Brexit Referendum Superthread

Nate--IRL--

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those existing trade deals are not looking good. The deal with North America principally USA is going downhill. Russia we have sanctions with. France pulled out of Iran a long while back. The Commission and Ireland a key free trade country in that room would be eager to ensure the EU has strong ties to those Nations i highlighted earlier. Look at Egypt around 80 million people access to Africa and the developing world. Mexico and Europe have a lot of potential for growth. We in Ireland can promote better standards in Mexico and Brazil. New deals that emphasis the importance of better working conditions.

None of those countries you've listed have existing trade deals with the EU though (except Mexico). You say "Existing trade deals are not looking good". How are Current Trade deals going to be affected, specifically?

If you don't know that's OK, but please don't speculate.

Nate

First Up

Its too soon to tell for sure but we seem to be entering a more protectionist phase, driven by the unhealthy mix of populism and nationalism behind Brexit and Trump.

Its a big step backwards but if it is going to happen, then being inside as large as possible a trade bloc is the only place to be.

If Trump puts up barriers to transatlantic trade, then more intra-European trade will result, and there's a good prospect of more US companies setting up inside the EU. We will benefit from both, despite the hassle of the disruption to trade flows with/via the UK.

The Brexiteers are deluding itself if they think the US will do a more favourable deal with the UK than the EU. They will be small fry on the sidelines when it gets down to the wire.

If Trump starts a trade war with China, he'll bring the roof down on himself but China will also be looking for alternative suppliers of intellectual property as well as increased access to the EU to compensate for reduced business in the US. More opportunities as the EU takes advantage with enhanced trade deals.

There's a few twists and turns ahead but in a scene with no real winners, we are well placed, while the UK is looking increasingly fooked.

KingBrian2

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

None of those countries you've listed have existing trade deals with the EU though (except Mexico). You say "Existing trade deals are not looking good". How are Current Trade deals going to be affected, specifically?

If you don't know that's OK, but please don't speculate.

Nate

Not speculating on the the much prized deal with North America. Since Trump got in that trade deal is very much in the air. Huge demos against discussions on that trade deal. Before the ink is even dry the protesters were out in force in Brussels. While Trump is repatriating profits from oversees we in Europe have deals with New Zealand and China in the bag so we have a lot to cover to make up for lost time. That which can enhance and benefit our trade deals is worth pursuing. I am emphasizing the importance of trading with those countries like Egypt and others who want what we can provide for them.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

The Brexiteers are deluding itself if they think the US will do a more favourable deal with the UK than the EU. They will be small fry on the sidelines when it gets down to the wire.

Well they might get the same deal if they offer to remove the wind turbins outside his golf resort in Scotland :pac:

Nate--IRL--

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not speculating on the the much prized deal with North America. Since Trump got in that trade deal is very much in the air. ....................

That is not an existing Trade Deal - you stated existing Trade Deals would have to be changed by the EU after Brexit.

I asked for details - you have none it seems.

Nate

KingBrian2

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

That is not an existing Trade Deal - you stated existing Trade Deals would have to be changed by the EU after Brexit.

I asked for details - you have none it seems.

Nate

You've come to the wrong place to be asking about gvt trade deals. We can only discuss deals that are in the public domain. To do so would also put those deals under scrutiny before they were announced by the trade negotiators. Not a good idea to be discussing specific trade deals that other Nations would like to be aware about and try to exploit.

Nate--IRL--

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You've come to the wrong place to be asking about gvt trade deals.We can only discuss deals that are in the public domain.

I was asking for details about the existing trade deals you said the EU would need to change post Brexit. These existing agreements are documented in full in the public domain.

KingBrian2 wrote:

Some deals can stay in force but with the Britain less EU the Commission is going to have make modifications.

Care to follow up with details on the modifications the Commission is going to have to make?

Nate

First Up

After Brexit, the UK will cease to be a party to the EU's external trade arrangements. The EU's Common External Tariff will no longer apply to imports into the UK and imports from the UK into third countries will no longer apply whatever terms are part of their trade arrangements with the EU. Trade into and out of the remaining EU will not be affected.

It will be up to the UK to replace its current trade arrangements as part of the EU with whatever they can negotiate for themselves. They will have two years from Article 50 to do it.

It is possible that third countries will seek to re-negotiate their trade terms with the EU, on the grounds that the EU without the UK is a smaller market. Any such negotiations would take years and are unlikely to amount to much. The EU has not tried to re-negotiate its external trade deals whenever the EU expanded.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Sand wrote: »

Yes, so whats left of UK manufacturers, agriculture and industry relocate to India, slashing wages and cost base and sell their goods into the UK. How does this benefit UK workers and farmers who lose their jobs exactly?

The reality is that UK based manufacturing is only a small proportion of what it was by virtue of a changing global market. For example, companies find it cheaper to produce products in India or elsewhere. That's not to say that it is doomed perpetually, or that there aren't opportunities to grow in other countries.

For example in the lead up to the referendum the CEO of JCB was clear that most of his trade was to non-EU countries. You can be sure that a couple of free trade deals would be beneficial to him and other manufacturers of goods that are largely consumed outside of the EU 27.

Another example of how Brexit could affect manufacturing would be to look at companies like Tate Lyle who have suffered due to European Union tariffs on sugar cane.

The picture from a business perspective is more gray than it is black and white. But, I think the outcome will be gray rather than a white (solely EU trading arrangement) or a black (no-EU trading arrangement).

A third country deal from my perspective offers Britain the best of both worlds even if the EU arrangement is more restrictive and confined to key export products. It means that at the very least a large portion of trade into the European Union remains tariff free and that there are prospects for tariff-free trading arrangements with larger countries.

For example, there is also the prospect of Britain joining a reformed NAFTA after Brexit. That market has about 500 million consumers. The United States is already the largest single trading partner of the UK. Britain also isn't at a risk of undercutting the United States in production costs. That means that it is a more attractive option even to people like Donald Trump than Mexico is. This is a suggestion by Jacob Rees Mogg in parliament recently.

So, to say that Brexit is going to be a "car crash" or that the sky will fall in and it will be doom isn't quite accurate. A sober analysis of the matter is required, and British politicians are known for being relatively conservative in their decision making even if you can argue that the electorate may not have been :pac:

Sand wrote: »

Actually its based on the UK's natural trading partners being countries similar to itself - i.e. the EU. Rather than nations with whom it cannot compete on costs, and whom do not wish to open their service markets. The Brexit view is based on the assumption that the EU is not a critical part of the UKs economic prosperity, when it clearly is.

Again, it's not either or. I think some people are concluding that I'm saying cut off trading relationships with the EU. No. I'm not and I'm hopeful that Britain will relate positively with the EU and probably even more positively after Brexit.

What I'm saying, to repeat myself is that a third country deal with the European Union and bilateral deals with other countries and even membership of other trading blocs alongside this would be hugely beneficial to Britain.

Sand wrote: »

I think it will be a much smaller centre of finance anchored only by tax haven lite status. Their lost jobs will increasingly move to stable EU locations where their investments are not at the mercy of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party and UKIP. They certainly wont be sticking in London to enjoy the weather.

I'm already aware of one major US bank where the London office are in wind-down. Everything is moving out to new locations around Europe, nothing is moving in to replace them. That's hundreds/thousands of jobs gone even before Brexit is crystallised in just one company.

EDIT: Can you provide a link to the one major US bank "winding-down" it's entire UK operation? I'd be interested in reading.

I disagree that it will be "much smaller". The City of London is a global financial services centre and it's status isn't entirely based on the European Union.

However, having said that, I agree with Mark Carney that it is in the European Union's interests to maintain relationship with the City of London for access to raising capital and debt services as the only major investment banking centre in Europe.

I think it's a myth that the City of London is going to go away as a result of Brexit for that reason. If I'm wrong and the City of London absolutely tanks itself as a result of Brexit after everything is done in 2019. I will personally say I was wrong.

I think even the City stands to benefit from more open trading relationships with equally large markets outside of the European Union along with a third country deal with the European Union. Remember, one of the reasons why banking activity is concentrated in places like London (#1 financial centre globally) and to a lesser extent in Zürich (#9 financial centre globally) is because both countries are shielded from the inherent risks that exist in the Eurozone, and because both countries have sovereignty over their monetary policy.

Sand wrote: »

But do you really understand what that means, their own agenda? You think Argentina wont want to hold the UK's feet to the fire over the Falklands if only to make them grovel? Or that Putin wont want to kick the UK while they are down to play to a domestic audience eager to see examples of Russian dominance? How about Trumps trade chief who has already said that Brexit is an opportunity to take advantage of the UK? Let alone a Trump presidency which is hostile to free trade and globalisation just while the UK is desperate for trade deals.

Yes, I do, and to be honest I'd rather people engaged with the actual arguments I'm making rather than patronising one liners like the one I've bolded.

My basic point is provided that Britain gets a third country deal with the European Union, and can forge new free trade deals with other countries it has every chance of success after Brexit. I don't believe that the sky will fall in.

I think most countries understand that markets aren't really the best place to bring their territorial bug bears. In fact by the fact that there are several countries already in the WTO with territorial disputes with one another I think that demonstrates that countries are quite willing to put these aside when it is in their own interests in terms of trade.

The fact of the matter is. From day one after Brexit, the UK is still a member of the WTO under it's current arrangements until new terms are negotiated. I reckon if they apply the external tariff regime of the EU they won't face much difficulty as I doubt that the countries on that list would want less favourable trading relations with the UK. Then after this, new external tariffs can be discussed in areas that are proving to be difficult to British businesses such as sugar-cane in the case of Tate Lyle.

Sand wrote: »

Sure, they all want good free trade deals with the UK. Good for them. Not necessarily good for the UK. And you cant assume even, reasonable rational self interest will guide those nations either - Brexit is an example how countries can and do stupidly and irrationally damage their own interests.

Again, I've made a case for how a third country deal with the European Union and free trading arrangements with other countries is far from irrational.

I wish people would engage with the arguments rather than simply going on repeat with the doom-mongering.

130Kph wrote: »

My only question is - can you give two concrete (not vague generalised buccaneering optimism:--- two concrete) specifics of the positive economic benefits of brexit to the UK (specific meaning - ball park sense [given this is trying to forecast the future]).

Obviously, I can't preempt the exact nature of any arrangement that the UK will come to with other countries because I'm not Nostradamus. What I can say is that leaving the EU with a third country deal, and the possibility of free trading arrangements with other countries is a huge benefit of not being a member state of the EU and it can provide massive opportunities like what I've described above.

Optimism is rational on assessing the facts.

First Up wrote: »

After Brexit, the UK will cease to be a party to the EU's external trade arrangements. The EU's Common External Tariff will no longer apply to imports into the UK and imports from the UK into third countries will no longer apply whatever terms are part of their trade arrangements with the EU. Trade into and out of the remaining EU will not be affected.

It will be up to the UK to replace its current trade arrangements as part of the EU with whatever they can negotiate for themselves. They will have two years from Article 50 to do it.

It is possible that third countries will seek to re-negotiate their trade terms with the EU, on the grounds that the EU without the UK is a smaller market. Any such negotiations would take years and are unlikely to amount to much. The EU has not tried to re-negotiate its external trade deals whenever the EU expanded.

I've read articles to the contrary on this. Some suggest that all that would need to happen is that both countries assent to continue trading under the same arrangements post-Brexit. For example South Korea and the UK could assent to trading together under the same arrangement and continue doing so.

Even in the worst case scenario that the UK cannot continue trading using these agreements, there is an interest amongst these countries for this to continue. For example South Korea have already been in discussion with the UK Government over continuing free trade arrangements with the UK, and Canada are interested in arranging a free trade deal with the UK even if CETA doesn't apply to the UK. Given that the UK is by far the highest consumer of Canadian goods in the EU (it's Canada's 5th largest consumer overall) I'm not sure that this would be difficult to arrange even if it was a mini-CETA with just the UK proportion of quotas.

Of course, all the quotas will need to be recalculated and renegotiated on the EU aspects of the trade deals in the event that they lapse.

Even though the vote didn't go my way on June 23rd, I can see, despite clear risks that there are benefits from being outside of the European Union. I think it's worth looking at these.

The reality is that the UK isn't going to return to being a member of the EU, so I think looking for the best possible arrangement for it is in everyone's best interest including the European Union's.

I am continually rather surprised by the hostile attitude to the UK and it's sovereign decision by Irish posters in particular. This isn't really warranted, and it's important to remember that if Ireland can be considered to have a special relationship it isn't with the European Union, but with our shared history with Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

KingBrian2

First Up wrote: »

After Brexit, the UK will cease to be a party to the EU's external trade arrangements. The EU's Common External Tariff will no longer apply to imports into the UK and imports from the UK into third countries will no longer apply whatever terms are part of their trade arrangements with the EU. Trade into and out of the remaining EU will not be affected.

It will be up to the UK to replace its current trade arrangements as part of the EU with whatever they can negotiate for themselves. They will have two years from Article 50 to do it.

It is possible that third countries will seek to re-negotiate their trade terms with the EU, on the grounds that the EU without the UK is a smaller market. Any such negotiations would take years and are unlikely to amount to much. The EU has not tried to re-negotiate its external trade deals whenever the EU expanded.

Britain leaving the EU will lead to specific members of the EU wanting a greater role in extending their trade relations with existing third party countries. Britain's absence from these trade deals will make the trade talks a lot more important in particular to the new EU members. Poland and Hungry will want a bigger slice of the EU cake. Trade deals been done for all of Europe may see the more skeptic Swede and Danish gvts becoming protectionist and imposing tariffs so the European Commission will need to negotiate separately with these countries how the EU will disperse the wealth it generates from these trade deals.

Chips Lovell

Don't mistake disagreement for hostility.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

Britain leaving the EU will lead to specific members of the EU wanting a greater role in extending their trade relations with existing third party countries.

It will do nothing of the sort.

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously, I can't preempt the exact nature of any arrangement that the UK will come to with other countries because I'm not Nostradamus. What I can say is that leaving the EU with a third country deal, and the possibility of free trading arrangements with other countries is a huge benefit of not being a member state of the EU and it can provide massive opportunities like what I've described above.

Optimism is rational on assessing the facts.

It is an interesting moral quandary for an Irishman in Blighty at this time alright:-

A) to change ones views to acquiesce to a majority but stupid (* see next paragraph), vain-glorious decision

Or

to resist & oppose the stupidity of the majority (many who couldn't even be arsed to vote) in a spectacularly depressing, largely ill-informed debate with a long poisoned well thanks to an ignorant tabloid reading population who cannot seem to get enough dis-information. Imagine some people think post truth is a 2016 meme!!

* When people opine that it is profoundly stupid for the UK to leave the EU, that may annoy Brexit supporters (including recently converted faith-based devotees), however, that doesn’t imply that the EU pooling of sovereignty project is the only way that politics must be done in Europe (er, who even said that for feic sake). There are many practical alternatives, but that’s probably for a counter-factual contemporary history forum/thread.

It is merely a judgement that the reasons Brexiters give for their views don’t amount to jack sh1t (or in other words, appear to amount to little more than throwbacks to 19th century stratagems of opposing the balance of power on the continent or some even more vaguely obnoxious British Empire shtick).

As an answer to your main point of generalised optimism for Brexit here is an equally valid minor mirror-snippet of generalised pessimism (for GB):-

There may not be a good 3rd party UK-EU deal, there may not be enough other deals to make up for the reduction in EU free trade, the A50 could be a cliff edge [no transition arrangements] and brutal economic pain for 7 to 15 years before a new sub-par deal (from the UK viewpoint) is signed. AAAand breathe!

The economic [class(es)] losers (up North) may suffer more than ever before but the (super) wealthy will be fine of course (smileyface/not so smileyface).

By the way, I missed this earlier:-

Europe stands to be ignored in investment banking functions globally depending on how it deals with the City of London

Which is not dissimilar to saying - “Fog in the channel this evening, the continent will be cut off overnight”

What are you even thinking - as a proud? son of Eireann? posting such vaguely Stockholm Syndrome, 1930’s mockumentary colonialist clap trap thinking like that on an Irish website (you got off lightly with that disgraceful semi-gibberish comment I think, probably due to time of year).

I’m trying not to laugh, but I find your overall take on this issue to be more than a little bit amusing (aka frustrating). It’s just an opinion of course, I do hope you don’t find that opinion condescending :eek: as it’s not meant to be – it’s just an observation.

Given the day that’s in it, I wish I had even 0.3333333333333% of your economic optimism on this or any similar issue.

Anyway, Happy new year to all boards politicos.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I'm interested in engaging with the political arguments, which you're currently not engaging with in this post.

My current position is simply the following:
1) Given that the British people have voted for Brexit - it's time that the government just gets on with it.

2) In the right circumstances Brexit could be beneficial in the long term (not without risks and short to medium term sacrifice)

That's an enitely reasonable position. To oppose Brexit is to oppose democracy. I respect the will of the electorate and want it to be delivered in the best way possible which as I've argued in my post above seems to be by leaving the EEA and the EU customs union and forging a progressive third country deal whilst exploring other FTA's with other countries.

I've confidence that that is very achievable and therefore I'm not particularly worried. I'm confident that the government will deliver a good and a reasonable arrangement. The car crash, Armageddon, sky falling in scenario isn't likely to happen.

You're entitled to disagree but please do so with arguments rather than ad-hominems.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm interested in engaging with the political arguments, which you're currently not engaging with in this post.

solodeogloria wrote: »

To oppose Brexit is to oppose democracy.

And I'm done.

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're entitled to disagree but please do so with arguments rather than ad-hominems.

There were no ad-hominems

Edit: the fact you falsely asserted this, tells me all I need to know about the veracity of your debating “style”.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

For example, there is also the prospect of Britain joining a reformed NAFTA after Brexit.

There is about as much chance of the UK joining the North American Free Trade Agreement as there is of Mexico joining the European Union and/or the Council of Europe.

embraer170

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!
For example, there is also the prospect of Britain joining a reformed NAFTA after Brexit. That market has about 500 million consumers.
solodeogloria

Could you provide some background to the the UK's potential to join NAFTA?

This seem very much at odds with what Present Elect has said about the future of the trade agreement, even if reformed.

solodeogloria

embraer170 wrote: »

Could you provide some background to the the UK's potential to join NAFTA?

This seem very much at odds with what Present Elect has said about the future of the trade agreement, even if reformed.

Good morning and happy new year!

Please read the post and the article I linked to.

It's worth pointing out I'm simply referring to options that have been mentioned both in British and American newspapers.

Even if the UK doesn't join another trade bloc there's no reason why it can't get it's own FTA with Canada and the USA. Even Australia has a FTA with the USA.

I've presented a case where given the right circumstances Britain can benefit from leaving the EU.

I'm happy to get into a good discussion on the issues.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Please read the post and the article I linked to.

It's worth pointing out I'm simply referring to options that have been mentioned both in British and American newspapers.

Even if the UK doesn't join another trade bloc there's no reasonable why it can't get it's own FTA with Canada and the USA. Even Australia has a FTA with the USA.

I've presented a case where given the right circumstances Britain can benefit from bv leaving the EU.

I'm happy to get into a good discussion on the issues.

There is a chance that the UK will walk away from leaving the EU in a better position than before, but most if not all people or experts agree that there will be pain in the short term at least (already seen with the fall of the pound). Now whether the economy will ever then get to a position where they are 5th biggest in the world again then they would have reached parity to when they were in the EU.

Now I am sure they will reach FTA with other countries as well. It is easy to reach an agreement when both countries want to reach an agreement. If the UK goes to Canada about a FTA you know Canada will be open to negotiations as they have reached one with the EU. The uncertainty at the moment is whether the terms in this agreement would be more favourable to the UK than it would have been in the EU agreement. Just thinking about it makes you think that Canada would be in a stronger position as it is not dealing with a massive block any longer but an individual country and smaller in size as well. So any concessions given to the EU to have access to this huge market isn't there any longer.

I think what most are saying is simple and this, the financial markets hate uncertainty and the Brexit vote has caused major uncertainty for all involved.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

To oppose Brexit is to oppose democracy.

Both Scotland and NI voted to remain by a larger majority than the overall result, so what is democratic about forcing them to leave the EU against their wishes?

At the very least, a re-run of the Scottish independence referendum is warranted.

Democracy means different things in every democratic state. Look at Trump who won the Presidency of the US on a deficit of the popular vote of 2.6 million votes - that is a lot of votes.

The debate on the EU was conducted using falsehoods and deliberate lies. Funding the EU is a trivial cost to the UK treasury but was a made a major factor - forgetting that the net figure was tiny. Immigration was a major issue despite that the majority of immigrants entering the UK come from outside the EU and that most of the EU migrants come from here, and are not 'foreign'.

Brexit is a decision based on deliberate lies - hardly the basis for a democratic decision.

They have a Prime Minister who was not even elected by her own party - merely the last one standing - some democracy.

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

To oppose Brexit is to oppose democracy

Simplistic nonsense, to carry on with something when it was delivered on a falsehood, is the height of stupidity

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Enzokk wrote: »

There is a chance that the UK will walk away from leaving the EU in a better position than before, but most if not all people or experts agree that there will be pain in the short term at least (already seen with the fall of the pound). Now whether the economy will ever then get to a position where they are 5th biggest in the world again then they would have reached parity to when they were in the EU.

Now I am sure they will reach FTA with other countries as well. It is easy to reach an agreement when both countries want to reach an agreement. If the UK goes to Canada about a FTA you know Canada will be open to negotiations as they have reached one with the EU. The uncertainty at the moment is whether the terms in this agreement would be more favourable to the UK than it would have been in the EU agreement. Just thinking about it makes you think that Canada would be in a stronger position as it is not dealing with a massive block any longer but an individual country and smaller in size as well. So any concessions given to the EU to have access to this huge market isn't there any longer.

I think what most are saying is simple and this, the financial markets hate uncertainty and the Brexit vote has caused major uncertainty for all involved.

Thank you for your post. It's by far one of the more reasonable on this thread.

I agree with you that there is uncertainty at least while Article 50 is yet to be triggered and probably during the negotiation.

I agree with you that there is probably a short to medium term cost to this process. I said as much in previous posts. I've also acknowledged that there are clear risks.

Having said that, the costs were outlined (if not a little exaggerated by the Treasury and the Bank of England) before the referendum. The electorate seemed to conclude that the short to medium term cost was worth it for the additional long term benefits. There will always be a cost in adjusting the economy to a new reality and in preparing business for that reality.

I also agree with you that the least risky option was to stay in the European Union and argue for reform, but the result is in and it was clear that the UK needs to leave. So how do we do that in the best way possible and with the most long term benefit for the UK?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Both Scotland and NI voted to remain by a larger majority than the overall result, so what is democratic about forcing them to leave the EU against their wishes?

At the very least, a re-run of the Scottish independence referendum is warranted.

The United Kingdom voted as a United Kingdom. If we want separate votes for Scotland and for Northern Ireland they need to come out of the United Kingdom. The Scottish independence referendum as we know failed in 2014.

There's no evidence in polling that the Scottish electorate would vote for it again now. The SNP could call one, but I suspect the reason they haven't is because they know they would lose it.

Of course, there's the obvious realities of:
1) There's no guarantee that Scotland would be permitted to join the European Union due to other member states with separatist tendencies within them such as Spain.
2) The Scottish economy would be worse off again if it left the rest of the United Kingdom and closed itself to that market.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Democracy means different things in every democratic state. Look at Trump who won the Presidency of the US on a deficit of the popular vote of 2.6 million votes - that is a lot of votes.

Trump is irrelevant because the UK voted to leave the European Union by matter of a simple majority.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The debate on the EU was conducted using falsehoods and deliberate lies. Funding the EU is a trivial cost to the UK treasury but was a made a major factor - forgetting that the net figure was tiny. Immigration was a major issue despite that the majority of immigrants entering the UK come from outside the EU and that most of the EU migrants come from here, and are not 'foreign'.

Brexit is a decision based on deliberate lies - hardly the basis for a democratic decision.

They have a Prime Minister who was not even elected by her own party - merely the last one standing - some democracy.

I don't accept the idea that the whole electorate to vote Leave didn't know what they were doing or that they were all extremely unintelligent amongst other things. Contemptuous attitudes towards the electorate don't really endear people to them.

The reality is that the Leave side won and the result needs to be implemented in the best way possible for the United Kingdom. The idea of leave being overturned and all the rest of it is just anti-democratic. I've decided instead of moaning about the result that it is time just to get on with it and seek the best arrangement possible outside of the European Union. I've explained my position on that in the previous post.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

The United Kingdom voted as a United Kingdom. If we want separate votes for Scotland and for Northern Ireland they need to come out of the United Kingdom. The Scottish independence referendum as we know failed in 2014.

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584

We are a family of nations - UK Prime Minister 15/09/14

Nate--IRL--

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't accept the idea that the whole electorate to vote Leave didn't know what they were doing ........

Of course they didn't know what they were doing - because what they were doing was never defined.

It still isn't defined what version of Brexit is to be sought after.

Nate

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

The United Kingdom voted as a United Kingdom. If we want separate votes for Scotland and for Northern Ireland they need to come out of the United Kingdom. The Scottish independence referendum as we know failed in 2014.

There's no evidence in polling that the Scottish electorate would vote for it again now. The SNP could call one, but I suspect the reason they haven't is because they know they would lose it.

Of course, there's the obvious realities of:
1) There's no guarantee that Scotland would be permitted to join the European Union due to other member states with separatist tendencies within them such as Spain.
2) The Scottish economy would be worse off again if it left the rest of the United Kingdom and closed itself to that market.

In the referendum for Scottish Independence, the question of remaining in the EU was one of the reasons to vote to remain in the UK. Now it appears that remaining in the UK means leaving the EU. Clearly there are grounds for a re-run of that referendum.

It is likely that it would be England and Wales leaving the EU and not the UK.

Trump is irrelevant because the UK voted to leave the European Union by matter of a simple majority.

I don't accept the idea that the whole electorate to vote Leave didn't know what they were doing or that they were all extremely unintelligent amongst other things. Contemptuous attitudes towards the electorate don't really endear people to them.

The reality is that the Leave side won and the result needs to be implemented in the best way possible for the United Kingdom. The idea of leave being overturned and all the rest of it is just anti-democratic. I've decided instead of moaning about the result that it is time just to get on with it and seek the best arrangement possible outside of the European Union. I've explained my position on that in the previous post.

It is not anti-democratic to rerun the referendum as the result was very close and the effect of leaving so great, plus many of the 'facts' used to persuade the electorate were bogus.

Also, there were no plans as to how Brexit would be put into practice. No plans - none. They have plans to deal with a nuclear accident, or a terrorist incident, or serious floods, but not one plan as to how to handle leaving the EU. They still have no plans more than six months later.

Did anyone point out this slight mishap - this lack of planning?

Democracy in the UK means getting a Tory Government that has an overall majority based on getting 37% of the popular vote.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

If Leave lost 48% to 52% would you support a re-run of the referendum?

If the answer to that question is no then it's obviously anti-democratic.

If it was put to me again as one of the 48% I wouldn't vote the same way precisely because it would be anti-democratic not to respect the result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If Leave lost 48% to 52% would you support a re-run of the referendum?

If the answer to that question is no then it's obviously anti-democratic.

If it was put to me again as one of the 48% I wouldn't vote the same way precisely because it would be anti-democratic not to respect the result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is nothing undemocratic about having a referendum again . To think otherwise is to regard the electorate as idiots .

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thank you for your post. It's by far one of the more reasonable on this thread.

I agree with you that there is uncertainty at least while Article 50 is yet to be triggered and probably during the negotiation.

I agree with you that there is probably a short to medium term cost to this process. I said as much in previous posts. I've also acknowledged that there are clear risks.

Having said that, the costs were outlined (if not a little exaggerated by the Treasury and the Bank of England) before the referendum. The electorate seemed to conclude that the short to medium term cost was worth it for the additional long term benefits. There will always be a cost in adjusting the economy to a new reality and in preparing business for that reality.

I also agree with you that the least risky option was to stay in the European Union and argue for reform, but the result is in and it was clear that the UK needs to leave. So how do we do that in the best way possible and with the most long term benefit for the UK?

I am sorry, why should we be concerned about getting the UK the most long term benefit? I would understand if you are in the UK, but in Ireland we should only be concerned about getting the most benefit for Ireland. If this is tied to the UK receiving long term benefits as well then good for the UK. But the priority for the EU is the best deal for the EU. The priority for the UK will be the best deal for the UK. At the moment I don't see a easy way to this as it seems that the best deal for the UK is EU membership without the immigration concerns or legislative oversight from the EU. This is almost a complete opposite of what the EU will see as the best deal for the EU.

I don't agree that the costs were known before hand on a Brexit vote. When there were predictions made about how much leaving the EU could cost and these projections didn't satisfy the purpose of the politician the allegations of fear mongering and the quote of not trusting experts were spouted. This muddies the water and a clear cost was never known, partly because the main proponents were arguing for different Brexits. You had Nigel Farage advocating the hardest of hard Brexits where the UK actually moves the island away from the EU, to Boris who seems to favour a very soft Brexit. How was a voter supposed to know that the cost for these 2 options were different and would have different impacts on their lives when in reality most were only concerned about Johnny Foreigner moving in next door?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

I am sorry, why should we be concerned about getting the UK the most long term benefit? I would understand if you are in the UK, but in Ireland we should only be concerned about getting the most benefit for Ireland. If this is tied to the UK receiving long term benefits as well then good for the UK. But the priority for the EU is the best deal for the EU. The priority for the UK will be the best deal for the UK. At the moment I don't see a easy way to this as it seems that the best deal for the UK is EU membership without the immigration concerns or legislative oversight from the EU. This is almost a complete opposite of what the EU will see as the best deal for the EU.

A few of the posters on this thread are resident in the UK. Myself included. Therefore it's natural that we would care that the UK gets the best outcome even if we disagree what that is. Ireland should also care because it will impact it's domestic economy.

EU membership is off the cards by virtue of the result. That's the most obvious red line.

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't agree that the costs were known before hand on a Brexit vote. When there were predictions made about how much leaving the EU could cost and these projections didn't satisfy the purpose of the politician the allegations of fear mongering and the quote of not trusting experts were spouted. This muddies the water and a clear cost was never known, partly because the main proponents were arguing for different Brexits. You had Nigel Farage advocating the hardest of hard Brexits where the UK actually moves the island away from the EU, to Boris who seems to favour a very soft Brexit. How was a voter supposed to know that the cost for these 2 options were different and would have different impacts on their lives when in reality most were only concerned about Johnny Foreigner moving in next door?

The costs were outlined clearly in the referendum campaign. They were also exaggerated, but if one could fault the remain campaign it wouldn't be for not highlighting the potential risks.

Your take on the immigration side is too simplistic. People aren't opposed to immigration. The Leave side even acknowledged the benefits of immigration. The issue was about immigration without controls.

The electorate have voted. Now its up to the British Government to leave on the best terms. I still think that probably looks like leaving the single market and the customs union and forming a new FTA. I've presented my case for that in previous posts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria