Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - you need to provide good reasons why it is unlikely that:
- Britain can get a free trade agreement with the EU (third country)
- Britain can get free trade agreements with other interested countries.

I never said either was unlikely – seriously, are you even reading other people’s posts?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Where did I mention length of time?

You haven’t – that’s kind of the point.

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I'm saying is that the best long term strategy for the UK is to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU with a transition period, and then to negotiate free trade deals with other countries. Yes, this is a long term work, but in terms of working out what's best for Britain in the long term, this seems to be it.

Define “long term” – what kind of time scale are we talking about here?

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are great opportunities here, and I've not heard many good arguments against it.

You’ve not heard any good arguments against Britain negotiating trade deals? You’re not making a whole lot of sense.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You've not provided any reason as to why you think Britain won't be successful post-Brexit in the scenario I've described other than to say that things will be terrible for no reason.

Over the course of this thread, you have been presented with countless reasons as to why Britain may not be terribly successful post-Brexit. For example, in a recent post I pointed out that Britain is seriously lacking in trade deal negotiating expertise – you have completely ignored this point and continued with your “everything will be fine” mantra.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So far, so good on the economy.

Unless you’ve got a lot savings in GBP, of course.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form a trade deal with the EU?

Moreover - why do you think it's improbable that the UK can form trade deals with other countries?

How many more times are you going to ask this? Look, I’ll put it in great big letters for you:

NOBODY THINKS IT’S IMPROBABLE THAT THE UK WILL FORM TRADE DEALS WITH ANYONE.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You seem to hold this irrational assumption and it needs to be explained.

What needs to explained is your complete reluctance to read posts properly.

Dont be at yourself

The question isn't if the UK will form trade deals with the EU and other countries (they pretty much have to!). The bigger questions are:

- how will they compare to the benefits of existing single market access and existing trade deals negotiated through the EU?
- how long will it take to get these new deals in place, and what happens in the interim?

Based on what we know so far, you'd have to be fairly pessimistic of Britain's economic fortunes for the forseeable future.

First Up

djpbarry wrote: »

How many more times are you going to ask this? Look, I’ll put it in great big letters for you:

NOBODY THINKS IT’S IMPROBABLE THAT THE UK WILL FORM TRADE DEALS WITH ANYONE.
What needs to explained is your complete reluctance to read posts properly.

I think you are dealing with someone who doesn't understand what a "trade deal" means or doesn't mean.

ancapailldorcha

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

- how will they compare to the benefits of existing single market access and existing trade deals negotiated through the EU?

Simple, they'll either be inferior or part of the package deal including free movement. This is also discounting the benefits of having a disproportionally large say in how the EU is run.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

- how long will it take to get these new deals in place, and what happens in the interim?

Years, at least 2 during which time there is a strong disincentive to invest and more businesses may relocate elsewhere.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

I think this is my last post here.

My disagreement with you doesn't warrant patronising nonsense like claiming I don't know what a free trade agreement is. In fact disagreeing with someone doesn't warrant that type of nonsense full stop.

I'm not pessimistic about the UK's future at all. I'm struggling to figure out why others are saying that things will be terrible when there's not really any good reason to think they will be.

I'm happy to leave you in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with one another claiming that the end is nigh but I think it's fair to say there's scant evidence that it is.

There are lots of clear opportunities. I guess I'll just log back on in 2026 and say that things aren't that bad because for some reason they apparently will be.

Good luck!
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm happy to leave you in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with one another claiming that the end is nigh but I think it's fair to say there's scant evidence that it is.

And you're attacking yet another claim that absolutely nobody has made.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are lots of clear opportunities. I guess I'll just log back on in 2026 and say that things aren't that bad because for some reason they apparently will be.

And you've failed to describe a single one.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

Could I ask you if the remain side had won do you think the leave campaign would have continued on to fight for another referendum and if so would that be disrespecting democracy ?

Should Scotland give up on any future independence campaigns ?

Farage is on record as saying that a narrow remain victory would have meant 'unfinished business'. Funnily enough he even mentioned 52:48......

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember-that-time-nigel-farage-said-52-48-votes-should-lead-to-second-referendum-5963900/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

My disagreement with you doesn't warrant patronising nonsense like claiming I don't know what a free trade agreement is.

You have claimed numerous times that someone or other on this thread is of the opinion that the UK will not negotiate a trade deal with the EU. Nobody has said this. Ever. The fact that you keep repeating and questioning this same claim suggests that something is most definitely escaping your understanding.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not pessimistic about the UK's future at all.

You have made it abundantly clear that you are unreasonably optimistic about the UK’s future. The point everyone else has been trying to make, which has obviously escaped you, is that we do not share your optimism. Numerous reasons have been offered as to why – you have ignored virtually all of them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm struggling to figure out why others are saying that things will be terrible…

Nobody has said anything of the sort. There you go again claiming that people have said things they haven’t.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm happy to leave you in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with one another claiming that the end is nigh but I think it's fair to say there's scant evidence that it is.

That’s your call, but I think you’ll find that everyone on this thread will in fact agree that the end is not nigh. Personally I’m of the opinion that the UK will probably be ok, but my money is on things being worse over the coming decades relative to how they would be if the UK remains in the EU – there is no good reason to believe they will be better.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are lots of clear opportunities.

There certainly are. Likewise, Plymouth and Peterborough have the opportunity to progress to the FA Cup Fourth Round on Sunday. But, the smart money is on them being denied that opportunity by Liverpool and Chelsea.

An opportunity is no guarantee of anything.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Farage is on record as saying that a narrow remain victory would have meant 'unfinished business'. Funnily enough he even mentioned 52:48......

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember-that-time-nigel-farage-said-52-48-votes-should-lead-to-second-referendum-5963900/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

Yeah but it's only undemocratic to have a second referendum if you were happy with the outcome of the first.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that three generations will be impoverished by Brexit is also unfounded fearmongering.

Impoverished is a strong word, but there is no doubt that all future generations of Brits will be econonomically disadvantaged by Brexit.

Brexit will knock growth and trade back x% compared to the continued membership you voted for. It doesn't matter what x is, that growth and trade will never, ever be made up. The growth graph might regain its best slope, but it will always be below the EU version.

In fact, I don't think it will ever get back to the same slope, and will fall further and further behind where it would have been, but to catch up and pass the EU version, being outside the EU would have to be better economically than being in. Not even the Brexit campaign are brazen enough liars to pretend they believe that, and as a Remain voter, you are well aware it isn't so.

Nody

We should have something to laugh discuss in a few weeks as May outlines her Brexit plans according to her interview with Sky.

It includes such brilliant ideas such as:

The Prime Minister insisted she will be able to secure control over immigration to the UK as well as favourable trading terms with the European Union during Brexit negotiations.

...

“Anybody who looks at this question of free movement and trade as a sort of zero sum game is approaching it in the wrong way.

“I'm ambitious for what we can get for the UK in terms of our relationship with the European Union because I also think that's going to be good for the European Union.

“Our thinking on this isn't muddled at all.

I guess the definition of favourable trading terms is about to change to mean WTO trading standards with a few exceptions compared to no tariff access to the full market.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

We should have something to laugh discuss in a few weeks as May outlines her Brexit plans according to her interview with Sky.

It includes such brilliant ideas such as:
I guess the definition of favourable trading terms is about to change to mean WTO trading standards with a few exceptions compared to no tariff access to the full market.

Seems like the UK Government really thinks it can have its cake and eat it. They want favourable trading terms with none of the conditions that come with it. My guess is at the first meeting where this is discussed, possibly the first meeting after article 50 is triggered, the EU will lay out its position and it will somehow be the big bad EU that doesn't want to compromise.

Its like Theresa May forgot that David Cameron went to the EU when the UK was still in the EU to ask for the same things she will ask for and got very little back, but somehow she will deliver.

Jim2007

Enzokk wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

We should have something to laugh discuss in a few weeks as May outlines her Brexit plans according to her interview with Sky.

It includes such brilliant ideas such as:
I guess the definition of favourable trading terms is about to change to mean WTO trading standards with a few exceptions compared to no tariff access to the full market.

Seems like the UK Government really thinks it can have its cake and eat it. They want favourable trading terms with none of the conditions that come with it. My guess is at the first meeting where this is discussed, possibly the first meeting after article 50 is triggered, the EU will lay out its position and it will somehow be the big bad EU that doesn't want to compromise.

Its like Theresa May forgot that David Cameron went to the EU when the UK was still in the EU to ask for the same things she will ask for and got very little back, but somehow she will deliver.

Yes but May does not plan to be around, does she?  She has booked a holiday in the US and a trip to visit the Donald!  It will be the master of disaster himself that will be in charge.

Thomas_...

djpbarry wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Farage is on record as saying that a narrow remain victory would have meant 'unfinished business'. Funnily enough he even mentioned 52:48......

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember-that-time-nigel-farage-said-52-48-votes-should-lead-to-second-referendum-5963900/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

Yeah but it's only undemocratic to have a second referendum if you were happy with the outcome of the first.

That is what Farage has in common with Trump. If they have been on the losing side, they had taken all measures to get a "win" in the end. It is for good and various reasons why I have such a deep and strong dislike for Farage and Trump as well because they are no real democrats, just egotistical persons.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

We should have something to laugh discuss in a few weeks as May outlines her Brexit plans according to her interview with Sky.

It includes such brilliant ideas such as:
I guess the definition of favourable trading terms is about to change to mean WTO trading standards with a few exceptions compared to no tariff access to the full market.

Seems like the UK Government really thinks it can have its cake and eat it. They want favourable trading terms with none of the conditions that come with it. My guess is at the first meeting where this is discussed, possibly the first meeting after article 50 is triggered, the EU will lay out its position and it will somehow be the big bad EU that doesn't want to compromise.

Its like Theresa May forgot that David Cameron went to the EU when the UK was still in the EU to ask for the same things she will ask for and got very little back, but somehow she will deliver.

Yes but May does not plan to be around, does she?  She has booked a holiday in the US and a trip to visit the Donald!  It will be the master of disaster himself that will be in charge.

Well, he might take Corbyn with him, given that there is even less difference between the Tory Brexiteers and the Labour Leader as of today when he finally came out with his true colours:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

Sam Russell

Thomas_... wrote: »

Well, he might take Corbyn with him, given that there is even less difference between the Tory Brexiteers and the Labour Leader as of today when he finally came out with his true colours:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

It is amazing they know what he is going to say - before he actually says it.

Thomas_...

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Well, he might take Corbyn with him, given that there is even less difference between the Tory Brexiteers and the Labour Leader as of today when he finally came out with his true colours:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

It is amazing they know what he is going to say - before he actually says it.

Not to me, for I rather have learned to know Corbyn using the media to leak something when it suits him and to be painfully touched when it doesn't (like his train stunt).

But it is good to see that there is still a growing movement in GB against the Brexit. Whether they will really have the means to Change it is another question on which I am not very optimistic about. But this article tells a lot about the activities in the past six months across GB.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/10/brexit-resistance-getting-bigger-pro-europe-eu-referendum-organising-groups

Thomas_...

Looks like the UK govt is about to lose the Supreme Court case but with Corbyn now coming out to be also pro-Brexit, it might provide the chance for having this Brexit passing in the Commons if the SC obliged the govt to give it to the vote in parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/11/government-brexit-supreme-court-theresa-may-article-50

Government will lose Brexit supreme court case, ministers believe
Senior government figures believe seven of 11 judges will uphold demand that Theresa May secure MPs’ backing for article 50

demfad

Thomas_... wrote: »

Looks like the UK govt is about to lose the Supreme Court case but with Corbyn now coming out to be also pro-Brexit, it might provide the chance for having this Brexit passing in the Commons if the SC obliged the govt to give it to the vote in parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/11/government-brexit-supreme-court-theresa-may-article-50

Irish revocability case is huge. Also SDLP calling for joint rule in Northern Ireland to abide by spirit of GFA and before impending Brexit.

djpbarry

Not solely related to Brexit, but...



http://www.nature.com/news/tilikum-dies-us-antibiotic-ban-and-a-nazi-science-probe-1.21267?spUserID=MzA5MzM5MjM5MzgS1&spJobID=1082042362&WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2&spMailingID=53176252

CrabRevolution

People were sick of experts anyway, so good riddance .

KingBrian2

All a huge number of don't knows.:)

Sam Russell

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All a huge number of don't knows.:)

Negative exceeds Don't knows.

BoatMad

rather then read 6000 odd posts , heres my prediction

Uk will remain in the single market , keeps NI and Scot on side
UK will achieve an agreement with EU on migration of EU nationals to the UK, possibly a quota , the net real affect will be to retain the current status quo. May will have enough face to claim victory
UK will agree to abide by directives and regulations pertaining to goods, safety , security and other areas of common interest and consistent with accessing the single market
EU nationals already residing in the UK , ail remain so as will UK nationals in the EU
plus ça change plus ça meme choose

FrancieBrady

BoatMad wrote: »

rather then read 6000 odd posts , heres my prediction

Uk will remain in the single Market , keeps NI and Scot on side
UK will achieve an agreement with EU on migration of EU nationals to the UK, possibly a quota , the net real affect will be to retain the current status quo. May will have enough face to claim victory
UK will agree to abide by directives and regulations pertaining to goods, safety , security and other areas of common interest and consistent with accessing the single market
EU nationals already residing in the UK , ail remain so as will UK nationals in the EU
plus ça change plus ça meme choose

Wouldn't be too confident that there are many in the EU who would tolerate the UK 'claiming a victory' tbh. Unless the language being used changes substantially.

Nate--IRL--

BoatMad wrote: »

rather then read 6000 odd posts , heres my prediction

Uk will remain in the single market , keeps NI and Scot on side
UK will achieve an agreement with EU on migration of EU nationals to the UK, possibly a quota , the net real affect will be to retain the current status quo. May will have enough face to claim victory
UK will agree to abide by directives and regulations pertaining to goods, safety , security and other areas of common interest and consistent with accessing the single market
EU nationals already residing in the UK , ail remain so as will UK nationals in the EU
plus ça change plus ça meme choose

Probably the least worst option for the UK - pretty much impossible to obtain though.

Nate

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

rather then read 6000 odd posts , heres my prediction

Uk will remain in the single market , keeps NI and Scot on side
UK will achieve an agreement with EU on migration of EU nationals to the UK, possibly a quota , the net real affect will be to retain the current status quo. May will have enough face to claim victory
UK will agree to abide by directives and regulations pertaining to goods, safety , security and other areas of common interest and consistent with accessing the single market
EU nationals already residing in the UK , ail remain so as will UK nationals in the EU
plus ça change plus ça meme choose

Two issues:

1. Passporting for finacial services and regulation of those services.

2. Contributions to the EU - all that dosh they were going to save.

Both could sink any resolution - after all those two issues are what it is all about.

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Two issues:

1. Passporting for finacial services and regulation of those services.

2. Contributions to the EU - all that dosh they were going to save.

Both could sink any resolution - after all those two issues are what it is all about.

passporting with accompany the single market , the UK will retain its rights in that regard ( there is arguably no successor to london anyway )

the UK will agree certain contributions , I dont see that as being a defining issue , The referendum was about migration , the rest can be massaged .

I see "money " as the least of the issue

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

passporting with accompany the single market , the UK will retain its rights in that regard ( there is arguably no successor to london anyway )

Switzerland does not have passporting.

Enzokk

BoatMad wrote: »

UK will agree to abide by directives and regulations pertaining to goods, safety , security and other areas of common interest and consistent with accessing the single market

Will this include abiding by the ECHR, because that seems to be Theresa May's personal bug bear from her time at the Home Office. If that is included it seems that you can forget the agreement.