Brexit Referendum Superthread

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and in whose best interest would a rushed hard Brexit be?

No sort of Brexit is in anyone's best interest, but a short, sharp shock followed by a rapid change of heart and reversal might be the least damaging all around in the long run.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Unskilled immigration is good provided that it is controlled to ensure that the right amount of labour is coming in to the correct sectors to ensure that it doesn't have a negative impact on the domestic labour market.

I don't think you would find many pro-Brexit voters who would agree with you there.

FreudianSlippers

solodeogloria wrote: »

We're not discussing Britain rejoining the European Union. Britain voted out. Although I voted remain, I now think that May should crack on with it and get the UK out of the European Union so that Britain can adjust to this new reality. I'm supportive of the best Brexit deal possible, but it must include controls on unskilled labour.

Also, I'm not discussing kicking anyone who is already here out of the country. Rather, I'm discussing about new controls that hopefully will be established on unskilled labour in the UK. (There is no visa for unskilled labour for non-EU countries, so this is an EU migration only issue).

I think unfortunately you're either very confused here or you're spinning a web so complex it's caving in on itself.

This has nothing to do with the UK remaining or rejoining the EU.

If the UK is out of the EU, frankly, nobody cares what they do with regard to skilled/unskilled immigration. It's their own business.

If, as you seem to be suggesting, unskilled migration is the biggest migration problem in the UK and the major reason for leaving the EU:
1) You're incorrect, it's not the biggest migration problem in the UK;
2) If it is the biggest reason, it's inherently misguided.

Now, if the UK wants a deal whereby they can assess the internal market - that's where we get into the question of migration within the EU. It's impossible from an optics and structural perspective for the EU to agree to allow the UK to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the fundamental principles of the single market; no amount of pontification on your part can change this.

They are either members of the internal market and accept what comes along with that, or they are out and good luck.

solodeogloria

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think unfortunately you're either very confused here or you're spinning a web so complex it's caving in on itself.

This has nothing to do with the UK remaining or rejoining the EU.

If the UK is out of the EU, frankly, nobody cares what they do with regard to skilled/unskilled immigration. It's their own business.

If, as you seem to be suggesting, unskilled migration is the biggest migration problem in the UK and the major reason for leaving the EU:
1) You're incorrect, it's not the biggest migration problem in the UK;
2) If it is the biggest reason, it's inherently misguided.

Now, if the UK wants a deal whereby they can assess the internal market - that's where we get into the question of migration within the EU. It's impossible from an optics and structural perspective for the EU to agree to allow the UK to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the fundamental principles of the single market; no amount of pontification on your part can change this.

They are either members of the internal market and accept what comes along with that, or they are out and good luck.

Good afternoon,

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't believe that skilled immigration is a problem for the UK. I think unskilled labour needs to be controlled. That was one of the key drivers of the leave campaign.

I think a bespoke third country deal would probably suffice provided that the ability to control unskilled migration is in place.

You're entitled to disagree, and I won't call you "misguided" for the privilege. We should be discussing the politics, not the man. I'm aware that there are very few voices who want a good exit for Britain on this thread, but we should be able to discuss our respective positions without delving into ad-hominems.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're entitled to disagree, and I won't call you "misguided" for the privilege. We should be discussing the politics, not the man. I'm aware that there are very few voices who want a good exit for Britain on this thread, but we should be able to discuss our respective positions without delving into ad-hominems.

You're either reading the thread wrong or you're being disingenuous. I want the best possible deal for the UK. Problem is that everyone has a different opinion on what that is and a binary referendum was a very poor way to find out what most people want beyond leaving.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think unskilled labour needs to be controlled. That was one of the key drivers of the leave campaign.

What makes you think controlling unskilled immigration from the EU was a key driver of the leave campaign?

It is item 3 of 5 "if we leave" points here:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

But I think the 5 red "if we stay" points were the key drivers. The "If we leave" points are phrased calmly to make leaving seem reasonable, while the matching "If we stay" point is much more inflammatory:

"Immigration will continue to be out of control. Nearly 2 million people came to the UK from the EU over the last 10 years. Imagine what it will be like in future decades when new, poorer countries join"

This point makes no reference to skills, it simply asserts that immigration is "out of control" contrary to your personal opinion that skilled and some unskilled immigration is good. It doesn't allow for how many of those 2 million were skilled, how many subsequently left, or how many UK citizens went to EU countries in the same period.

It simply paints an image of waves of Turks washing over England.

Xenophobia. And it worked.

People who fell for that are not going to be happy to be told that immigration will continue at similar levels in future - they want it drastically reduced.

130Kph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

But I think the 5 red "if we stay" points were the key drivers. The "If we leave" points are phrased calmly to make leaving seem reasonable, while the matching "If we stay" point is much more inflammatory:

just on the 'if we leave':- I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that the benefit to the UK of being in the EU (due to the single market, free trade, no barriers etc.) is estimated to be in the order of £80bn per anum. There are various opinions of this calculation of course.

So if we deduct the £10bn net payments, that leaves £70bn of benefit to Britain or £1.35bn per week.

Nearly every leave voter I read about who commented on the annual contribution (before 24th June) said they genuinely believed Britain got virtually nothing back for their contribution and that therefore the £350m per week was a dead loss :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How does CETA in any way change the character of the Union?

how does extending the length of time exit negotiations take place for, or indeed what the post exit agreement is with the uk?

Or are you suggesting Ireland needs a referendum on the UK leaving the eu?

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No sort of Brexit is in anyone's best interest, but a short, sharp shock followed by a rapid change of heart and reversal might be the least damaging all around in the long run.

that's a big gamble. It might work, alternatively the UK could go bankrupt and take half of europe with it.

a sensible extension seems to be the mature thing to do.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's a big gamble. It might work, alternatively the UK could go bankrupt and take half of europe with it.

a sensible extension seems to be the mature thing to do.

It is the mature thing to do but it will require freedom of movement which the Tories may not be willing to politically deliver. If there is a messy Brexit the UK will never recover. The EU will take damage but will survive as its in everyone's interest to make it work now.
What is not mature is the British sensing conflicting messages about what they want including in terms of an extension or transition deal. What is immature is David Davis saying that the UK might 'be nice' to the EU and 'offer' a transition deal. As well as being antagonistic his shows him as clueless also. The danger of a hard messy Brexit lie entirely in uninformed, unrealistic, immature positions like Davis'

Chips Lovell

The Swiss have climbed down. After a referendum in 2014 calling for a cap on EU immigration, the Swiss parliament has today opted not to impose quotas in the hope of retaining access to the Single Market.

Zubeneschamali

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The Swiss have climbed down. After a referendum in 2014 calling for a cap on EU immigration, the Swiss parliament has today opted not to impose quotas in the hope of retaining access to the Single Market.

But the UK was never looking for the Swiss deal, they want the bespoke Boris's Cake deal.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't know why you think I expect that the UK will get a better deal than other EEA members. It may well be a less beneficial trade deal that allows for key UK services and goods to enter the single market, with light controls on unskilled labour established (I think free movement should apply to skilled labour). We'll have to see what happens during the negotiation. A third country deal bespoke for Britain could also work (like CETA was bespoke for Canada's needs).

The hassle is that any deal other than the status quo will be worse for the UK. They have a great deal right now and they are in the process of ripping it up. How bad it is really isn't up to the EU. It is up to the UK and what they want.

If they want access to the single market they will have to have free movement. If they don't want free movement of people they will have limited access to the single market.

youreadthat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No sort of Brexit is in anyone's best interest, but a short, sharp shock followed by a rapid change of heart and reversal might be the least damaging all around in the long run.

Doesn't sort out overpopulation, lag in service and infrastructure upgrades, the continual structural issue of using the UK outside of London as nothing more than a graduate breading ground. All these things are facilitated by being in the EU. Ireland would never vote to have to population density of England, yet England needs to sign up to a bankrupt economic system that demands unlimited eternal immigration? The EU isn't making the UK a better place, living standards are no better than the 90's and any gain is purely because of technological advancement.

youreadthat

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not how this works, Solo.

Britaind doesn't have to ask to control unskilled migration. They are leaving the EU and they can control both skilled and unskilled migration as much as they like without asking anybody.

What they have to ask for is any kind of preferential access to EU markets for UK goods, services and (if they care about this) workers.

And here's the thing. Most the EU members are really, really proud of what they have acheived with the single market. It took forty years to put together (and it's still not quite together) and they think it's a wonderful achievement, a thing of beauty. And if the UK wanted to remain in, they'd be welcomed with open arms, and the years of carping petulance would never be mentioned.

What EU member's don't want is to see the single market unpicked, pulled apart, by states who want this and that and a few of those please, but none of the other. So if the UK's position is, we don't want free movement; we want to control unskilled migration. Oh, and we don't want to be bound by EU regulatory requirements or the European court's rulings about them. And we want to exit the customs union so we can make our own trade deals with third countries. But otherwise can it be business as usual, more or less? That's a huge thing to ask; it's exactly what the EU doesn't want to happen, and for good reason. Any any UK leader who goes into the negotations unwilling or unable to recognise this is doing the UK a huge disservice.

This is a huge lie. If they are so proud why are the 4 freedoms so set in stone? If their creation is so perfect and beautiful they'd let a poor misguided state end freedom of movement because as you said, they are so sure of the achievement and its benefits that it's not like anyone would follow........right!?

marienbad

youreadthat wrote: »

This is a huge lie. If they are so proud why are the 4 freedoms so set in stone? If their creation is so perfect and beautiful they'd let a poor misguided state end freedom of movement because as you said, they are so sure of the achievement and its benefits that it's not like anyone would follow........right!?

exactly , you take all the package or no package

First Up

youreadthat wrote:

Doesn't sort out overpopulation, lag in service and infrastructure upgrades, the continual structural issue of using the UK outside of London as nothing more than a graduate breading ground. All these things are facilitated by being in the EU. Ireland would never vote to have to population density of England, yet England needs to sign up to a bankrupt economic system that demands unlimited eternal immigration? The EU isn't making the UK a better place, living standards are no better than the 90's and any gain is purely because of technological advancement.

Before the famine (and industrial revolution) the population of Ireland was half that of Britain. It wasn't the EU that changed it.

First Up

youreadthat wrote:

This is a huge lie. If they are so proud why are the 4 freedoms so set in stone? If their creation is so perfect and beautiful they'd let a poor misguided state end freedom of movement because as you said, they are so sure of the achievement and its benefits that it's not like anyone would follow........right!?

This post makes absolutely no sense.

Enzokk

youreadthat wrote: »

Doesn't sort out overpopulation, lag in service and infrastructure upgrades, the continual structural issue of using the UK outside of London as nothing more than a graduate breading ground. All these things are facilitated by being in the EU. Ireland would never vote to have to population density of England, yet England needs to sign up to a bankrupt economic system that demands unlimited eternal immigration? The EU isn't making the UK a better place, living standards are no better than the 90's and any gain is purely because of technological advancement.

I think you have to put The Daily Mail down, its not good to keep reading it and expect rational thinking. All the things you mention are actually choices made by the politicians in the UK. That is both parties and not just Labour or the Tories. The reduced spending on infrastructure and the focus on London only is not EU directives.

If people will stop blaming the EU for all the faults of their own doing there would be easier choices for the UK now. Seeing as its always the big bad EU's fault it follows that to achieve prosperity the country should leave the EU and get rid of everything, the good and the bad.

David Cameron promised to bring down immigration into the tens of thousands, yet his government allowed non-EU immigration to never get close to this mark. That is their own choosing. If you choose to stomp your own foot, don't expect people to not smile at you when you complain of sore feet.

A Dub in Glasgo

youreadthat wrote: »

Doesn't sort out overpopulation, lag in service and infrastructure upgrades, the continual structural issue of using the UK outside of London as nothing more than a graduate breading ground. All these things are facilitated by being in the EU. Ireland would never vote to have to population density of England, yet England needs to sign up to a bankrupt economic system that demands unlimited eternal immigration? The EU isn't making the UK a better place, living standards are no better than the 90's and any gain is purely because of technological advancement.

Conflating England with the UK in the same paragraph!

The UK is not over populated, parts of it possibly is although that is UK policy to manage that

London is a magnet for jobs but that has been UK policy for decades, the EU has not caused or insisted on that

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't believe that skilled immigration is a problem for the UK. I think unskilled labour needs to be controlled. That was one of the key drivers of the leave campaign.

I think a bespoke third country deal would probably suffice provided that the ability to control unskilled migration is in place.

You're entitled to disagree, and I won't call you "misguided" for the privilege. We should be discussing the politics, not the man. I'm aware that there are very few voices who want a good exit for Britain on this thread, but we should be able to discuss our respective positions without delving into ad-hominems.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Actually I'd say most Irish want to see the UK economy to prosper even after they have left the EU. But the reality is that Ireland is one small voice among 27 and to Slovakia or Portugal, the UK is much less important.

Your whole argument is based on it being in the economic interests of every one of the 27 to have a good trading relationship with the UK. Some countries simply aren't that dependent on UK trade. German car manufacturers are the exception rather than the rule!

Added to this you have countries that on principle will not cede anything on the 4 pillars.

And then you have countries that are actually pretty hostile towards the UK deep down (Spain over Gibraltar).

None of this adds up to a block of 27 falling over themselves to do a good deal for the UK.

Populism is alive and well across the EU, not just in the UK. It would be populist on Spain to hammer the UK over Gibraltar. You could get elected on that platform alone! The Spanish economy is already sick with massive youth unemployment. They also think "screw it, what do we have to lose".

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

German car manufacturers are the exception rather than the rule!

And said German car manufacturers have stated clearly that not only will they support what ever policy Germany adopts but to them the free movement is more important than UK...

The head of Germany’s largest business group has said German firms will not push for a free trade deal between the EU and Britain after Brexit, despite the number of cars and quantities of other goods they sell in the UK.

In remarks likely to be seen as increasing the chance of a “hard Brexit” excluding Britain from the EU single market, Markus Kerber, head of the BDI, dismissed claims that German companies would not tolerate trade tariffs after Britain leaves, and said Germany’s relations with the rest of the bloc were more important.

“I have read a lot of articles in the British press saying Germany would be a relatively soft negotiator because 7.5% of German exports go to Britain,” Kerber told BBC Radio 4’s today programme. “Well, 7.5% is a big number – but 92.5% goes somewhere else.”

Ultimately, Kerber said, there was “no difference, for the BDI, between the political view and the economic view”. Pointing to huge investments made by German carmakers in central Europe, he said: “For us, the single market, eastern Europe and freedom of movement – they are all one deal, that is inseparable.”

But I'm sure those German politicians are rushing in to bend over for UK because of their strong hand that they are holding and how all German companies would go under without UK in the inner market.

Sam Russell

How many UK purchasers of BMW or Mercedes cars would not buy them because of an increase in price due to import tariffs?

How many EU purchasers of Nissan cars built in Sunderland would still buy them if they were subject to an import tariff?

How much of German imports into the UK are elastic demand goods and how many are inelastic goods? Made in Germany is a very strong quality identifier in the UK market place. Also, how much of the German manufactured goods have a UK alternative (and is that alternative actually competitive)?

I think all this indicates a very strong negative sentiment towards the UK being stronger after Brexit.

Foghladh

Nody wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

German car manufacturers are the exception rather than the rule!

And said German car manufacturers have stated clearly that not only will they support what ever policy Germany adopts but to them the free movement is more important than UK...

The head of Germany’s largest business group has said German firms will not push for a free trade deal between the EU and Britain after Brexit, despite the number of cars and quantities of other goods they sell in the UK.

In remarks likely to be seen as increasing the chance of a “hard Brexit” excluding Britain from the EU single market, Markus Kerber, head of the BDI, dismissed claims that German companies would not tolerate trade tariffs after Britain leaves, and said Germany’s relations with the rest of the bloc were more important.

“I have read a lot of articles in the British press saying Germany would be a relatively soft negotiator because 7.5% of German exports go to Britain,” Kerber told BBC Radio 4’s today programme. “Well, 7.5% is a big number – but 92.5% goes somewhere else.”

Ultimately, Kerber said, there was “no difference, for the BDI, between the political view and the economic view”. Pointing to huge investments made by German carmakers in central Europe, he said: “For us, the single market, eastern Europe and freedom of movement – they are all one deal, that is inseparable.”

But I'm sure those German politicians are rushing in to bend over for UK because of their strong hand that they are holding and how all German companies would go under without UK in the inner market.

It may well be 7.5% of exports but the balance of trade equates to 20% of the German surplus.

Peregrinus

youreadthat wrote: »

This is a huge lie. If they are so proud why are the 4 freedoms so set in stone? If their creation is so perfect and beautiful they'd let a poor misguided state end freedom of movement because as you said, they are so sure of the achievement and its benefits that it's not like anyone would follow........right!?

Sorry, but I don't understand a word of this. It makes no sense.

The four freedoms are "set in stone", as you put it, precisely because they're fundamental. If you don't have the four freedoms, you don't have a single market.

As for "letting a poor misguided state end freedom of movement", it may have escaped your notice, but they are letting a poor misguided state end freedom of movement. The UK is doing exactly that, and nobody is trying to stop them. And, thus far, nobody is following, precisely because the overwhelming opinion in Europe is that the British are being extremely stupid.

And that stupidity is nowhere more manifest than in the wildly irrational belief that you can end freedom of movement and still be part of the single market. It's a contradiction in terms. A child of four can see this.

FreudianSlippers

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I don't believe that skilled immigration is a problem for the UK. I think unskilled labour needs to be controlled. That was one of the key drivers of the leave campaign.

I think a bespoke third country deal would probably suffice provided that the ability to control unskilled migration is in place.

You're entitled to disagree, and I won't call you "misguided" for the privilege. We should be discussing the politics, not the man. I'm aware that there are very few voices who want a good exit for Britain on this thread, but we should be able to discuss our respective positions without delving into ad-hominems.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

misguided
adjective
1. misled; mistaken:
Their naive actions were a misguided attempt to help the poor.


Before accusing people of ad-hominem comments, perhaps understanding the point being made and the words used therein.

FreudianSlippers

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how does extending the length of time exit negotiations take place for, or indeed what the post exit agreement is with the uk?

Let's back up for a second and review the conversation:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

Article 50 wrote:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

I don't believe there is any issue with regard to extension, although the likelihood of that occurring is extraordinarily slim (i) it makes no sense in the broader context of negotiations (ii) good luck getting consent of all of the Council members.

So, logically that leaves the "agreement" itself. Any agreement negotiated by the EC, must be consented to by the EP - “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.”.

Therefore given it is a safe presumption that any deal the UK will seek will involve access to the internal market - and therefore impacting the freedoms and obligations contained therein - the agreement will need treaty changes and therefore ratification by the EP and the 27 MS parliaments.

Now, if that involves a significant change to the functioning of the EU itself, which I suggest alteration to the access to the internal market and specifically and alteration of the rules around free movement of workers; that will almost undoubtedly require a referendum in Ireland.

Or are you suggesting Ireland needs a referendum on the UK leaving the eu?

Yes; we have already had such a Referendum, albeit not specifically in relation to the UK, in October 2009.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let's back up for a second and review the conversation:





I don't believe there is any issue with regard to extension, although the likelihood of that occurring is extraordinarily slim (i) it makes no sense in the broader context of negotiations (ii) good luck getting consent of all of the Council members.

So, logically that leaves the "agreement" itself. Any agreement negotiated by the EC, must be consented to by the EP - “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.”.

Therefore given it is a safe presumption that any deal the UK will seek will involve access to the internal market - and therefore impacting the freedoms and obligations contained therein - the agreement will need treaty changes and therefore ratification by the EP and the 27 MS parliaments.

Now, if that involves a significant change to the functioning of the EU itself, which I suggest alteration to the access to the internal market and specifically and alteration of the rules around free movement of workers; that will almost undoubtedly require a referendum in Ireland.


Yes; we have already had such a Referendum, albeit not specifically in relation to the UK, in October 2009.

Anybody know what the Walloons think?

demfad

https://www.ft.com/content/7dc9a004-c6c4-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f

32 regulatory bodies will need to be replaced in Britain to keep My's Tory conference promise of staying out of ECJ. This will involve enormous expense and years of confusion for Industry. In fact much of what these agencies will do is to try and follow ECJ regulations to try and not fall foul of those.

Just a section of difficvulty with one authortity-Aerospace:

“We would have to restart negotiations of bilaterals with all 36 countries that are members of the ECAA. We don’t know what the new terms would be and how long this would take. If we come out of any of these agreements it could have a significant and potentially damaging effect on our ability to expand any of our major airports. It would certainly undermine confidence.”

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

An interesting article in the Financial Times.

The former governor of the Bank of England thinks that the UK ought to be self-confident post-Brexit.

He sees real reasons to be confident after leaving the EU and goes as far as saying that the UK should no longer be a member of the single market, and leave the EU customs union to avail of new trade deals with other countries.

It's worth pointing out that Mervyn King isn't the biggest fan of the Eurozone, but it's worth pointing out that there are real opportunities for Britain after leaving the EU even in what people call a "hard Brexit" and that we should be acknowledging the real opportunities that could come from Brexit in this discussion rather than dismissing them off hand.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria