM II which would be just as bad from their perspective.

First Up wrote: »

All new EU members are required to adopt the Euro. No Euro, no EU membership.

Technically true, but they are required to join ERM II first for (IIRC) at least 2 years and fulfil other requirements. Most of Eastern European Member States are ERM II members, but haven't (whether intentionally or otherwise) met all requirements to join the Euro. The UK could technically do this, but I think it would be significantly less convincing.

solodeogloria

Good morning,

Forgive me - but how did we come to the conclusion that Britain would want to rejoin the EU?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

robinph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Forgive me - but how did we come to the conclusion that Britain would want to rejoin the EU?

It's just as sensible an idea as the one of leaving the EU without any idea of how, or even why anyone wants to leave in the first place.

Six months on from the vote and the only additional bit of policy that they have come up with is that the Brexit will be a multi coloured one, but of course it still means Brexit.

murphaph

I subscribe to the argument that the UK will seek to rejoin the EU within 20 years after leaving turns out to be the worst decision the country has made. And that will be without the "rebate" or the opt-outs. The EU will happily welcome the UK back I think, but not with any special conditions.

FreudianSlippers

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Forgive me - but how did we come to the conclusion that Britain would want to rejoin the EU?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101952887&postcount=6183

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Forgive me - but how did we come to the conclusion that Britain would want to rejoin the EU?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There will be a transition deal during which time it will become obvious that Brexit was a bad idea and then they will return from the transition deal.

The arguments why Brexit will damage the economy have already been set out. The question is would it be politically possible to reverse and the answer is clearly yes according to this poll:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-live-updates-finances-money-worse-off-article-50-a7468411.html

The study, conducted by YouGov for Open Britain, found 62 per cent of Labour voters and 59 per cent of people living in the north (of England) would not be willing to incur any financial penalty at all by leaving the EU.

Just one in 10 people would be prepared to lose more than £100 a month for the cause.

Jaggo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The reality is that Britain is a hugely significant country and a net contributor to European security and intelligence gathering, a leading member of NATO, a member of the five eyes intelligence sharing network, world leader in financial services with key institutions and clearing houses that provide a gateway to the world, world leading universities. I don't need a link to show that Britain's hand isn't empty.

I really think that Britain's hand is quite weak.

The security/intelligence issues will not be significant within the EU negotiations. The UK and 5 eyes intelligence services have been caught spying on EU companies/governments (Merkel), they share the information they wish (that benefits them) and hold back the material that they do not wish. Brexit will have no change on the benefits/negatives of these activities.

On banking, again Britain's position might not be as strong as is suggested.
There are different types of banking some of which the EU does not have any interest in: hedge funds & derivatives (remember the Tobin Tax that the UK vetoed). The Brexit will have no effect other than the EU is more likely to impose regulations.
But the other elements, the clearing house, investment banking etc. the EU will gain significant tax and jobs benefit if these activities transfer into the EU jurisdiction. Currently existing EU regulations prevent them being done outside the EU and more importantly, if these financial services remain in the UK, the EU will lose control over the regulation of its own financial industry.

So for Britain to maintain the existing status quo on the financial industry, the EU has to amend its rules to cede taxation, jobs and power to the UK. I really can't see 27 countries agreeing to that.

demfad

Also the British don't have a plan for the worst case scenario: a breakdown in negotiations leading to the hardest of hard disorderly Brexits.
For example they dont have the infrastucture to deal with customs and regulatory checks on all goods, containers etc passing through their ports.

That means they MUST secure a deal, a transition deal or an extension before the 2 years is over. A simple controlled waiting game will give Europe everything they require. The huge worry is that the British won't realise the predicament they are in and the negotiations will die anyway.

The court case in Ireland (then ECJ) on the revocability of article 50 is absulutely huge.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-deal-failure-gross-negligent-crispin-blunt-foreign-affairs-committee-a7476411.html

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

That means they MUST secure a deal, a transition deal or an extension before the 2 years is over. A simple controlled waiting game will give Europe everything they require. The huge worry is that the British won't realise the predicament they are in and the negotiations will die anyway.

The problem there is that an extension or any deal will require ratification in all 27 national parliaments. Project Fear seems to be well on route to becoming Project Fact.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem there is that an extension or any deal will require ratification in all 27 national parliaments. Project Fear seems to be well on route to becoming Project Fact.

Yes. Revocability is the best shot of avoiding it.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem there is that an extension or any deal will require ratification in all 27 national parliaments. Project Fear seems to be well on route to becoming Project Fact.

Not the parliaments, just the council.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not the parliaments, just the council.

No, it's the parliaments. The same thing happened with CETA.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not the parliaments, just the council.

Wrong:

For the deal to pass, Belgium's federal, regional and community bodies (seven in all) must give their approval.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem there is that an extension or any deal will require ratification in all 27 national parliaments. Project Fear seems to be well on route to becoming Project Fact.

and possibly more, when you're done counting domestic/devolved assemblies, by the above example.

Most of Project Fear was Project Common Sense all along

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Again - forgive me but why would European countries choose to deny themselves access to the British market?

Nobody is insisting on tariffs on trade from the British side. It's worth pointing that out.

Britain's suggestion so far seems to be reasonable. From what I can tell they are looking for:

- Controls on unskilled migration into the UK.
- Sovereignty over their own laws.
- A new, more appropriate relationship with the EU involving security and trading relationships.

None of that seems out of the ordinary to me.

The sky really won't fall in. Britain is a major world economy and a major player in the world. The apocalypse won't happen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - forgive me but why would European countries choose to deny themselves access to the British market?

Nobody is insisting on tariffs on trade from the British side. It's worth pointing that out.

Britain's suggestion so far seems to be reasonable. From what I can tell they are looking for:

- Controls on unskilled migration into the UK.
- Sovereignty over their own laws.
- A new, more appropriate relationship with the EU involving security and trading relationships.

None of that seems out of the ordinary to me.

The sky really won't fall in. Britain is a major world economy and a major player in the world. The apocalypse won't happen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Because the price the smaller more undeveloped members require for allowing the better equipped economies to sweep up their markets with their products is that the same opportunities are offered to their labour

Swings and roundabouts -none of that seems out of the ordinary to me

K-9

Any controls over immigration come at a cost in trade negotiations, this is hardly revelatory or shocking stuff! Now people can complain about that policy and say it's wrong, that doesn't change the fact it is a basic pillar of the European Union.

So yes, you can have all three but 1 is linked to point 3!

solodeogloria

K-9 wrote: »

Any controls over immigration come at a cost in trade negotiations, this is hardly revelatory or shocking stuff! Now people can complain about that policy and say it's wrong, that doesn't change the fact it is a basic pillar of the European Union.

So yes, you can have all three but 1 is linked to point 3!

Good morning!

Really - do you have some examples involving any third country deal that the EU has established with a non-EEA / EFTA country? I don't remember freedom of movement to South Korea being discussed for example?

Or indeed amongst other international trade deals - I don't see the US demanding freedom of movement to Mexico or vice versa.

Where do we see this concept?

The controls that Britain are asking for are on unskilled immigration which many in working class communities find a pressure. Indeed the paper I linked to suggesting that free movement should remain for skilled labour and quotas should only apply to unskilled work was a progressive suggestion on how to move forward from British Future.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

K-9

Err, they don't get the same access to the common market as EEA/EFTA countries.

Seriously, what is so difficult to understand here?

Surely you were aware of this when you voted remain?

solodeogloria

K-9 wrote: »

Err, they don't get the same access to the common market as EEA/EFTA countries.

Seriously, what is so difficult to understand here?

Surely you were aware of this when you voted remain?

Good evening!

I agree with you that in a third country deal that the UK won't have the same level of access to the single market.

I don't see where free movement comes into a third country deal though.

It's also far too early to determine the outcome of a negotiation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

K-9

Your first paragraph depends on the second.

No freedom of movement means less of a trade deal.

More freedom of movement means more access.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - forgive me but why would European countries choose to deny themselves access to the British market?

Nobody is insisting on tariffs on trade from the British side. It's worth pointing that out.

It is the UK that is planning to terminate its membership of the world's largest trading block in case you missed it. So, they, not the EU, are the ones triggering the tariffs.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain's suggestion so far seems to be reasonable. From what I can tell they are looking for:

- Controls on unskilled migration into the UK.
- Sovereignty over their own laws.
- A new, more appropriate relationship with the EU involving security and trading relationships.

None of that seems out of the ordinary to me.

The above would preclude the UK from EFTA & EEA membership, never mind EU membership.

That's their choice but they can't complain about loss of club benefits if they terminate their club membership.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The sky really won't fall in. Britain is a major world economy and a major player in the world. The apocalypse won't happen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well, we'll have to wait & see on that. There's a big difference between being something and continuing to be something.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

K9: Where did I say that anyone gets the same as EEA countries? I'm talking about third country deals.

Please read my posts.

View: No, the EU are insisting on tariffs. Britain aren't asking for them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't see where free movement comes into a third country deal though.

Excluding Greenland, this is uncharted territory. In this case it'll be a former EU member, former EEA member & former EFTA member & geographically surrounded by & linked with the infrastructure of the EU. This is a special 3rd party case, so it's simple realpolitik from the EU (preserving its survival & sticking to it's core principles re:access vs 4 principles).

Anyway, if it comes to the permutation you present, Britain may have bigger problems to worry about.

FT wrote:

The EU is preparing rule changes that could deprive London of one of its flagship financial businesses by enabling territorial restrictions on the clearing of some euro-denominated transactions even before Britain leaves the bloc.
…
London is the world’s biggest centre for clearing euro derivatives, handling three-quarters of all transactions, with an average daily value of $573bn, according to an Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) paper recently circulated to EU member states.
…
As yet there has been no change of policy within the commission. But officials have told industry that the Article 50 process would prompt a rethink. One senior policymaker said the effect of Britain’s [recent] court victory would be “reversed”, adding that the location policy “is going to happen now”, through legislation.

Another day, another easily anticipated chicken that’s on the verge of coming home to roost?

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

View: No, the EU are insisting on tariffs. Britain aren't asking for them.

The EU is not terminating the UK's membership (thus resulting in tariffs).

Rather it is the other way round with the UK doing the terminating of its membership of the EU. They are choosing to do this, so it is ridiculous to say they aren't "asking for them" when this is what they will do when they ask to leave the EU.

K-9

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

K9: Where did I say that anyone gets the same as EEA countries? I'm talking about third country deals.

Please read my posts.

View: No, the EU are insisting on tariffs. Britain aren't asking for them.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I thought I was being as clear as I possibly good. It's fine, I'll leave it there.