Brexit Referendum Superthread

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

Amend a treaty you say?

We may need a constitutional referendum for that in Ireland, better hope the brits don't make any threats towards us in the meantime.

I mean for the future. Not for Brexit.

catbear

murphaph wrote: »

I mean for the future. Not for Brexit.

The EU does not exist for the benefit of former members. The UK, or what's left of it will have to accept the same treatment as all other non-EU when dealing with the bloc.

It's been a century since global trade was Britain centric but word doesn't sem to have reached them yet.

CrabRevolution

I wonder if the UK simply refuse to grasp the notion that it'd be suicidal for the EU to give the UK a deal better than EU membership, or do they think they're just that important that they'll get it anyway?

For all the talk of "Germany needs the UK market, so will go easy on the UK" Angela Merkel knows that if the UK is given everything it demands (a free trade deal, financial passporting, waivers for customs controls, exemptions from EU standards and freedom of movement and budget contributions, immunity from the ECHR etc.) it'll lead to other EU countries wondering why they are even in the EU since the UK has proven they can leave, withdraw from all its obligations laws and regulations, yet keep all the benefits.

Tariffs between the UK and EU would do slight damage to the German economy. On the other hand a collapse of the EU would do massive damage to the economic system that Germany has been building for the last 60 years. A functioning EU is a far far higher priority to Germany than a trade deal with a single non EU member.

catbear

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Tariffs between the UK and EU would do slight damage to the German economy.

On the other hand the massive supply chains of Europe can even undercut a market that applies tariffs on imports. Aldi in Australia are able to undercut the duopoly of Woolies and Coles with cheaper Kiwi fruits grown in italy!

Tesco was pro-Brexit for defensive reasons but it can't counter the huge supply chains of their continental rivals.

Sam Russell

catbear wrote: »

On the other hand the massive supply chains of Europe can even undercut a market that applies tariffs on imports. Aldi in Australia are able to undercut the duopoly of Woolies and Coles with cheaper Kiwi fruits grown in italy!

Tesco was pro-Brexit for defensive reasons but it can't counter the huge supply chains of their continental rivals.

Tesco used to be No. 1 in Ireland but are now behind Dunnes and Supervalue, with Aldi and Lidl combined just behind them. How will they fare post Brexit?

catbear

Sam Russell wrote: »

Tesco used to be No. 1 in Ireland but are now behind Dunnes and Supervalue, with Aldi and Lidl combined just behind them. How will they fare post Brexit?

I watched an interesting Financial Times interview Paul Hodges from 2015 where he states the big box Tesco Store is going in reverse with demographics which entails people spending less as they age. In the UK that trend is really starting to bite as the peak baby boomers of 1954 onwards start swelling the retiree numbers.

Obviously Aldi and Lidl aren't competing directly with Tesco but they do undercut that big store trend that was driven by a huge explosion in demand in the previous decades when those baby boomers were at their spending peak.

As others have noted the big store retailers are thinning out their ranges because of more expensive imports whereas ALdI and Lidl who've built their own supply chains won't have that problem.

Enzokk

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve probably mentioned it already on this thread, but there was an excellent documentary with Nick Robinson on the history of the UK’s post-war relationship with the rest of Europe last year. It’s no longer available on iPlayer but it’s well worth a watch if you get a chance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077nr8v

It is available on Youtube if you search, Europe them or us.

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably because a combination of the British media and May’s cabinet have convinced them that everything is going to be just fine, regardless of whether or not a deal with the EU is reached. A recent YouGov poll suggests that 55% of people support the idea of May “walking away” if the deal Britain wants can’t be secured:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-nix-it/

Seems like people will go for their feelings again instead of facts. If they feel that the UK is getting a good deal then they will support it. So in the end it will come down to how the UK government sells the deal to the public, not what the deal actually is like.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

Until political expediency and a wide-open goal present themselves.

They will be critical of Tory handling of problems arising from Brexit but they will no longer be critical of Brexit itself. They will not be saying that such and such would not have happened if Brexit did not happen. So issues that are expected to occur as a result of brexit will not be the source of criticism but rather the handling of those issues. The reason for this is that both Labour and Tory parties have voted for Brexit and accept the result of the referendum. Labour are not calling for a rerun of the referendum.

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

The EU does not exist for the benefit of former members. The UK, or what's left of it will have to accept the same treatment as all other non-EU when dealing with the bloc.

It's been a century since global trade was Britain centric but word doesn't sem to have reached them yet.

Arrrgh. I'm not talikng about Britain!!! You have a bee in your bonnet about them catbear. I'm saying that for future "exits" of other countries there should be a more concrete picture of what leaving the EU will cost you and this should be written into a new amendment to the Lisbon treaty. The current provisions in the Lisbon treaty are too vague as we are all finding out now.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

Tesco used to be No. 1 in Ireland but are now behind Dunnes and Supervalue, with Aldi and Lidl combined just behind them. How will they fare post Brexit?

It's an interesting subject. I think you will find a lot more products of continental origin and fewer of British origin on the shelves of the German discounters. They can "go back to their roots" as it were (when they launched in Ireland originally almost everything was produced in Germany. Later as they opened more and more stores they could justify "local products" for the UK and Irish market, mostly made in the UK).

Tesco, Dunnes etc. don't have these fall back supply chains. They take time to establish and they will never be able to buy in the bulk the German discounters buy in.

An Ciarraioch

Enzokk wrote: »

It is available on Youtube if you search, Europe them or us.





Seems like people will go for their feelings again instead of facts. If they feel that the UK is getting a good deal then they will support it. So in the end it will come down to how the UK government sells the deal to the public, not what the deal actually is like.

Hugo Young's book "This Blessed Plot" is also excellent on the UK's relationship with Europe.

catbear

murphaph wrote: »

Arrrgh. I'm not talikng about Britain!!! You have a bee in your bonnet about them catbear. I'm saying that for future "exits" of other countries there should be a more concrete picture of what leaving the EU will cost you and this should be written into a new amendment to the Lisbon treaty. The current provisions in the Lisbon treaty are too vague as we are all finding out now.

Why should leaving be easy? Seriously!

The two year divorce deadline was to protect the remaining members from the exiting member dragging the process out indefinitely. You can't have open ended divorces, people need the ability to move on when relationships break down.

View

murphaph wrote: »

Arrrgh. I'm not talikng about Britain!!! You have a bee in your bonnet about them catbear. I'm saying that for future "exits" of other countries there should be a more concrete picture of what leaving the EU will cost you and this should be written into a new amendment to the Lisbon treaty. The current provisions in the Lisbon treaty are too vague as we are all finding out now.

FYI. The Lisbon Treaty, like most EU Treaties, was a "use once" "magic wand" treaty which altered the two EU Treaties (and possibly the EAEC Treaty). It is now redundant.

The two major treaties are the TEU (orginally the Maastricht Treaty) and the TFEU (originally the Treaty of Rome/EEC Treaty). Both have been much altered over the years (and have even had minor alterations since the Lisbon treaty). The TEU is essentially the "overview" and the TFEU the "detailed instructions".

And, the EAEC exists independently of both and survives largely because no one wants to deal with anything "nuclear" as you can imagine how the referendum needed to merge it with the TEU & TFEU would go. :-)

View

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I tried to answer that in another post. It did not make sense to ask what kind brexit in the referendum because it was not in the power of UK government to deliver a particular kind of brexit. The type of brexit that will occur will be the result of negotiations between the UK and the EU, not the decision of the UK alone. The only thing that is in the direct power of the UK government is to trigger A50 which they are now doing.

The last bit is not correct.

The UK government is perfectly free to request a post-exit relationship with the EU when triggering A50. If they don't then all the EU will negotiate is an exit agreement; it is not going to enter into a "Dutch auction" bidding war in a desperate effort to deliver what the UK really wants (but won't tell anyone).

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

Why should leaving be easy? Seriously!

The two year divorce deadline was to protect the remaining members from the exiting member dragging the process out indefinitely. You can't have open ended divorces, people need the ability to move on when relationships break down.

You quote me and then make a completely unrelated comment. I said the process of leaving and its associated costs and who bears them should be included in a new treaty so we never have the uncertainty of Brexit again. A member state wishing to leave, should in future be able to give its citizens a fairly good idea of the cost of leaving (the divorce settlement). I didn't state any more than that. Leaving is clearly a costly business....there was zero mention of a divorce bill during the referendum. It was somehow "forgotten" by all sides it seems. These costs should be laid out and accepted by the member states so in future there's no uncertainty. The revocability of A50 should perhaps be established and maybe it should be made irrevocable if it is established that it is currently not so.

Perhaps even the ability to extend the 2 years should be removed.

You seem to think I want to make leaving the EU easier. I think it should be transparent what it will cost a member who leaves. It's clear that A50 was not written for the case like Brexit (ie a member state wishes to leave in an orderly manner). Its author has stated that he envisioned it only being used in the case of a coup in a member state. It's not currently fit for purpose and should be clarified.

Bit cynical

View wrote: »

The last bit is not correct.

The UK government is perfectly free to request a post-exit relationship with the EU when triggering A50. If they don't then all the EU will negotiate is an exit agreement; it is not going to enter into a "Dutch auction" bidding war in a desperate effort to deliver what the UK really wants (but won't tell anyone).

They can certainly ask for a particular post-exit relationship but they can't deliver that unilaterally. This is the crucial point. And, as I've said in another post, would probably be counter-productive.

I don't think anyone knows how the negotiations will work out but I doubt if it will start with the UK laying out exactly what it wants at the outset. Both the UK and the EU will have their own desired outcomes but neither will make them public straight away. There might be some very general statements to early on ("we want a deal that works for the UK and the EU" kind of thing) but that's about it.

catbear

murphaph wrote: »

catbear wrote: »

Why should leaving be easy? Seriously!

The two year divorce deadline was to protect the remaining members from the exiting member dragging the process out indefinitely. You can't have open ended divorces, people need the ability to move on when relationships break down.

You quote me and then make a completely unrelated comment. I said the process of leaving and its associated costs and who bears them should be included in a new treaty so we never have the uncertainty of Brexit again. A member state wishing to leave, should in future be able to give its citizens a fairly good idea of the cost of leaving (the divorce settlement). I didn't state any more than that. Leaving is clearly a costly business....there was zero mention of a divorce bill during the referendum. It was somehow "forgotten" by all sides it seems. These costs should be laid out and accepted by the member states so in future there's no uncertainty. The revocability of A50 should perhaps be established and maybe it should be made irrevocable if it is established that it is currently not so.

Perhaps even the ability to extend the 2 years should be removed.

BTW, as a belligerent member it was only the Brits who insisted upon on the A50 get out clause. They got what they wanted.

You seem to think I want to make leaving the EU easier. I think it should be transparent what it will cost a member who leaves. It's clear that A50 was not written for the case like Brexit (ie a member state wishes to leave in an orderly manner). Its author has stated that he envisioned it only being used in the case of a coup in a member state. It's not currently fit for purpose and should be clarified.

The public chose to vote for exiting against all the warnings about the economic cost. There is no excuse for that.

It was the brits who insisted upon the A50 get out clause so there's no way anyone can make excuses for them.

Foghladh

Well it will be interesting to see what the exit cost comprises of.

Nate--IRL--

Foghladh wrote: »

Well it will be interesting to see what the exit cost comprises of.

Mostly stuff they've already agreed to fund.

Nate

Foghladh

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Foghladh wrote: »

Well it will be interesting to see what the exit cost comprises of.

Mostly stuff they've already agreed to fund.

Nate

I understand liabilities, liabilities go hand in hand with assets though. I haven't seen much discussion on that

First Up

Foghladh wrote:

I understand liabilities, liabilities go hand in hand with assets though. I haven't seen much discussion on that

I'd call an export market worth £220 billion an asset. We could discuss that if you like.

Nate--IRL--

Foghladh wrote: »

I understand liabilities, liabilities go hand in hand with assets though. I haven't seen much discussion on that

Isn't that exactly what the A 50 talks are about? I would expect anything the UK is legally entitled to will be honoured.

Nate

Nody

Labour will vote against any final Brexit deal unless it delivers the “exact same benefits” as the UK enjoys currently within the European Union, Jeremy Corbyn says.

Warning of a “huge threat to jobs”, the Labour leader toughened his party’s stance if Theresa May returns from the Brussels negotiations with bad exit terms.

Setting his key test, he said: “We are very clear that there has to be unfettered access to the European market otherwise the threat to jobs in this country is absolutely huge.”

Seriously; does the politicians in UK even read anything or watch any news report? We can already answer that question today; we could answer that question before the vote in parliament as well for crying out loud yet Corbyn went triple whip to get people to vote yes on the Brexit in parliament...

Full article is here.

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

Seriously; does the politicians in UK even read anything or watch any news report? We can already answer that question today; we could answer that question before the vote in parliament as well for crying out loud yet Corbyn went triple whip to get people to vote yes on the Brexit in parliament...

Full article is here.

The only thing that makes sense here is that Corbyn thinks membership of the EEA is possible and his strategy is to force the UK into retaining EEA membership by voting against the deal.

If the UK parliament votes against the deal then its WTO rules, unless (and this is not yet established legally) the option to remain in the EEA is still there. Faced between the perceived "cliff edge" of WTO rules and the EEA, the UK might opt for the EEA.

ancapailldorcha

The EEA option involves compliance with EU regulation, making a financial contribution and accepting freedom of movement. It involves ceding both sovereignty and control of immigration.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EEA option involves compliance with EU regulation, making a financial contribution and accepting freedom of movement. It involves ceding both sovereignty and control of immigration.

How can that be better for he UK than a full member of the EU?

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

How can that be better for he UK than a full member of the EU?

It won't be. Nor will it be politically feasible.

Sam Russell

Well, if it a choice between EEA or WTO rules, then would they cancel the whole gig?

They could call a GE on it to get out of the hole they have dug themselves.

By the way, UKIP no longer has an MP - Carswell has resigned from the party.

Nate--IRL--

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if it a choice between EEA or WTO rules, then would they cancel the whole gig?

It has yet to be determined if A50 is revocable yet. Won't find out until after it's invoked too, which is fun.

Nate

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if it a choice between EEA or WTO rules, then would they cancel the whole gig?

They could call a GE on it to get out of the hole they have dug themselves.

The EEA is basically EU membership minus a few of the positives, ie business as usual for most of the country. It would be the best option IMO as it technically satisfies the remit of the referendum but there'll be uproar from the Brexiteers over it. I can't see it getting through parliament either and that's if the Tories allow it to get that far.

I don't think a GE is an option for at least a year or so because negotiating Brexit alone will be a Herculean task. The balance of power shifts to the EU once Article 50 is triggered so it'll basically be the 27 member states offerig the UK a deal.

Sam Russell wrote: »

By the way, UKIP no longer has an MP - Carswell has resigned from the party.

I'm surprised he lasted this long to be honest. He was much better suited to the Tory party frankly. His anti-EU stance was based on his libertarian beliefs as opposed to issues with foreigners which seems to drive the UKIP machine. I think UKIP has reached its peak to be honest and is now likely to die off, especially since Arron Banks has deserted it.