Brexit discussion thread II

demfad

demfad wrote: »

OK. There has being some goings on the Brexit-Russia-UKIP side of things.
Buzzfeed had an article relating to a study about a 13,000 strong twitter botnet active during EU referendum but deleted very shortly after.
They reported that Damien Collins, Commons chair of 'Fake news' inquiry asked twitter about these bots: was there interference? Who deleted? Did twitter delete? etc.

Leave.EU already admitted they ran the Bots

https://twitter.com/andywigmore/status/902941548610035712

Questions Guardians Carole Cadwalladr tweeted as a result, Questions deserving answers:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/922174663366729736

Also an excellent and pessimistic revealing of why there is so little curiosity among politicians about Interference in Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/russia-free-pass-undermine-british-democracy-vladimir-putin?CMP=share_btn_tw

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the UK's problem.

What happens when an Australian enters the UK without a visa, takes the ferry to Dublin and then to France to go looking for a job? The EU won't like that and we will be told to protect our borders.

He can save himself the roundabout route and fly directly from Australia to France. Australians don't need a visa to enter France.

In any event, there is passport control between Ireland and France, since Ireland is not part of the Schengen area. If somebody not entitled to enter France tries to enter from Ireland, he'll be refused entry.

Calina

Aegir wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

will EU citizens still be able to enter the UK on just their ID card? This would also be a wildly differing policy.

they never could.

EU citizens can at present enter the UK using their national ID cards.

Sam Russell

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It's not people that are the problem, it's taxation of goods and services.

People can still be covered by the CTA and illegal immigration to the UK can be enforced (as it is today for non-EU countries) by workplace and accommodation checks.

The real problem is figuring out how to maintain the integrity of the single market and customs union with NI on the outside. Even with the border on the Irish sea, the UK mainland is just 21miles away, short enough to do in a RIB, so smuggling will be rife.

There are no easy answers to this dilemma apart from the UK staying in the customs union and single market. This is not an option for the UK as it would be an total humiliation for the UK govt, pay for play with no say.

I was only talking about people. The solution for people is a Natinal ID Card for every legal resident of the UK.

Goods are a different matter and for Ireland, the only solution is that NI remains in the SM and the CU - that way there is no border.

breatheme

breatheme wrote: »

What do you mean they never could? Of course they can.
EDIT: .

Calina wrote: »

EU citizens can at present enter the UK using their national ID cards.

True, I thought you were referring to a normal photo id such as a driving licence, the same way Irish and British citizens can when flying within the CTA.

A national ID card is a big step up from that.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the UK's problem.

What happens when an Australian enters the UK without a visa, takes the ferry to Dublin and then to France to go looking for a job? The EU won't like that and we will be told to protect our borders.

That isn't a problem as we're outside Schengen. The Aussie would still have to pass through French immigration. The immigration side of things can be fudged. The customs and standards stuff can't.

BoatMad

Can I ask for summaries here , personally I've changed my views to a hard Brexit possibly with no agreement at all

What do posters think at this stage .

Nody

BoatMad wrote: »

Can I ask for summaries here , personally I've changed my views to a hard Brexit possibly with no agreement at all

What do posters think at this stage .

Standing by my earlier prediction of hard brexit without a deal (i.e. no agreement on any of the basic 3 questions; partial solutions at best) with financial settlement done through court mid 2020s. I expect the first party to seriously have a chance to get into power have rejoining EU a couple of years later but no actual rejoining until mid 2030s or later.

demfad

Excellent!

Damien Collins now asking Mark Zuckerburg for Russian accounts that bought advertising for Brexit.

breatheme

Aegir wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

What do you mean they never could? Of course they can.
EDIT: .

Calina wrote: »

EU citizens can at present enter the UK using their national ID cards.

True, I thought you were referring to a normal photo id such as a driving licence, the same way Irish and British citizens can when flying within the CTA.

A national ID card is a big step up from that.

I don't think people realise what this means, though. I keep hearing stuff like: "But someone from Australia can enter the UK and then Ireland and it's the same thing!"
No, it's not. When someone from Australia enters the UK, they will get a stamp on their passport, with their date and point of entry. This is how you know they are overstaying. Ireland has started IDing people flying from the UK into Ireland (this is pre-Brexit, though). The CTA is already inefficient, and visa regimes are far from aligned, and the time "adds up", as in, a citizen from Panama gets three months in Ireland, but six in the UK, but there's no way of policing this. Add in EU Citizens with a right to enter with an ID card to Ireland, but not to the UK and it's chaos.
In some ways, the CTA will have to change. We'll see how.

breatheme

breatheme wrote: »

I don't think people realise what this means, though. I keep hearing stuff like: "But someone from Australia can enter the UK and then Ireland and it's the same thing!"
No, it's not. When someone from Australia enters the UK, they will get a stamp on their passport, with their date and point of entry. This is how you know they are overstaying. Ireland has started IDing people flying from the UK into Ireland (this is pre-Brexit, though). The CTA is already inefficient, and visa regimes are far from aligned, and the time "adds up", as in, a citizen from Panama gets three months in Ireland, but six in the UK, but there's no way of policing this. Add in EU Citizens with a right to enter with an ID card to Ireland, but not to the UK and it's chaos.
In some ways, the CTA will have to change. We'll see how.

Both the UK and Ireland allow passengers to leave without stamping their passports, they only use electronic recording of departures. I wonder if the two countries share this information as well.

For example, someone entering the UK, but leaving through Ireland (or vice versa).

steddyeddy

demfad wrote: »

Excellent!

Damien Collins now asking Mark Zuckerburg for Russian accounts that bought advertising for Brexit.

It's probably true that Russia seen an opportunity to destabilise Britain via Brexit, but unless there was voter fraud then it was the voters who caused Brexit. All of the facts were available for people to assess and people came to the wrong conclusions. Why do we need to blame anyone else?

LeinsterDub

The U.K. has shifted its approach to the transition agreement it wants to put in place for after Brexit, falling into line with the European Union’s long-held stance.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond had championed their calls, saying the longer it took to secure such an accord, the less it was worth. He backed away from those comments on Tuesday, a day after Prime Minister Theresa May surprised lawmakers by saying that transition would only be part of the final Brexit deal, which isn’t expected for another year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/hammond-joins-may-s-brexit-stance-delaying-transition-deal-push

We are averaging 3 "positions" a day at this stage. May's , Hammond's and Johnston's. The next day/week/month the 3 of them eventually shift to the EU position. A short while later they will collectively take some amnesia juice and they are back to having their cake and eating it

BoatMad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/hammond-joins-may-s-brexit-stance-delaying-transition-deal-push

We are averaging 3 "positions" a day at this stage. May's , Hammond's and Johnston's. The next day/week/month the 3 of them eventually shift to the EU position. A short while later they will collectively take some amnesia juice and they are back to having their cake and eating it

It's just the slow an inexorable processes to the British realising they have zero leverage. When the fog comes down in the channel , it's Britian that is actually cut off.

Leonard Hofstadter

I think a lot of you are being very harsh on the English - certainly the under 45s (who let's not forget voted to remain).

I actually live in the North of England, and in a city that voted to leave (although very narrowly), yet I can 100% say that my nationality has never been an issue in the five and a bit years I've been here. The English have been very, very good to me and I've been able to make plenty of English friends.

If you take away the politics, we have far more in common with them than we wish to admit. I just wish they could see how much they have in common with their fellow Europeans, the younger generation get it, the older ones not really.

I can tell you a lot of the minorities voted for leave as well. Don't forget Commonwealth citizens were able to vote in the referendum and a lot of them voted to leave. I know of a few Irish people (older generation, the sort that's been there for 30-40 years) who voted to leave because they think there's too many immigrants!

You only have to look at Birmingham, which has a large Asian population, not to mention a place with plenty of historical Irish connections, and yet they voted to leave for example.

I really hope common sense will prevail but sadly the Conservative party are in a complete meltdown at the moment and while we will all lose out if they keep up their current nonsense, the biggest losers of all will be the younger generation Brits - and it is they who I feel so sorry for, not least because they are my own generation and I have plenty of friends who are going to have a much worse future because of the sheer stupidity of their elders.

steddyeddy

captainspeed wrote: »

I think a lot of you are being very harsh on the English - certainly the under 45s (who let's not forget voted to remain).

I actually live in the North of England, and in a city that voted to leave (although very narrowly), yet I can 100% say that my nationality has never been an issue in the five and a bit years I've been here. The English have been very, very good to me and I've been able to make plenty of English friends.

If you take away the politics, we have far more in common than we wish to admit. I just wish they could see how much they have in common with their fellow Europeans.

I can tell you a lot of the minorities voted for leave as well. Don't forget Commonwealth citizens were able to vote in the referendum and a lot of them voted to leave. I know of a few Irish people (older generation, the sort that's been there for 30-40 years) who voted to leave.

You only have to look at Birmingham, which has a large Asian population, not to mention a place with plenty of historical Irish connections, and yet they voted to leave for example.

I really hope common sense will prevail but sadly the Conservative party are in a complete meltdown at the moment and while we will all lose out if they keep up their current nonsense, the biggest loses of all will be for the younger generation Brits - and it them who I feel so sorry for, not least because they are my own generation and I have plenty of friends who are going to have a much worse future because of the sheer stupidity of their elders.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I've been treated well here too. I think there's a mist over the country right now that prevents people seeing what lies ahead.

Lemming

Bear mind that some of those minorities (Pakistani & Indian at any rate) were encouraged by their "pillars of the community/business leader" sorts to vote Brexit because they claimed that it would mean there'd be more visas for their families & friends to come to the UK. More visas for chefs for ethnic restaurants and the like, etc ...

... Meanwhile, Farage is standing over there with that poster ...


As for cities, Sheffield CaptainSpeed? Near 50/50 vote and quite a nice place all told. Very large student population too owing to having two major universities, one being a red-brick. The surrounding towns & old pit-villages are a different story though, mostly pro-brexit.

Rain Ascending

BoatMad wrote: »

Can I ask for summaries here , personally I've changed my views to a hard Brexit possibly with no agreement at all

What do posters think at this stage .

I'm beginning to suspect that May's premiership won't last the course. There have been a couple of reports from the UK and German press, clearly using different sources, suggesting that she is being worn down. Combine that with a divided cabinet with little discipline, it difficult to see how they will survive any real Brexit-related crisis. That suggests a Tory party leadership battle and a possible general election. All bets off at that point, particularly given the time-bounded nature of the UK/EU negotiations.

However, let me go off on a slight tangent here. On possibility becoming more likely is, of course, the "no-deal" Brexit. A few pro-EU commentators here have suggested that the UK needs this "pain" so as to "readjust" their thinking.

A "no-deal" Brexit is categorically not in our (Irish) interests.

Let's leave aside the obvious point of self-interest of preserving stability in Northern Ireland. It is not in Ireland's interest to have a neighbour create chaos for roll-on/roll-off trade routes to the rest of the EU. It is not in Ireland's interest, to have the UK the drop out both the Single Market and out of over 900 international agreements with non-EU countries and not be prepared for the inevitable economical upheaval. It is not in Ireland's interest that the political fallout in the UK will increase the level of scapegoating beyond the current point where a member of government was looking for universities to report who is teaching what on Brexit.

A stable, successful UK is in our interests.

Leonard Hofstadter

Rain Ascending wrote: »

A stable, successful UK is in our interests.

I completely agree, it's in their interests as much as it is ours. I have always been a West Brit and have never had the chip on my shoulder about the British unlike some, and it makes me sad at what is happening for the younger generation but also angry at the older voters who have decided on a future that the next generation simply don't want.

Sadly, that's not something Ireland has any control over, and we need to do everything in our power to plan around that.

We can all advise the UK, as friends and neighbours that it needs to take a different course of action but we can't force the UK to change their direction.

The UK talks about a 'deep and special partnership' with the EU - but it already had one, and it was one better, it was called being an EU member.

The current UK Government's ability to say completely different things to different audiences never fails to amaze me, I thought I had seen it all when Fianna Fáil was in power and how they bankrupted the country and forced the IMF in, but by comparison to the Tories FF are the poster boy for truthfulness, honesty and competence.

solodeogloria

captainspeed wrote: »

I think a lot of you are being very harsh on the English - certainly the under 45s (who let's not forget voted to remain).

I actually live in the North of England, and in a city that voted to leave (although very narrowly), yet I can 100% say that my nationality has never been an issue in the five and a bit years I've been here. The English have been very, very good to me and I've been able to make plenty of English friends.

If you take away the politics, we have far more in common with them than we wish to admit. I just wish they could see how much they have in common with their fellow Europeans, the younger generation get it, the older ones not really.

I can tell you a lot of the minorities voted for leave as well. Don't forget Commonwealth citizens were able to vote in the referendum and a lot of them voted to leave. I know of a few Irish people (older generation, the sort that's been there for 30-40 years) who voted to leave because they think there's too many immigrants!

You only have to look at Birmingham, which has a large Asian population, not to mention a place with plenty of historical Irish connections, and yet they voted to leave for example.

I really hope common sense will prevail but sadly the Conservative party are in a complete meltdown at the moment and while we will all lose out if they keep up their current nonsense, the biggest losers of all will be the younger generation Brits - and it is they who I feel so sorry for, not least because they are my own generation and I have plenty of friends who are going to have a much worse future because of the sheer stupidity of their elders.

Good morning!

Admittedly the irrational and dramatic vision of what's to come hasn't taken a hold on me.

I was personally pretty encouraged by what came out of the European Council. The fact that they are willing to prepare a position on trade whilst the final issues get ironed out or the fact that Barnier is discussing what the final option for Britain looks like (he said this week that given Britain's current position we will end up with something like CETA). The fact that lots of progress has been made on cross border institutions and the CTA and the closeness on citizens rights is encouraging. I think a deal will be struck.

Your post seems to say that not being a member of the European Union means that people don't see themselves as having anything in common with Europeans. Obviously that isn't true. Before the European Union countries had links to one another. If you want a case study of that look to how the Swiss, German and French reformations impacted the English one. Cross European collaboration won't go away.

The problems with the European Union for the British aren't because people aren't European. It was because people felt the European Union have too much control over British affairs. From where I stand that's still a legitimate standpoint and it is still a legitimate standpoint to say that taking back control will be good for Britain in the long term. I'm convinced this is the right decision. When the only arguments for staying in a bloc are threats it's time to go.

British people will always be European and Britain will always be in Europe (the continent). It is manipulative to suggest that leaving the European Union means forsaking any links to the continent.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that May's premiership won't last the course. There have been a couple of reports from the UK and German press, clearly using different sources, suggesting that she is being worn down. Combine that with a divided cabinet with little discipline, it difficult to see how they will survive any real Brexit-related crisis. That suggests a Tory party leadership battle and a possible general election. All bets off at that point, particularly given the time-bounded nature of the UK/EU negotiations.

She will remain as PM until April 2019 (or what ever earlier date if she's pushed to cut it short); they need her as a scapegoat for all things going wrong and no one will challenge her until that point (esp. as the only one stupid enough to do so being Boris don't have the support).

However, let me go off on a slight tangent here. On possibility becoming more likely is, of course, the "no-deal" Brexit. A few pro-EU commentators here have suggested that the UK needs this "pain" so as to "readjust" their thinking.

Yes because UK has spent 20 years blaming everything and anything as EUs fault inc. completely made up rules and regulations. Nothing short of the pain of a hard brexit will get the larger population to realize the actual benefits to EU (which many would currently claim are none).

A "no-deal" Brexit is categorically not in our (Irish) interests.

A no deal is in no one's interest inc. the citizens of UK but that's based on an intellectual ground of self preservation and analysis; that's not the case in the UK in regards to Brexit which is closer to a religious fever. They don't argue facts; they argue emotions. Put up facts showing how their claim foreigners take up space in NHS and cost money is utterly false and they will fall back on "well the community feels like it's true". Put up facts showing why getting trade deals take a long time and will cost them trade you'll get answered with "Well many countries will want to trade with us as we can give better terms". Facts answered with emotions at every single turn and that's simply not going to be swayed by silly things such as facts, figures and logic. Remember the rallying cry of "We had enough of experts" when challenged and that's still holding true.

A stable, successful UK is in our interests.

And for UK to become stable and successful they need to stop blaming EU for everything and take some god damn responsibility. Hence the need for a hard brexit to show them how their press and politicians have been lying to them not only about what EU did previously but also how easy life is outside of EU afterwards. If the population could not be bothered to get the actual facts for the vote (350MM to NHS, Easiest trade deal in the world, remain in the single market and limit freedom of movement, have cake and eat it, EU needs us more than we need them, German car manufacturers will make sure we get a good deal etc.) then they will need to learn it the hard way. Once the coin has fallen down and reality turns out to be different they will be in a much better place to rejoin EU and most importantly take up the role of transforming it as they did in the 80s and 90s compared to being a whiny little 4 year old throwing their toys out of the pram of the 2000s and 2010s. They need a new generation of politicians to replace the current three stooges show going on and that's only going to happen through a grass root revolution due to pain and holding the current crop accountable for said pain.

Samaris

BoatMad wrote: »

Can I ask for summaries here , personally I've changed my views to a hard Brexit possibly with no agreement at all

What do posters think at this stage .

I still think it's a cracked idea and so far, it does not appear to be working. It's a disaster I don't see the UK coming out of well.

Admittedly, while I think the Tories are destroying themselves, inertia tells and they might survive for that reason alone, plus keeping Labour out. Much like if there was an amazingly inept Fianna Fail here*, so inept that they look like destroying themselves. The only thing that might save them is the voting population's fear of Fine Gael and the inertia of "there's always been a FF and I've always voted for them". (Reread with FG in there if you prefer, tis much of a muchness)

*I know what the anti-FFers will say, but I mean Brexit-inept level! Whatever else they've gotten up to (and haven't there been a lot), they've not managed such a catastrophic head-eating exercise yet.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

The problems with the European Union for the British aren't because people aren't European. It was because people felt the European Union have too much control over British affairs. From where I stand that's still a legitimate standpoint and it is still a legitimate standpoint to say that taking back control will be good for Britain in the long term. I'm convinced this is the right decision. When the only arguments for staying in a bloc are threats it's time to go.

For years I worked for a number of companies, I felt they had too much control over my time, how I prioritised work, who I should or shouldn't work with. So when I took back control and started working for myself I was looking forward to managing my working day, doing what I felt needed to be done first, selecting y own customers. How wrong was I. Being self employed ment my customers set what felt like unrealistic time lines to me but that's why they use a contractor. I soon realised I had less control of my time and less say in when work would be done. Of course I could chose not to work with certain people, but there really wasn't a line of people waiting for me to work with them.
This is how I see brexit, far away fields and all that. If they want to sell into the EU then the products and services will have to comply with EU or USA rules and legislation. But unlike now, costly infrastructures to ensure compliance will have to be setup. Also being outside the UK will have no say in how the EU develops.
Of course the UK can decide not to trade with the EU, but are they sure there's a line of countries wanting to trade with them on equal or better terms than they either currently have or may negoatate with the EU. If not, taking back control is just a smoke and mirror catch phrase with no substance behind it.
What control does the EU have that the UK wants back, some specifics please

steddyeddy

David Davis admits UK might only get "bare bones" deal. So can Davis apologise to people for telling them that people will be queuing up to do a deal with Britain? From the Evening Standard.

Britain could end up with a “bare bones” Brexit deal which business chiefs are warning could further hit the economy, a Cabinet minister admitted today.

Brexit Secretary David Davis also told MPs that he believes the UK can get agreement with Brussels on a trade deal within a year - an aim which many experts have dismissed as over-optimistic.

He also outlined the Government’s aim to agree the “form” of a transition deal, possibly of two years, in December, or at least shortly afterwards.
s

However, Mr Davis stressed that Britain wanted all the negotiations to be concluded, including on the trade deal and transition/implementation period by Brexit Day in March 2019.


Davis expects 'exciting' Brexit negotiations to go down to the wire
He also made clear that he expects the negotiations may well go down to the wire as often happens in EU talks and that the UK does not want to be having to agree a trade deal after March 2019. given that its negotiating position could be weakened having already left the EU.

Appearing before the Commons Brexit committee, Mr Davis said: “What we are intending to do is get the form of the implementation period agreed quickly - December or thereabouts. But we want to conclude the overall negotiation by 2019,” he said.


“Are you going from where we are now to a free trade agreement? Are you going from where we are now to what you might call a bare bones agreement, which is WTO (World Trade Organisation) plus agreements on the fundamentals like aviation, and so on? So you need to know where you are going.

“We are aiming for the conclusion of negotiations on all fronts - on the grounds that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - by the end of March 2019.”

A Government spokesman said: “'We are leaving the EU in March 2019 and have committed to a meaningful vote in Parliament on the final deal once it has been negotiated. Today the Secretary of State was asked a number of hypothetical questions about the process but to be clear: the final deal will be agreed before we leave, and MPs will get a vote on it.”

Business chiefs have warned that having to rely on WTO rules to trade with the Continent, which would mean more tariffs on cars and other goods, would hit the economy.

Mr Davis also indicated that Britain may pay billions of pounds for EU pension liabilities as part of a political deal.

Asked about a demand for a payment reported to be up to £10 billion pounds towards the pensions of current European Commission officials, he said: I will have to make some political judgments later on, rather than legal ones.

“The legal basis is not strong for many of the claims.”

Mr Davis confirmed that the EU side had discussed a total “divorce” payment of 100 billion euros at one stage, saying the sum “was one of the aspirations”.

British legal experts have advised the Government that there is no legal requirement on the UK to pay a Brexit settlement, according to Whitehall sources. However, Theresa May last week signalled that she is prepared to pay tens of billions for the sake of a trade agreement.

In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister confirmed she will pay for existing budget commitments, adding up to around £18 billion.

But in the Brussels summit last week she signalled she could agree more, telling leaders of the 27 other countries that the Florence speech was “not the final word”.

Mr Davis’ today comments came after Theresa May appeared to suggest in the Commons that there could be no deal on a transition until there was agreement on Britain’s future relationship with EU - including a potential deal on free trade.

Her intervention led to warnings that businesses could be facing a “cliff edge” break when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019 if there is no overall deal.

Pressed by committee chairman Hilary Benn on whether he thought a free trade and customs agreement could be concluded in a year, he said: “Yes.”

The leaders of the other 27 EU member states agreed in Brussels last week to begin discussions among themselves on the transitional arrangements.

Mr Davis also told American banking chiefs not to “waste your money” by starting now to move staff and offices from the City to Frankfurt or Paris.

“If I was being asked this in front of a bunch of American bankers I would give them advice to save their money for the moment, at least until January,” he said.

Goldman Sachs has piled pressure on the Government over the Brexit talks, with the US bank’s chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, saying he expected to be “spending a lot more time” in Frankfurt.

solodeogloria

Gerry T wrote: »

What control does the EU have that the UK wants back, some specifics please

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

Here's one of the clearest posts I've put forward:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
• Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
• Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)
• Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There's no point repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Absolutely none of that was specified in the referendum vote.

This is a key example of why I consider the referendum to have been extremely poorly executed.

Calina

Also both Canada and Australia have raw materials.

First Up

Calina wrote:

Also both Canada and Australia have raw materials.

76% of Canadian exports go to the US. Almost 70% of Australian exports go to Asia (33% to China.)

Raw materials make up the bulk of both countries' exports. (Canada also supplies automotive parts to the US motor industry under NAFTA.)

They are both spectacularly bad as models for what the UK can do outside the EU.

Pablo Escobar

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

Here's one of the clearest posts I've put forward:


There's no point repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Of course the UK can stand on it's own two feet. But getting to a stage where it can thrive on it's own will likely take years and a lot of pain is likely to be felt. There is lot's of unwinding to do from the EU which need to be re-built on an, as yet, unclear pathway. People can point to the fact that unwinding needs to take place and claim the the EU is "controlling" but the structuring of these agreements and legislation has co-incided with and incredibly sustained period of economic growth and prosperity for the UK. I'd take that idea of being controlled in a heartbeat. As I mentioned there is no obvious pathway to fix this in a hard Brexit scenario in a manner that will allow the UK to thrive in the short-term. This is what the remainders are querying and the Brexiters are failing to answer. The Government is currently holding the poison chalice and I'm not sure the have a remedy.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

Here's one of the clearest posts I've put forward:


There's no point repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Canada and Australia are major exporters of the raw materials the rest of the world needs. The UK exports credit cards and insurance policies instead.

Edit: sorry beaten to it. As mentioned above, terrible examples to give.

Samaris

murphaph wrote: »

Canada and Australia are major exporters of the raw materials the rest of the world needs. The UK exports credit cards and insurance policies instead.

Edit: sorry beaten to it. As mentioned above, terrible examples to give.

More than that, Britain's manufacturing tends to rely on imported raw materials. That's why even with a weak Sterling, there's little benefit from it in that sector.

mickoneill31

solodeogloria wrote: »

Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)
Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

1: They already had that. Other EU countries have control over EU economic migration.

2: There are endless debates over which is the bigger number. The benefits the UK gets from the EU or the amount the UK pays to the EU.

3: Control of laws. Last I checked the UK was a member of the EU and was involved in making those laws. And many of those laws they want control of are now just being rolled into the UK statute books without many changes. Ah well, at least they have control. Those Henry VIII powers are really handing over control alright. Are they handing it over to the right people though?
The irony here is that if the UK wants to continue trading with the EU it's probably in the future going to have to accept EU laws without any say in their formation. So they're taking back control, and losing a lot.

4: This is the best one. Increase trade with their much smaller trading partners at the expense of trade with their largest. They'll have control of their trade policy as long as the other members of the WTO don't cause them problems. You know, members such as the US who promised a "beautiful trade deal". Their actions in the last month or two with the WTO and with Bombardier may indicate that Trump meant that the trade deal would be beautiful for the US. Which makes sense. Any country that is negotiating with the UK now knows that they're over a barrel. They're not going to do the UK any favours.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)

• Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
• Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
• Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)
• Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

When the High Court and the Supreme Court passed judgement on the UK Gov saying they had to have a Parliament vote of Brexit, they were called Traitors by the Brexit gutter press. So much for accepting the judgements of the UK Courts.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

Here's one of the clearest posts I've put forward:


There's no point repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Australia regrets the hurriedly agreed FTA with the USA which has damaged their economy.

So getting back control might get the UK economy screwed, plus open the door to GMO food and chlorinated chicken. Good luck with that.

The Rape of Lucretia

mickoneill31 wrote: »

1: They already had that.

2: There are endless debates over which is the bigger number.

3: Control of laws.

4: This is the best one.

1) Not really - other EU citizens could get into the UK. Brexit gives full control of preventing undesirables from the undesirable EU nations from being able to get in.

2) When the extra money the UK can earn through doing its own trade deal post Brexit, the UK will be better off even without the money it gets back from the EU.

3) That is not FULL control. Involvement in making laws that apply in your country and, 100% control of making them are not at all the same thing.

4) There are a lot more people in the rest of the world, than are in the EU.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On
The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is absurd. The problem is that Canada and the US have long established trading deals with other countries. Both countries have numerous resources and vast internal markets. The UK to be fair is a country that was struggling economically until it joined the single market.

carrickbally

captainspeed wrote: »

I think a lot of you are being very harsh on the English - certainly the under 45s (who let's not forget voted to remain).

I actually live in the North of England, and in a city that voted to leave (although very narrowly), yet I can 100% say that my nationality has never been an issue in the five and a bit years I've been here. The English have been very, very good to me and I've been able to make plenty of English friends.

If you take away the politics, we have far more in common with them than we wish to admit. I just wish they could see how much they have in common with their fellow Europeans, the younger generation get it, the older ones not really.

Harsh or otherwise we have to recognise the truth.

Being over 80% of the UK electorate the English decided the result.

Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against Brexit.

Decades of anti-EU propaganda by the gutter London media resulted in an English racist decision to wage economic war on fellow European citizens.

The consequences are the tearing up of the treaty the UK signed with nearly thirty other European democracies and the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement signed with this country.

The latter will result in a hard border on this island since both the customs union and the free movement of people have been rejected by the Brexit decision.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

76% of Canadian exports go to the US. Almost 70% of Australian exports go to Asia (33% to China.)

Raw materials make up the bulk of both countries' exports. (Canada also supplies automotive parts to the US motor industry under NAFTA.)

They are both spectacularly bad as models for what the UK can do outside the EU.

Norway is also an exporter of materials , food and energy.
Iceland uses it's energy to process aluminium.

Also the whole Bombardier thing should have been a wake up call to the UK. If the US is willing to shaft Canada even though it has lots of raw materials they need then how is the UK going to get a better deal ??

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also the whole Bombardier thing should have been a wake up call to the UK. If the US is willing to shaft Canada even though it has lots of raw materials they need then how is the UK going to get a better deal ??

With a stiff upper lip, some British wit and that special relationship between Trump and Nigel.

Seriously though I don't think they (as in the main driving politicians etc.) ever gave a damn; they got paid/told to get UK out of EU and know they will move on to cushy paid "consultant" jobs afterwards in the companies that swoop in and benefit from the car crash. In a few cases I'm sure it's a case of nostalgia of rebuilding the empire in one form or another, simply valuing "an independent UK" or simply (like Boris) were simply opportunists but in general they simply got paid and told what to do and got on with it.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But that's not really specific, look at the each in a bit more detail:

Borders: The UK are taking back control, except they don't want a border between the north/south. So anyone can enter IRL and get a boat to "the mainland". Plus the negotiations are heading in a direction where EU citizens will have free access to the UK provided they have a job. SO no real change then. (note under current rules any eu country can return another eu country citizen if they don't get work in 3 months).

Money: There is alot of confussion in what the UK pays, what its nett contribution is, lets say its 8bn, but that's made up of a contribution based on GDP plus duty and part of VAT. The duty in 2015 was 3.1bn, that brings it down to 5bn. The VAT portion wold reduce this even further.
https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2017/04/04/336250/beginner-s-guide-customs-duties
As a whole the UK is well below the average contributor to the EU as a percentage of each countries gross national income.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf

The question is how much of the UK contributed Duty and VAT to the EU, will the EU lose. Very hard to say as a proportion of the goods entering the UK find themselves eventually in Europe, post brexit these goods may go direct from outside the EU to the EU and not the UK. That will also bring VAT contributions for simular goods sold from the EU to 3rd countries that the UK currently sell to.
As for the UK, it doesn't have any trade deals, if it wants a free trade deal it won't charge duty on incoming goods, so it won't see the 3.1bn, similarly if it doesn't charge vat to stay competitive it will not see that money.

There's a-lot of unknowns but to simply say 8 or 9bn is coming back to the UK isn't looking at the details.

Laws: This is also an interesting one. The ECJ only interprets the meaning of the law's, the UK courts apply that interpretation to the facts. These are separate and non conflicting powers. You can argue that inside the EU there are laws that must be adopted by each member state, but these laws are only in connection with trade. For example post brexit the UK can bring in chlorinated chickens from the USA, but unless it can demonstrate to the EU that any chickens it exports to the EU are from non-chlorinated stock, the UK won't be allowed to export chickens to the EU. The same will apply for ALL goods. So in other words the UK can write its own laws regarding trade, but if it wants to sell into the EU, it will have to follow EU laws. So put another way, you have control, to do what you want, provided you align with the EU :rolleyes: of course you could run parallel agencies overlooking goods sold domestically and those exported to the EU.

Trade Policy: There has been a lot of debate here on this, my understanding is the UK will over time agree trade agreements with loads of countries. Ignoring the time this may take (which is probably decades and not years) the burning question is can the UK broker a trade agreement with other countries that are as good as, or better than the deal they have channelled through the EU. Yes the UK is smaller and should be more flexible, it can also be more focused in what it can offer and what it wants. But on the other hand the size of its market is far less attractive than what the EU can offer. It's also demonstrating a serious naivety through the brexit process, which is understandable due to not being out in the big bad world for more than 60 yrs. My own opinion is the trade deals outside the EU won't be as good for the UK standing alone, but time will tell.

I don't see why your surprised, I'm trying to see some more flesh on the bone from the UK perspective, other than "we won't pay unless we get a good deal" or "the EU is holding us back" or "pesky foreigners" . Don't get me wrong, I import product from the UK which I will find difficult to source from europe with the same level of tech support. So I hope the EU and UK come up with a great trade deal, but if i was a betting man that not where I would put my money

Enzokk

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1) Not really - other EU citizens could get into the UK. Brexit gives full control of preventing undesirables from the undesirable EU nations from being able to get in.

But that's racist and we have been told many many times the immigration vote wasn't racist.

murphaph

carrickbally wrote: »

Harsh or otherwise we have to recognise the truth.

Being over 80% of the UK electorate the English decided the result.

Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against Brexit.

Decades of anti-EU propaganda by the gutter London media resulted in an English racist decision to wage economic war on fellow European citizens.

The consequences are the tearing up of the treaty the UK signed with nearly thirty other European democracies and the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement signed with this country.

The latter will result in a hard border on this island since both the customs union and the free movement of people have been rejected by the Brexit decision.

It's not fair to blame the English exclusively. London voted remain. If all the Scots had voted remain it would have gone the other way.

solodeogloria

Gerry T wrote: »

But that's not really specific, look at the each in a bit more detail:

Borders: The UK are taking back control, except they don't want a border between the north/south. So anyone can enter IRL and get a boat to "the mainland". Plus the negotiations are heading in a direction where EU citizens will have free access to the UK provided they have a job. SO no real change then. (note under current rules any eu country can return another eu country citizen if they don't get work in 3 months).

Money: There is alot of confussion in what the UK pays, what its nett contribution is, lets say its 8bn, but that's made up of a contribution based on GDP plus duty and part of VAT. The duty in 2015 was 3.1bn, that brings it down to 5bn. The VAT portion wold reduce this even further.
https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2017/04/04/336250/beginner-s-guide-customs-duties
As a whole the UK is well below the average contributor to the EU as a percentage of each countries gross national income.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf

The question is how much of the UK contributed Duty and VAT to the EU, will the EU lose. Very hard to say as a proportion of the goods entering the UK find themselves eventually in Europe, post brexit these goods may go direct from outside the EU to the EU and not the UK. That will also bring VAT contributions for simular goods sold from the EU to 3rd countries that the UK currently sell to.
As for the UK, it doesn't have any trade deals, if it wants a free trade deal it won't charge duty on incoming goods, so it won't see the 3.1bn, similarly if it doesn't charge vat to stay competitive it will not see that money.

There's a-lot of unknowns but to simply say 8 or 9bn is coming back to the UK isn't looking at the details.

Laws: This is also an interesting one. The ECJ only interprets the meaning of the law's, the UK courts apply that interpretation to the facts. These are separate and non conflicting powers. You can argue that inside the EU there are laws that must be adopted by each member state, but these laws are only in connection with trade. For example post brexit the UK can bring in chlorinated chickens from the USA, but unless it can demonstrate to the EU that any chickens it exports to the EU are from non-chlorinated stock, the UK won't be allowed to export chickens to the EU. The same will apply for ALL goods. So in other words the UK can write its own laws regarding trade, but if it wants to sell into the EU, it will have to follow EU laws. So put another way, you have control, to do what you want, provided you align with the EU :rolleyes: of course you could run parallel agencies overlooking goods sold domestically and those exported to the EU.

Trade Policy: There has been a lot of debate here on this, my understanding is the UK will over time agree trade agreements with loads of countries. Ignoring the time this may take (which is probably decades and not years) the burning question is can the UK broker a trade agreement with other countries that are as good as, or better than the deal they have channelled through the EU. Yes the UK is smaller and should be more flexible, it can also be more focused in what it can offer and what it wants. But on the other hand the size of its market is far less attractive than what the EU can offer. It's also demonstrating a serious naivety through the brexit process, which is understandable due to not being out in the big bad world for more than 60 yrs. My own opinion is the trade deals outside the EU won't be as good for the UK standing alone, but time will tell.

I don't see why your surprised, I'm trying to see some more flesh on the bone from the UK perspective, other than "we won't pay unless we get a good deal" or "the EU is holding us back" or "pesky foreigners" . Don't get me wrong, I import product from the UK which I will find difficult to source from europe with the same level of tech support. So I hope the EU and UK come up with a great trade deal, but if i was a betting man that not where I would put my money

Good morning!

I'm going to be short because I've been through this before:

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement. Michel Barnier is pointing to a CETA like arrangement. If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate. That aside I've explained why the 6 month limit on employment is insufficient. The UK needs to have the right to issue controls on contested sectors of employment and be able to decide if people are of good character (criminal record checks) before allowing them into the UK.

2) I don't know about you but I think £8bn is a significant sum of money. It doesn't really matter to me that Britain's contribution is less than average to other member states because I don't think it's worth paying particularly at the loss of control required for membership.

3) I'm speaking of control of laws binding in Britain. Not laws that suppliers need to conform to to export. The UK already needs to conform to EU standards to export to the EU. I don't see that changing. The UK has to conform to American standards before exporting to the US today. That's not massively significant. The freedom to legislate for what happens in the UK in the UK is important however. This is why saying no to ECJ jurisdiction is key.

4) The freedom to expand trade is important. You claim that the UK wouldn't be able to get as good a deal outside the EU with other countries. Firstly I'm not sure if this is actually true. Secondly even if it was true a free trade deal with improved access to new markets is better than none at all.

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

Of course the UK can stand on it's own two feet. But getting to a stage where it can thrive on it's own will likely take years and a lot of pain is likely to be felt. There is lot's of unwinding to do from the EU which need to be re-built on an, as yet, unclear pathway. People can point to the fact that unwinding needs to take place and claim the the EU is "controlling" but the structuring of these agreements and legislation has co-incided with and incredibly sustained period of economic growth and prosperity for the UK. I'd take that idea of being controlled in a heartbeat. As I mentioned there is no obvious pathway to fix this in a hard Brexit scenario in a manner that will allow the UK to thrive in the short-term. This is what the remainders are querying and the Brexiters are failing to answer. The Government is currently holding the poison chalice and I'm not sure the have a remedy.

Why do you think the UK are looking for a transition to the new state?

Yes, the economy will need to readjust to a new reality. My point is that the UK can and will be successful outside of the EU.

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is absurd. The problem is that Canada and the US have long established trading deals with other countries. Both countries have numerous resources and vast internal markets. The UK to be fair is a country that was struggling economically until it joined the single market.

The UK has a much bigger market than Canada by population. I'm sorry but I'm vastly sceptical of both the idea that the UK couldn't succeed outside the EU and I'm vastly sceptical of the claim that the EU was Britain's saviour or indeed not being in the EU was was brought Britain's downfall. It couldn't have been due to mismanagement of the public finances or indeed that the improvements were largely down to economic restructuring under Thatcher.

As for trading relationships with other countries - this is also an absurd argument - the reason why the UK has to reconstruct these is because of the EU. It isn't a good argument for your position.

The logical response to this argument shouldn't be that the UK needs the EU to manage its trade policy. It should be to realise that it is a problem, take back control of it and work hard to build up both trading relationships and a trade negotiation capacity. It's in Britain's interests to have this for itself without relying on the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

@solo...how do you perform background checks at an open border with the republic of Ireland?

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

@solo...how do you perform background checks at an open border with the republic of Ireland?

They have no intention of introducing background checks for people arriving off planes from anywhere.

They will only try to do background checks on people who apply for visas to remain and work or study. Since this is the Home Office we are talking about, the checks will be very, very bad - innocent people will be barred, guilty people will be allowed in, the tabloids will scream for years and years about it.

The sad thing is that this is all entirely predictable.

Gerry T

Enzokk wrote: »

But that's racist and we have been told many many times the immigration vote wasn't racist.

How's it racist, for example hes saying keep out french guy no.1 but let in french guy no.2. French guy 1 could be unemployed, illiterate with 50 convictions for theft. French guy 2 is a leading brain surgeon.

breatheme

The wording "undesirable countries" is quite racist, no matter how you spin it. (The original wording of the post that the post you're quoting was responding to.)

Gerry T

breatheme wrote: »

The wording "undesirable countries" is quite racist, no matter how you spin it. (The original wording of the post that the post you're quoting was responding to.)

Your right, calling a country undesirable is racist, you can't label a country.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement. Michel Barnier is pointing to a CETA like arrangement. If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate. That aside I've explained why the 6 month limit on employment is insufficient. The UK needs to have the right to issue controls on contested sectors of employment and be able to decide if people are of good character (criminal record checks) before allowing them into the UK.

I’m pretty sure that May has already said, in as many words, that she won’t agree to free movement.

On the other hand, the UK has also said that they want to maintain the common travel area and have a low-impact border in Ireland. And (if we take them at their word on this) that draws some fairly significant red lines (to borrow a phrase) around what they can do to limit free movement. Most obviously, tThey can’t do anything that relies significantly on policing at the border, since any such policing could easily be circumvented by entering the UK via the Irish border.

(They could, in theory, police the island borders of Great Britain,tacitly allowing free movement within Northern Ireland but not Britain, but I think there are huge political and practical objections to that.)

That means, I think, that the controls on free movement have to be, in substance, implemented through employment, tax, social security, etc systems.

Which is going to be a challenge, because that is completely the opposite of how the UK has implemented its migration policies since, basically, forever, which has been to take advantage of the UK’s island character, and rely entirely on border controls. Changing this will require a fundamental rethink, and the design and construction of new systems on a fairly large scale. It’s also going to require the co-operation of countless employers, schools, estate agents, etc (so much for Brexit leading to a reduction in red tape). And British citizens are going to have to get used to the idea that they need to demonstrate their British citizenship status in order to take up a job, sign on for benefits, rent a flat, register with a GP or a school, etc.

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) I don't know about you but I think £8bn is a significant sum of money.

It is a signficant sum of money. But of course the UK does get something in return, which is unparalleled unrestricted access to the world’s largest market, which boosts the UK’s GDP, and the UK government’s tax revenues, by sums which probably exceed £8bn and which are, therefore, even more significant. The UK may save £8bn in contributions to the EU budget but it doesn’t follow that they will then have that £8bn to spend in other ways. The net effect of Brexit is likely to be less government revenue to spend elsewhere, not more.

solodeogloria wrote: »

3) I'm speaking of control of laws binding in Britain. Not laws that suppliers need to conform to to export. The UK already needs to conform to EU standards to export to the EU. I don't see that changing. The UK has to conform to American standards before exporting to the US today. That's not massively significant. The freedom to legislate for what happens in the UK in the UK is important however. This is why saying no to ECJ jurisdiction is key.

Not really. UK exports will still have to conform to EU standards, as already noted (though it may now cost manufacturers more to demonstrate that they are compliant with EU standards). Plus, the UK is largely going to have to accept imports which conform to EU standards, because international manufacturers either won’t manufacture to a different UK standard - the market isn’t large enough - or will charge more for doing so, or do so only after catering first of all to the much larger EU market.

Both as sellers and buyers, therefore, the UK is effectively saddled with EU standards. They’ll have the freedom to depart from those standards but it will rarely be in their interests to do so, and consequently they rarely will. The main difference, in practice, is not the the UK will be setting separate standards; it’s that it will no longer have any influence in setting the standards that, as a matter of practicality though not of law, it still has to observe.

solodeogloria wrote: »

4) The freedom to expand trade is important. You claim that the UK wouldn't be able to get as good a deal outside the EU with other countries. Firstly I'm not sure if this is actually true. Secondly even if it was true a free trade deal with improved access to new markets is better than none at all.

But they don’t have none at all. On the contrary, they participate in the largest and freest network of free trade arrangements that the world has ever seen. They’re giving that up, which is not something an enthusiast for free trade should encourage or applaud.

Obviously, on Brexit Day plus one, then they’ll have none at all. From that point any new trade deals they arrive at will expand their trade. But that’s a bit like demolishing your house and then claiming that constructing a chicken coop on the site is a significant enhancement of your property. It’s not, really.

whatstherush

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they don’t have none at all. On the contrary, they participate in the largest and freest network of free trade arrangements that the world has ever seen. They’re giving that up, which is not something an enthusiast for free trade should encourage or applaud.

Obviously, on Brexit Day plus one, then they’ll have none at all. From that point any new trade deals they arrive at will expand their trade. But that’s a bit like demolishing your house and then claiming that constructing a chicken coop on the site is a significant enhancement of your property. It’s not, really.

24 between the US and EU alone (Search by country and nature of agreement here for full list). Brexiteers like to pretend that these don't exist and that the other half of the UK exports are working fine under just WTO alone.

murphaph

I wonder is there an actual figure for pure UK WTO trade, not governed by a FTA or other bilateral deal between the EU and third countries. I suspect it's a vanishingly small percentage of total UK trade.