Brexit Referendum Superthread

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Switzerland does not have passporting.

true , but Switzerland is in a entirely different situation.

The fact remains , There are powerful economic forces on both sides that want the UK within the single market. Nor is it in the EU s interest too have a large marketplace on its doorstep outside the single market.

Those interests will I believe influence a consensus on the single market issue.
May would also quieten both NI and Scotland and many " remainers" with that.

The tricky one will be reaching a consensus on migration of EU nationals, as this is somewhat ( though entirely misplaced ) headline argument. But again, I believe a compromise will be arrived at , that allows the Uk to claim it has control over the issue , while at the same time allowing a degree of automatic migrating , enough to mollify the " freedom of movement " ideologues on the EU side ( which by and large are not really at the table anyway )

The other stuff is easy, Ireland will undoubtedly retain the CTA in one form or another as in practice an immigration border with NI is impossible to effect and the prospect of immigration control at UK mainland only will annoy the Unionists ( though if it comes to it the UK would do it for other benefits)

Just like the greek situation , there will be hardball statements, shows of defiance, go-it alone speeches, and all sorts of dances of the seven veils and just like Greece a compromise ( that possibly nobody likes ) will be cobbled together . I ventured this early on in the huge Greek Threads on boards and was proven right , Ill venture the same here !!

BoatMad

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

The ECHR is not an EU institution , the UK recognises it under the treaties associated with the 40 member council of Europe, The EU itself is not bound by the ECHR , although , it gives it special " recognition "

do you mean the ECJ

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

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

There seem to be a lot of people out there who agree with you, which is why every time May comes out and says she is not even aiming for that, the Pound takes another dive as more and more people realize you are wrong.

Thomas_...

I like to recommend this article linked below in which many aspects are highlightened regarding Brexit and - as the author says - the very existence of Britain herself.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/13/britain-doesnt-really-exist-exit--eu

There is too much in it to quote, but the content touches various and important aspects for all those four parts that constitute the UK. It may come across a tad odd for some posters, but the explanations do make sense.

djpbarry

BoatMad wrote: »

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.

While I agree with the general thrust of your post (common sense should prevail), the problem May faces is the irreconcilable arguments put forward by the Leave Campaign prior to the referendum. They promised restrictions on EU migration while retaining access to the single market. While "access" could be interpreted as somewhat ambiguous, polls since the referendum clearly show that the public want to have their cake and eat it; they want to remain in the single market, but they want immigration from EU states reduced - the status quo won't cut the mustard.

Cartouche

May is in quite a weak position regarding Brexit within her own party even. She has to please the eurosceptic and pro EU elements of the tories. Also, the UK has a deceptively weak hand to go to negotiations with. While the leave campaigners remind us that the EU "needs" Britain quite a bit in terms of trade, its nothing compared to how much Britain needs the EU trade. If the UK really wants immigration control, they have to give up free market access, I think the EU are clear enough about that. Thats means tariffs for trade for UK companies selling to the EU , which will damage the economy to an untold degree

Sam Russell

Cartouche wrote: »

May is in quite a weak position regarding Brexit within her own party even. She has to please the eurosceptic and pro EU elements of the tories. Also, the UK has a deceptively weak hand to go to negotiations with. While the leave campaigners remind us that the EU "needs" Britain quite a bit in terms of trade, its nothing compared to how much Britain needs the EU trade. If the UK really wants immigration control, they have to give up free market access, I think the EU are clear enough about that. Thats means tariffs for trade for UK companies selling to the EU , which will damage the economy to an untold degree

They could reduce immigration significantly if they want to - over 50% of current immigration comes from outside the EU over which they have complete control.

View

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.

You can't have a single market if part of single market is not subject to one of the four basic principles of the single market as that would effect all laws that govern the single market.

And, more importantly, once you go down the road of deciding basic principles are in fact neither basic nor principles, where do you stop? If, let's say, France comes back in a year's time and announces they want to restrict the free movement of goods or services as they want to apply protectionist measures to imports from Ireland or other countries, how can you refuse them their request? They, after all, would be just as entitled to expect the abandonment of a basic principle as the UK would have already demonstrated that basic principles are in fact optional extras. If the basic principles of the single market are not defended there won't be a single market as country after country queues up to abandon one or more, or even all, of its basic principles.

Call me Al

I am beginning to miss solodeogloria around here!

djpbarry

May announces the UK is to leave the single market. In her speech was this whopper:

...both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.

I don't remember seeing any mention of the single market on the ballot paper?

Thomas_...

djpbarry wrote: »

May announces the UK is to leave the single market. In her speech was this whopper:

...both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.

I don't remember seeing any mention of the single market on the ballot paper?

Probably there wasn't such explicity. The cherry picking of the UK govt is to continue until they face the answer from the EU which has yet to be formed and delivered. All warnings regarding a hard Brexit, and it has become more and more clear by today that this will be the direction into which the UK is heading, mean nothing to Mrs May and her cabinet.

Just imagine how this should work, May telling the world that the UK will remain an open and tolerant Nation, attracting the best to settle in the UK and on the other Hand, it was her while being Home Sectretary to issue "directives" on which to Harass foreign nationals from the EU in order to deter others to come to the UK to work and also in order to make those already settled in the UK to leave. I have just yesterday read an article in the Guardian about the very subject I was writing here. Very despicable what is going on since Mrs May "pledged" to reduce the numbers of immigrants to the UK. I put the link to this article belowe and you have a read for yourself.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/16/eu-citizens-in-uk-could-face-deliberate-hostility-policy-after-brexit

Nody

Ok so we have May's speech and I'll summarize what I saw as the main points:

• Wants to leave the single market full stop
• Wants "as free as possible" trade with EU without tariffs
• Will take no deal over a bad deal
• Will stick to the 2 years duration of negotiation only
• Don't want transitional durations (i.e. it's big bang approach)
• Wants to maintain the common travel area
• Wants to limit the number of people coming in from EU

Now the controlling of EU immigrants and maintain common travel area will have some interesting effects such as passport checks for everyone going through Ireland but I could also see France for example tell UK to go home in Calais.

The leaving single market and no tariffs is going to be of very limited, if any, success simply because it would give UK a cherry picking deal and I don't see the rest of EU accepting that which to me points towards a no deal after two years scenario.

Not remaining in the customs union with EU / being in control of laws means UK will need to replicate a lot of departments and work currently spread all over EU to check imports and EU will apply random checks to all UK goods. That will impact border crossings and cause delays because UK confirmation of quality etc. will not be valid (for that to be the case the UK departments of quality etc. would need to follow EU laws which May has specifically said is not to be the case). As someone who's done my fair share of customs related shipping (Russia to EU, EU to/from Switzerland, EU to Serbia, Brazil to EU, EU to Canada etc.) that will be a nightmare. It will have cost impacts, it will have supply chain impacts and the biggest headache will be those random shipments that get stuck for a week or more for some reason (i.e. driver did not declare at the right customs office, did not pick up the right document from the warehouse etc.). Now those are not going to be priced in directly but they act as a stone in your shoe over time and will definitely drive supply chain changes overtime.

On existing migration of people I expect a grandfathering approach will be taken; as of date X all people in UK (EU citizens) / EU (UK citizens) are given the rights of the local citizen. The question mark for the UK citizens in EU however is if this will extend beyond the country of residence or not. Second part is the question how future UK citizens in EU will be handled and I'd be inclined to lean towards giving them right to work in EU (take that young work force) but limited/no rights to a lot of the other parts such as social wellfare etc. or that such costs will be directly charged to UK in some form.

demfad

Sterling has recovered on the basis that there will be a final vote.
If article 50 is not revocable a final vote is meaningless. The parliament would have to opt for ANY deal as NO deal would mean them being chucked out without even any regulatory recognition. So It's a case of should yourself on the foot instead of the head.
If on the other hand A50 is revocable it means that the parliament could put it to another referendum or revoke it outright (back in EU) if the deal was bad. This would also mean that UK would be forced to negotiate a deal it is confident its parliament can pass.
Sterling recovery seems to indicate that the market believes it will be revocable.
Revocability case by Jocylen Maugham opens in Dublin soon and will be forwarded to ECJ as its ruling will have to be Europe wide. Late summer/September will be ruling time.
This is the only show left in town for remain.

BoatMad

If on the other hand A50 is revocable it means that the parliament could put it to another referendum or revoke it outright (back in EU) if the deal was bad. This would also mean that UK would be forced to negotiate a deal it is confident its parliament can pass.
Sterling recovery seems to indicate that the market believes it will be revocable.
Revocability case by Jocylen Maugham opens in Dublin soon and will be forwarded to ECJ as its ruling will have to be Europe wide. Late summer/September will be ruling time.
This is the only show left in town for remain.

Unless deemed otherwise. ( and I suspect that it would need a referendum to be " un-invoked") there is no provision in the treaty that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. It would remain all EU countries to agree a modification to the treaty, which while possible is entirely unlikely. IT would also require a complete change in government in the UK as well . Even if the ECJ rules that its is "revokable " , I do not see any mechanism in the UK to activate that.

hat the market believes it will be revocable.

markets are entirely delusional , there way too much wishful thinking amongst certain sections


Mays speech is meaningless, its a " lay out your stall" , in reality she has almost no bargaining power and will forced to make some very difficult choices. Talk of " wanting " a hard brexit is just negotiating strategy bluff , its not what the UK industry wants and I suspect some very very powerful figures are telling her that .


CTA will ultimately be a decision for the Republic I beleive

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

CTA will ultimately be a decision for the Republic I beleive

Immigration seems to have taken priority over all else for May's government. So, how can they ensure a continental EU citizen can't bypass their immigration checks by flying to Dublin and crossing the land border to board a flight or ferry in Belfast bound for the British mainland?

Ireland can and does check EU passports on arrival but we cannot record them and we can't prevent them crossing into the UK if the border is open.

The only way would be some sort of random spot checks of NI->GB flights and ferries. Permanent checks on these will not be acceptable to unionists. They'd prefer a hard border than be forced to show a passport travelling inside their own country.

What a right bloody mess the Tories have gotten us all into.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

Immigration seems to have taken priority over all else for May's government. So, how can they ensure a continental EU citizen can't bypass their immigration checks by flying to Dublin and crossing the land border to board a flight or ferry in Belfast bound for the British mainland?

They can't and they most likely don't plan to; instead what's been said is that the companies hiring will be held responsible to check who they hire etc. It's going to be the same as US; most immigrants don't come sneaking over the border but arrive legally and overstay their visa and that's what will be the case for UK as well though I could see Ireland being used as transit country in case UK border guards become to tough.

BoatMad

murphaph wrote: »

Immigration seems to have taken priority over all else for May's government. So, how can they ensure a continental EU citizen can't bypass their immigration checks by flying to Dublin and crossing the land border to board a flight or ferry in Belfast bound for the British mainland?

Ireland can and does check EU passports on arrival but we cannot record them and we can't prevent them crossing into the UK if the border is open.

The only way would be some sort of random spot checks of NI->GB flights and ferries. Permanent checks on these will not be acceptable to unionists. They'd prefer a hard border than be forced to show a passport travelling inside their own country.

What a right bloody mess the Tories have gotten us all into.

I beleive that the UK , will present the Republic with a choice

(A) Negotiate with the EU to control EU migration into Ireland and continue with the CTA
(B) Refuse and accept a hard border in NI ( even if thats almost impractical ) .

The prospect of immigration checks on NI citizens, will ultimately not be acceptable to the Tories , whereas a hard border will gain unionist support .

even if in practice it leaks like a sieve , its will a huge issue


VAT on imports from UK is a huge issue for cash flow for small business, I remember it as a huge pain

BoatMad

Nody wrote: »

They can't and they most likely don't plan to; instead what's been said is that the companies hiring will be held responsible to check who they hire etc. It's going to be the same as US; most immigrants don't come sneaking over the border but arrive legally and overstay their visa and that's what will be the case for UK as well though I could see Ireland being used as transit country in case UK border guards become to tough.

actually the vast majority of US illegals, enter illegally , its only nations with holiday visa access that enter that way

Nody

BoatMad wrote: »

actually the vast majority of US illegals, enter illegally , its only nations with holiday visa access that enter that way

True but it's getting close; last numbers I've seen puts it at 40% to 45% due to visa but the main driver was that they don't come over the border directly but fly in to the USA. Which means the country border for Ireland/UK (based on US experience) is not that high priority illegal immigration control area which was the point I was aiming for with my post

Sam Russell

Surely the way of controlling illegal immigration would be to introduce identity cards that must be shown on demand as in most of Europe. Illegals would not have them, and foreigners would have passports. It would mean we would need them as well if the CTA were to continue.

If it applies to all UK citizens, then the NI population could not demur. Clearly all ferries and planes crossing the Irish sea would all require an ID to be shown.

BoatMad

Nody wrote: »

True but it's getting close; last numbers I've seen puts it at 40% to 45% due to visa but the main driver was that they don't come over the border directly but fly in to the USA. Which means the country border for Ireland/UK (based on US experience) is not that high priority illegal immigration control area which was the point I was aiming for with my post

yes but the issue for ROI/NI is that in the US all legal access takes places through controlled spaces. There is no " walking down a minor road"access , on a visa or not even for canadians

This is the issue for the ROI and the nationalist community in NI, is in fact the establishment of a migration border, where one never existed before.

remember the Brits dont care about NI, whatever is the easiest too stomach domestically will be executed

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely the way of controlling illegal immigration would be to introduce identity cards that must be shown on demand as in most of Europe. Illegals would not have them, and foreigners would have passports. It would mean we would need them as well if the CTA were to continue.

If it applies to all UK citizens, then the NI population could not demur. Clearly all ferries and planes crossing the Irish sea would all require an ID to be shown.

that doesnt prevent illegal immigration though , ( thats why they are illegal)

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

Unless deemed otherwise. ( and I suspect that it would need a referendum to be " un-invoked") there is no provision in the treaty that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. It would remain all EU countries to agree a modification to the treaty, which while possible is entirely unlikely. IT would also require a complete change in government in the UK as well . Even if the ECJ rules that its is "revokable " , I do not see any mechanism in the UK to activate that.

At the moment I believe it can be stopped/extended if all 27 agree.
The ECJ ruling would provide a legal answer to whether the UK can invoke it.
If so I'd guess it would have to be legally revoked similarly to how it needs to be invoked: by parliament. Whether parliament decided to have a referendum before that would be a political decision (and time constrained given the 2 year deadline.)

here is the press release
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/01/12/dublin-case-press-release/

djpbarry

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely the way of controlling illegal immigration would be to introduce identity cards that must be shown on demand as in most of Europe.

National ID Cards were introduced in 2006 for all UK residents, but the scheme was short-lived and scrapped in 2010 due to public opposition.

It's one of the big contradictions surrounding the immigration debate in the UK - rightly or wrongly, people complain about the lack of "recording" of people coming into the country, but then object to any form of "recording" as a breach of civil liberties.

The root of the problem is obviously that UK nationals only want "the foreigners" to be recorded in such a manner - maybe they'll get their wish in post-Brexit Britain.

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

At the moment I believe it can be stopped/extended if all 27 agree.
The ECJ ruling would provide a legal answer to whether the UK can invoke it.
If so I'd guess it would have to be legally revoked similarly to how it needs to be invoked: by parliament. Whether parliament decided to have a referendum before that would be a political decision (and time constrained given the 2 year deadline.)

here is the press release
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/01/12/dublin-case-press-release/

of course, if all 27 agree anything can be facilitated. Thats not in question.

It remains to be seen if anything comes from the legal case, because I do not see any situation where the UK parliament would seek to block Brexit.

I think this is all wishful thinking from remainers.

The constitutional earthquake that would result from another referendum would be mind blowing, what happens if an agreement was rejected, are you going to have a series of continuos referendums , I think not.

the fact remains, that unless the deal is visibly awful, May et Al. will " sell " the deal to a public which by then , will want the matter brought to an end.

There will be no parliamentary appetite to place parliament at loggerheads with the Gov and the results of the recent referendum

its all wishful thinking

the reality is the UK could simply choses to ignore the ECJ ruling , or filibuster it until after after the exit deadline , at which point its a toothless decision , May hates the ECJ anyway

KingBrian2

I read PM May speech. Did anyone else? She came across very diplomatic reaching out to all those concerned. She is going to have a hard time getting all the participants singing from the same hymn sheet. I do wish her all the best.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I read PM May speech. Did anyone else? She came across very diplomatic reaching out to all those concerned. She is going to have a hard time getting all the participants singing from the same hymn sheet. I do wish her all the best.

i read it like that , keep everyone sweet , the trouble is everyone knows she's lying through her teeth

Bob24

BoatMad wrote: »

actually the vast majority of US illegals, enter illegally , its only nations with holiday visa access that enter that way

The US is different from the UK as it has a land border with Mexico which is a large source of illegal immigration.

Illegally entering the UK is much more difficult as the only land border is with Ireland (not a huge source of illegal immigration, though it could become one if we don't fix the CTA and how we do border checks). The only practical way would be to apply for an Irish visa and cross through the CTA, but while noone will know for sure in which of the two countries you are, you will have entered one of them legally and there will be a record of that entry shared by the two countries.

Things are very similar in Ireland: many illegals here are visa required nationals who entered legally with a tourist or a student visa but never left.

BoatMad

Bob24 wrote: »

The US is different from the UK as it has a land border with Mexico which is a large source of illegal immigration.

Illegally entering the UK is much more difficult. The only practical way would be to apply for an Irish visa and cross through the CTA, but while noone will know for sure in which of the two countries you are, you have have entered one of them legally and there will be a record of that entry shared by the two countries.

Things are very similar in Ireland: many illegals here are visa required nationals who entered legally with a tourist or a student visa but never left.

in Ireland , the vast majority of illegals are asylum claimants that while deportation orders were issued, they did not leave the state. There its very very little visa overstay issues in ireland,

Illegally entering the UK is much more difficult. The only practical way would be to apply for an Irish visa and cross through the CTA,

I dont know if this is pre or post Brexit. You should remember that in the UK ( as in Ireland , we have actually greater proportion then the UK) most migrants were " legal " migrants , i.e. EU nationals and in fact its this migration that May has a balancing act. Extra EU migration is not a significant factor in the UK ( as its not in Ireland either )


The issue for the UK, will be if Ireland maintains EU nationals migrations rights , while the UK places different restrictions, how will it prevent the ROI/NI border neingused to gain entry illegally ( thus assumes of course that their are hoards of EU nationals waiting to enter the UK illegally, which wasn't a factor before)


The fact remains that the immigration issue in the UK is utterly manufactured , virtually out of thin air, based on post thirty facts

we are now attempting to rationalise something that isnt a reality in the first place.

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

of course, if all 27 agree anything can be facilitated. Thats not in question.

It remains to be seen if anything comes from the legal case, because I do not see any situation where the UK parliament would seek to block Brexit.

I think this is all wishful thinking from remainers.

The constitutional earthquake that would result from another referendum would be mind blowing, what happens if an agreement was rejected, are you going to have a series of continuos referendums , I think not.

the fact remains, that unless the deal is visibly awful, May et Al. will " sell " the deal to a public which by then , will want the matter brought to an end.

There will be no parliamentary appetite to place parliament at loggerheads with the Gov and the results of the recent referendum

its all wishful thinking

the reality is the UK could simply choses to ignore the ECJ ruling , or filibuster it until after after the exit deadline , at which point its a toothless decision , May hates the ECJ anyway

I don't think May hating the ECJ or otherwise should count.
Politically A50 could only be revoked if public opinion had changed greatly in the UK. It must be revoked in the 2 year window, not a continous series of referenda.

The difference between revocability and not is that the parliament could decide to revoke it if revoking it was clearly the better option than the deal on the table or no deal at all.

Donald Tusk seems to think its revocable here (24:55) : http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I127730

As does Lord Kerr who drafted A50: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

You may be of the opinion that it cant be revoked, fair enough. Legally it would seem otherwise, and that may prove significant yet.

EDIT: Another the former Director General of the Council’s legal service

https://www.ft.com/content/b9fc30c8-6edb-11e6-a0c9-1365ce54b926