Brexit discussion thread II

robindch

flatty wrote: »

I am simply flabbergasted at the perversion of democracy here, covered with the fig leaf of a deeply flawed initial vote.

Likewise - last year's referendum was a travesty of democracy.

It is simply disgraceful that today's UK politicians feel they can claim, on the back of a vote which floated through upon a sea of lies, fear and ignorance, that they have free rein to drive a bulldozer through 45 years of patient, if frequently erratic, co-operation and social and economic progress in order to bring themselves to some distant sunlit uplands which none of them can describe and none of them can build.

ancapailldorcha

flatty wrote: »

ALook, I'd not be a mod on this place if you paid me, but this isn't idle conjecture on my part. I was on holidays recently and spent many hours in the company of an individual with the highest level of access to the workings of the current British "government"

Mod: All I am asking you to do is to refrain from insults. Any more questions or comments regarding moderation would be welcomed via PM as they're disrupting the thread.

Thanks.

Jim2007

robindch wrote: »

Democracy by referendum democracy can only work when it's run by responsible politicians delivering clear messages to an informed and unencumbered electorate.

First of all you need to recognize that a referendum in the U.K. is only ever advisory - an option poll if you will and secondly the voters were given a second chance to correct their error at the GE in the light of what came out after the referendum, pulse additional information. And yet they decided to return parties that support BREXIT.

And while I don't like it, we have to accept their strong intention to leave.

Capt'n Midnight

Looks like they are sneaking more things into the Great Repeal Bill.
Add in taking back some of the devolved powers, the Snoopers Charter and other rolling back of rights and the UK is looking a little less democratic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.html

A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.

The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU la

Also looks like another hard choice coming up.
Either officially leave the EEA and thereby stuffing up any chance of keeping customs union or other goodies. Or don't officially leave and it's legal quagmire or at the very least look like someone that can't be trusted to keep deals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-eu-single-market-quit-international-tribunal-risk-no-formal-notice-europe-a7877436.html

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder of upcoming problems that the UK government need to look at.

http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurewylfa-new-nuclear-for-britain-on-the-horizon-5852556/

Britain’s nuclear fleet is ageing, with all of its plants due to begin decommissioning by 2023. Currently, they make up around 20% of baseload power and without them the UK will need to act fast to secure the country’s energy supply.

The three new plants Hinkley C, Moorside and Wylfa all have problems, beyond the normal delays and enormous cost overruns.

Hinkley C depends on EDF who are virtually bankrupt , and there are problems with the construction of existing reactor components.

Moorside depends on Tosbiba who are virtually bankrupt too

Wylfa is being done by Hitachi who have actually built the planned reactor types in Japan but two out of the four have had uptimes of less than 50% , not counting when Japan shut down all the reactors.


It's not the only issue but if the lights start going out...

Samaris

Jim2007 wrote: »

First of all you need to recognize that a referendum in the U.K. is only ever advisory - an option poll if you will and secondly the voters were given a second chance to correct their error at the GE in the light of what came out after the referendum, pulse additional information. And yet they decided to return parties that support BREXIT.

And while I don't like it, we have to accept their strong intention to leave.

Well, they had the choice to return one of two parties (realistically) who were both branding themselves pro-Brexit, so that's a bit of a Hobsons's Choice there.

Yeah, the rest of us have to accept their choice - as likely do the remaining Remainers because I don't see it changing now. But it is almost certainly a bad idea to do right now and with this government in charge, it's so far been fairly disastrous. There has also been a distinct lack of giving a damn what this abrupt stumble out of the EU will do to all their neighbours and trading partners, because fundamental decency got lost with fundamental common sense.

robindch

Jim2007 wrote: »

And while I don't like it, we have to accept their strong intention to leave.

The vote went the way it did because the current batch of politicians in the UK chose to lie with one red bus and a choir of thousands; the right-wing media kicked up an offensive poo-storm in full support of an offensive campaign of jingoistic, chauvinistic nationalism; and what should have been the responsible media in the middle chose to present not a balance between separate political interpretations of the same basic facts, but two opposing sets of talking points, at least one of which was based upon toxic nationalism and the idiocy of combustible fools.

I cannot understand why anybody could believe for one moment that this was a carefully-delivered result, provided with the clear and unambiguous consent of an informed, unencumbered public.

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, the rest of us have to accept their choice - as likely do the remaining Remainers because I don't see it changing now.

As above, there can be a second referendum to "approve" whatever deal Boris, Dave, Michael and Teresa can conjure up over the next year. This could be politically acceptable to the majority of the public and provide an off-ramp from the current disastrous foolishness.

However, that unfortunately, would require Corbyn or May to put their country's interest ahead of the interest of their own careers and their own political parties and both have comfortably demonstrated that this just ain't going to happen.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

As above, there can be a second referendum to "approve" whatever deal Boris, Dave, Michael and Teresa can conjure up over the next year. This could be politically acceptable to the majority of the public and provide an off-ramp from the current disastrous foolishness.

However, that unfortunately, would require Corbyn or May to put their country's interest ahead of the interest of their own careers and their own political parties and both have comfortably demonstrated that this just ain't going to happen.

It would also require the EU-27 to be willing - unanimously - to allow the UK to revoke the Art 50 notice which it served last March. At the moment the default - if the UK fails to negotiate a leaving deal, or negotiates one but doesn't ratify it - is that the UK leaves with no deal.

I must say that, if I were an EU government, I'd think quite carefully about whether I wanted to expose myself to a rerun of all this. If, late in the day, the UK changes its mind, I'd suggest something like "how about you join the EEA, and if you can pass, say, ten years of good European citizenship without hissy fits, demands for rebates, hysterical campaigns in the press that the politicians do not bother to contradict, then we'll think about full membership? We need to know that you're keen on this, committed to it."

solodeogloria

robindch wrote: »

The vote went the way it did because the current batch of politicians in the UK chose to lie with one red bus and a choir of thousands; the right-wing media kicked up an offensive poo-storm in full support of an offensive campaign of jingoistic, chauvinistic nationalism; and what should have been the responsible media in the middle chose to present not a balance between separate political interpretations of the same basic facts, but two opposing sets of talking points, at least one of which was based upon toxic nationalism and the idiocy of combustible fools.

I cannot understand why anybody could believe for one moment that this was a carefully-delivered result, provided with the clear and unambiguous consent of an informed, unencumbered public.

Good morning!

It depends on your vantage point. I think you need to consider the historical landscape on the European question in British politics.

The reason people voted out is because EU membership doesn't work with British political philosophy. I don't think there's much fruit in rehashing the referendum at this stage.

The Brexit vote was simply the long term result of John Major not putting the Maastricht Treaty to the vote. (Thatcher advised him to do this) Joining the EU rather than the EEC was a huge step for the UK. It should have been subject to public debate.

People point to the fact that it is a complex matter for the UK to leave the EU. It is, but it is only complex because of the amount of integration legal and otherwise that the EU requires. The more and more I see these complexities the more and more I think the UK should have said no to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The UK wasn't suited to EU membership. If the UK had rejected Maastricht then evolving into a different agreement with the EU would have been easier. There would have been less anger over the issue. It's been a ticking time bomb for decades.

I think the UK has done the right thing. The EU continually found Britain holding back further integration a pain in the backside. The UK working out a new and more appropriate deal with the EU which doesn't require the same level of integration and pursuing trade deals with the rest of the world (which constitute a 56% majority of UK trade) is the right thing to do. Improving trade conditions for the majority of trade while keeping as good conditions as possible for trading with the EU is a better outcome than what the UK has now.

You claim that future trade deals are unspecified in your original post as if there's a serious prospect that the UK won't be able to get them. But Iceland has a free trade agreement with China (from what I can see this wasn't done through EFTA) and Australia has a free trade agreement with the US.

You also make it sound like it's an either or decision. Future trade with the EU or pursuing trade elsewhere. But, it's both, that's why it's such a strong argument for taking back control of trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It depends on your vantage point. I think you need to consider the historical landscape on the European question in British politics.

The reason people voted out is because EU membership doesn't work with British political philosophy. I don't think there's much fruit in rehashing the referendum at this stage.

The Brexit vote was simply the long term result of John Major not putting the Maastricht Treaty to the vote. (Thatcher advised him to do this) Joining the EU rather than the EEC was a huge step for the UK. It should have been subject to public debate.

People point to the fact that it is a complex matter for the UK to leave the EU. It is, but it is only complex because of the amount of integration legal and otherwise that the EU requires. The more and more I see these complexities the more and more I think the UK should have said no to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The UK wasn't suited to EU membership. If the UK had rejected Maastricht then evolving into a different agreement with the EU would have been easier. There would have been less anger over the issue. It's been a ticking time bomb for decades.

I think the UK has done the right thing. The EU continually found Britain holding back further integration a pain in the backside. The UK working out a new and more appropriate deal with the EU which doesn't require the same level of integration and pursuing trade deals with the rest of the world (which constitute a 56% majority of UK trade) is the right thing to do. Improving trade conditions for the majority of trade while keeping as good conditions as possible for trading with the EU is a better outcome than what the UK has now.

You claim that future trade deals are unspecified in your original post as if there's a serious prospect that the UK won't be able to get them. But Iceland has a free trade agreement with China (from what I can see this wasn't done through EFTA) and Australia has a free trade agreement with the US.

You also make it sound like it's an either or decision. Future trade with the EU or pursuing trade elsewhere. But, it's both, that's why it's such a strong argument for taking back control of trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This post is simply an exercise in self-delusion.

The EU cannot allow Britain to cherry pick but you ignore that fact. The EU is in an infinitely stronger negotiating position but you ignore that fact. The EU is ready to negotiate but can't as the Tories don't know what they want but you ignore this fact. Sterling has fallen through the floor which is very bad news but you ignore this fact. And so on.

Your posts have become tiresome. Short on engagement with fact but long on tedious and repetitive wishful thinking.

Samaris

Yis are hopeful, solo, but honestly, looking at everything the British leadership has accomplished so far since the referendum, do you really think it's all going well? And the decision itself was based on little more than actual lies. The people were lied to, fell for it, and are now determined to stumble to the cliff edge like lemmings because you can't be going back on a purely advisory referendum, that would be ridiculous! Even as many of the lies were revealed swiftly and the Leave leadership crumbled because they had no more plan for winning than the American GOP party had of a repeal bill. Both sides more wanted to bitch and complain and feel victimised rather than take leadership. But the British people are sadly pretty trusting of leadership and inclined to suck it up and obey, especially if the alternative is going back on a decision. "I don't care if it's raining, Jimmy, we're still going to the beach and it will be lovely."

If the British had a normal, sane, effective leadership, they might be able to pull this off to the eventual benefit of all (as the UK was never a very contented partner of the EU), but at the moment, they're heading for the cliff edge with a glazed expression and the EU negotiators at the sidelines saying "Uh..guys? Don't you want to talk about this?"

steddyeddy

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would also require the EU-27 to be willing - unanimously - to allow the UK to revoke the Art 50 notice which it served last March. At the moment the default - if the UK fails to negotiate a leaving deal, or negotiates one but doesn't ratify it - is that the UK leaves with no deal.

I must say that, if I were an EU government, I'd think quite carefully about whether I wanted to expose myself to a rerun of all this. If, late in the day, the UK changes its mind, I'd suggest something like "how about you join the EEA, and if you can pass, say, ten years of good European citizenship without hissy fits, demands for rebates, hysterical campaigns in the press that the politicians do not bother to contradict, then we'll think about full membership? We need to know that you're keen on this, committed to it."

Guy Verhofstadt, chief negotiator said that if the UK returns it will be sans perks. In other words it will have to accept the Euro.

steddyeddy

So against the wishes of the Irish government May will insist on the previously shot down technological border checks. If this doesn't suit we should veto it and let them wait a little longer before trade talks resume.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-leo-varadkar-customs-union-single-market-dublin-irish-sea-trading-border-a7890061.html#commentsDiv

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It depends on your vantage point. I think you need to consider the historical landscape on the European question in British politics.

The historical landscape has been a mixture of condescending indifference and rank ignorance with the occasional bit of intelligence thrown in. This is not, however, a period in which intelligence is much on display.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reason people voted out is because EU membership doesn't work with British political philosophy. I don't think there's much fruit in rehashing the referendum at this stage.

You're right. EU membership doesn't work all that well with xenophobia. Given that immigration was a key driver of a lot of votes for Brexit, and given the increase in xenophobia and related motivations for crime, you probably are speaking the truth here.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Brexit vote was simply the long term result of John Major not putting the Maastricht Treaty to the vote. (Thatcher advised him to do this) Joining the EU rather than the EEC was a huge step for the UK. It should have been subject to public debate.

I disagree. The Brexit vote was simply the outcome of monumentally poor media performance with respect to the EU for the guts of 20-30 years. Even now, it is evident that newspapers with large readerships, viz the Express, the Mail and the Telegraph are demonstrably biased against the EU, their coverage has been overwhelmingly negative to outright false for a lot of that time. You cannot have a public debate when the media are colluding to push one particular view point.

solodeogloria wrote: »

People point to the fact that it is a complex matter for the UK to leave the EU. It is, but it is only complex because of the amount of integration legal and otherwise that the EU requires. The more and more I see these complexities the more and more I think the UK should have said no to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The UK wasn't suited to EU membership. If the UK had rejected Maastricht then evolving into a different agreement with the EU would have been easier. There would have been less anger over the issue. It's been a ticking time bomb for decades.

What you are basically suggesting is that the UK is incapable of being a grown up country.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think the UK has done the right thing.

For a subset of the population perhaps. But for the UK has a whole it probably is a godawful decision given a) the reliance on the EU for research funding, regional funding and regulations around nuclear material b) trade agreements with a lot of the wealthiest countries in the world bar the US another basket case currently and c) unified standards in a lot of areas .

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU continually found Britain holding back further integration a pain in the backside. The UK working out a new and more appropriate deal with the EU which doesn't require the same level of integration and pursuing trade deals with the rest of the world (which constitute a 56% majority of UK trade) is the right thing to do. Improving trade conditions for the majority of trade while keeping as good conditions as possible for trading with the EU is a better outcome than what the UK has now.

If the UK wants to sell anything into the single market it will have to confirm with EU standards for those items, services. Which hitherto the UK could influence as a rule maker but will now have to accept as a rule taker. The conditions require the UK to accept what the EU demands. This will be true of other markets too. Something a lot of Brexit supporters and Get on with it okay supporters fail to deal with are non-tariff barriers - in many cases they don't seem to understand what that involves. You bang on about MIFID ii which which suggests you have some understanding of the need for common regulatory rules. But you otherwise don't appear to deal with the implications of Britain moving outside the EU in terms of being able to control those rules for one of its biggest markets.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You claim that future trade deals are unspecified in your original post as if there's a serious prospect that the UK won't be able to get them. But Iceland has a free trade agreement with China (from what I can see this wasn't done through EFTA) and Australia has a free trade agreement with the US.

The US-AUS deal is considered to be poor value for the Australians and frankly that is because they were the weaker partner in negotiations. This is the position the UK will be in too. I would bet that similar is true for Iceland.

Getting trade deals is easy if you capitulate to all the bigger country wants. It gets harder when you're not the bigger country. India has already told the UK it's on a loser unless it opens up its borders quite a bit.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You also make it sound like it's an either or decision. Future trade with the EU or pursuing trade elsewhere. But, it's both, that's why it's such a strong argument for taking back control of trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I might even believe that the UK had a chance if they had shown even the slightest bit of competence with regards to trade policy since June 2016. They have not. They have in fact demonstrated spectacular incompetence.

I wish you well, solo, and the UK also, but quite frankly, as long as reality doesn't feature in the considerations, and as long as wishful thinking is the foundation on which your trade policy is built, you're on a loser. And that's before we deal with the fact that I consider Brexit to be utter vandalism on Ireland, Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent, the rest of Europe. The UK has a great need for cooperation from Europe for its ride into isolation not to be catastrophic but is profoundly selfish as to the impact of its decision on its neighbours and hitherto friends and supporters.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

So against the wishes of the Irish government May will insist on the previously shot down technological border checks. If this doesn't suit we should veto it and let them wait a little longer before trade talks resume.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-leo-varadkar-customs-union-single-market-dublin-irish-sea-trading-border-a7890061.html#commentsDiv

Ireland don't have to veto anything; it's known the solution is not fit for purpose in the first place and it's another vague hand waving solution stamped technology. UK is free to reduce their standards to chlorinated washed chicken, steroid and antibiotics pumped meats etc. and allow anything to be imported no matter how poor quality but EU will not and hence if UK wants open imports that's their choice but EU will insist on proper quality checks and meeting EU standards on any imports coming from UK. That in turns means some odd spot checks and another couple of billions on a useless system of technology is not going to cut it and we're going to hard border controls to protect the EU citizens (since UK clearly are looking to abandon their own citizens in terms of quality of products).

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It depends on your vantage point. I think you need to consider the historical landscape on the European question in British politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFBgQpz_E80

Quote = https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister#Episode_Five:_The_Writing_on_the_Wall

From 1980. Sir Humphrey consider the last five hundred years of the historical landscape on the European question in British politics.

And I can see nothing today to suggest they still aren't at it.

Capt'n Midnight

robindch wrote: »

As above, there can be a second referendum to "approve" whatever deal Boris, Dave, Michael and Teresa can conjure up over the next year. This could be politically acceptable to the majority of the public and provide an off-ramp from the current disastrous foolishness.

Wonderful.

Nothing the markets and business love more than the gamble that whatever deal they negotiate could still be thrown out at the last minute by another campaign of lies.

Even if they voted in a referendum to accept the deal it would be too late for many companies who need to set up their contingencies now because they have to prepare for uncertainty now.

Then again since some are talking about rolling back Article 50 (how does that even work ?) so yeah there's certainty in the air.

ThisRegard

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think the UK has done the right thing.

Then why were you against a Leave vote?

oppenheimer1

The proposal for the border now coming from the UK is an interesting development. UK policy appears to be a hard border managed in a soft way which of course is unlikely to function properly. The electronic proposal will lead to manned customs posts.

Since this is ultimately a hard border and the UK appears to want to withdraw front CU and SM, there is really nothing in the proposals for Ireland to stop them from using their veto to a deal pushing the UK out without any agreement.

LeinsterDub

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The proposal for the border now coming from the UK is an interesting development. UK policy appears to be a hard border managed in a soft way which of course is unlikely to function properly. The electronic proposal will lead to manned customs posts.

Since this is ultimately a hard border and the UK appears to want to withdraw front CU and SM, there is really nothing in the proposals for Ireland to stop them from using their veto to a deal pushing the UK out without any agreement.

Indeed they haven't thrown Ireland even the smallest bone. If this is or be their line there is literally no point in continuing the negotiations. Ireland should and would veto.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

There's a couple of interesting posts that I want to engage with.

Samaris wrote: »

Yis are hopeful, solo, but honestly, looking at everything the British leadership has accomplished so far since the referendum, do you really think it's all going well? And the decision itself was based on little more than actual lies. The people were lied to, fell for it, and are now determined to stumble to the cliff edge like lemmings because you can't be going back on a purely advisory referendum, that would be ridiculous! Even as many of the lies were revealed swiftly and the Leave leadership crumbled because they had no more plan for winning than the American GOP party had of a repeal bill. Both sides more wanted to bitch and complain and feel victimised rather than take leadership. But the British people are sadly pretty trusting of leadership and inclined to suck it up and obey, especially if the alternative is going back on a decision. "I don't care if it's raining, Jimmy, we're still going to the beach and it will be lovely."

If the British had a normal, sane, effective leadership, they might be able to pull this off to the eventual benefit of all (as the UK was never a very contented partner of the EU), but at the moment, they're heading for the cliff edge with a glazed expression and the EU negotiators at the sidelines saying "Uh..guys? Don't you want to talk about this?"

Firstly - I think the UK Government have overall done a good job of summarising the outcome of the referendum and highlighting the concerns that were raised in it and coming up with a broad negotiating position as a result. I think that's important, because the electorate won't be fooled.

Secondly - as for the Leave campaign and lies. Yes, I think there were some obvious lies in the leave campaign, but there were also obvious lies in the remain campaign, and in the projections from the Treasury and from other organisations such as the IMF to scare people into voting remain. It isn't honest to say that people only voted leave because they were lied to. There were a number of true advantages that the leave campaign outlined including control over trade policy which are genuine advantages.

Thirdly - on the "advisory" referendum. Yes, in law the referendum may have been advisory but when it was passed through parliament the Government were clear that they would act on the outcome of the referendum. They failed to convince the public that they should remain in the European Union. Therefore the UK is leaving the European Union.

Fourth - I don't think the British are "sucking it up" and "obeying". I think most British people think that getting on and leaving the European Union is the best outcome and that there are a number of good opportunities on the other side. It requires good negotiations with the EU, but there are good opportunities for opening up trade with the wider world. These tend to have been scoffed at without basis from posters here, but it isn't true to say that Brexit is entirely a negative thing.

Fifth - I think some posters on here are still under the illusion that remaining in the European Union is an option for Britain. If you were living in the UK (or at least outside of a metropolitan bubble in and around central London) you would see that this genuinely isn't an option that will be accepted.

Calina wrote: »

The historical landscape has been a mixture of condescending indifference and rank ignorance with the occasional bit of intelligence thrown in. This is not, however, a period in which intelligence is much on display.

Calina wrote: »

You're right. EU membership doesn't work all that well with xenophobia. Given that immigration was a key driver of a lot of votes for Brexit, and given the increase in xenophobia and related motivations for crime, you probably are speaking the truth here.

Sorry, you don't get to interpret "British political culture" as xenophobia. One liners like this from hard EU supporters aren't helpful.

What I mean by British political culture is that British people generally aren't comfortable with binding decisions being made elsewhere about domestic matters. The idea of a technocratic institution in Brussels wasn't an idea that British people were and are comfortable with.

It probably does hit back to a historical precedent, not without some ugly background. Namely that the British haven't been used to being subjugated to external powers. If anything the other way around.

I also don't agree with you that arguing for reasonable controls on migration counts as xenophobia. It doesn't in any other country in the world and it shouldn't in Ireland either.

Calina wrote: »

I disagree. The Brexit vote was simply the outcome of monumentally poor media performance with respect to the EU for the guts of 20-30 years. Even now, it is evident that newspapers with large readerships, viz the Express, the Mail and the Telegraph are demonstrably biased against the EU, their coverage has been overwhelmingly negative to outright false for a lot of that time. You cannot have a public debate when the media are colluding to push one particular view point.

Again, if you were here during the referendum I don't think you would come to this conclusion.

Several British Governments have denied people a vote about further European integration. The public should have been consulted about Maastricht as that was a fundamental change to the previous agreement. They should have also been consulted about Lisbon under Gordon Brown, but they weren't. Eventually this issue was going to boil over.

Most countries have had an obvious reason to be a part of the EU. murphaph claimed that there is a homogenous reason why all European countries wanted to join together in the EU, and that was because of peace in wartime Europe. But that is only Germany's reason. Germany advocated the EEC and the EU because it felt it was the right way to atone for mistakes of the second world war. This isn't why every country in Europe joined the EU. Ireland and the eastern countries joined primarily for additional investment in their respective economies and infrastructure, not because they felt a need to atone for the second world war.

Britain never had a well articulated reason for joining the EU. This is why David Cameron's government failed to give a well articulated reason to stay in the EU to the British voters. Britain wasn't going to gain in terms of capital investment, perhaps in trade, but trade deals could have been done without the EU. EEA membership would have been the offer if the UK had rejected Maastricht (as I believe it should have done). Undoing EEA membership later if they wanted to would have been less cumbersome than Brexit now.

Calina wrote: »

What you are basically suggesting is that the UK is incapable of being a grown up country.

Are you suggesting Ireland was incapable of being a grown up country because it put Maastricht to the vote? This was the right thing to ask the British people about. Thatcher was right. The UK would have been spared a lot of difficulty if it just called it quits early. It's difficult to unravel something later than earlier.

Calina wrote: »

For a subset of the population perhaps. But for the UK has a whole it probably is a godawful decision given a) the reliance on the EU for research funding, regional funding and regulations around nuclear material b) trade agreements with a lot of the wealthiest countries in the world bar the US another basket case currently and c) unified standards in a lot of areas .

"EU funding" is just redistributed British money given that the UK is a net contributor to the EU. The UK will also have £8bn additional funds after Brexit.

Regional funding, research funding and everything else can still be maintained.

Trade deals can be arranged. There's no reason to believe that we need nanny EU to help with either trade policy or with funding.

Calina wrote: »

If the UK wants to sell anything into the single market it will have to confirm with EU standards for those items, services. Which hitherto the UK could influence as a rule maker but will now have to accept as a rule taker. The conditions require the UK to accept what the EU demands. This will be true of other markets too. Something a lot of Brexit supporters and Get on with it okay supporters fail to deal with are non-tariff barriers - in many cases they don't seem to understand what that involves. You bang on about MIFID ii which which suggests you have some understanding of the need for common regulatory rules. But you otherwise don't appear to deal with the implications of Britain moving outside the EU in terms of being able to control those rules for one of its biggest markets.

EDIT:
Subscribing to standards for trading into the EU isn't an issue. I support subscribing to US standards for trading into the US also.

Also on MIFID II - it looks like the US is going to be deemed regulatory equivalent to the EU soon enough. If this happens there's no reason why the UK won't be able to either. It's interesting that it means that countries adopt rules that are in step with the EU, not word for word the same.

The point is that the UK will be able to decide for itself what it wants to integrate and what it doesn't want to integrate into UK law.

Calina wrote: »

The US-AUS deal is considered to be poor value for the Australians and frankly that is because they were the weaker partner in negotiations. This is the position the UK will be in too. I would bet that similar is true for Iceland.

I'm not so sure if the Australians or the Icelanders would agree with your point of view, but in any case, the example is just to show that outward looking trade deals are possible.

Calina wrote: »

Getting trade deals is easy if you capitulate to all the bigger country wants. It gets harder when you're not the bigger country. India has already told the UK it's on a loser unless it opens up its borders quite a bit.

So Canada has a rubbish trade deal with the EU given it's population or is this false?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The proposal for the border now coming from the UK is an interesting development. UK policy appears to be a hard border managed in a soft way which of course is unlikely to function properly. The electronic proposal will lead to manned customs posts.

Since this is ultimately a hard border and the UK appears to want to withdraw front CU and SM, there is really nothing in the proposals for Ireland to stop them from using their veto to a deal pushing the UK out without any agreement.

Please make up your mind. If the EU asks for a hard border to be imposed externally it's the UK's fault. If the UK proposes a light touch border which allows for traffic to move freely, it's "not good enough".

From what I can tell, the document hasn't been published yet. So it needs to be given a read before we can say anything of substance about it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I mean by British political culture is that British people generally aren't comfortable with binding decisions being made elsewhere about domestic matters. The idea of a technocratic institution in Brussels wasn't an idea that British people were and are comfortable with.

It probably does hit back to a historical precedent, not without some ugly background. Namely that the British haven't been used to being subjugated to external powers. If anything the other way around.

I also don't agree with you that arguing for reasonable controls on migration counts as xenophobia. It doesn't in any other country in the world and it shouldn't in Ireland either.

Since you brought it up again, other than immigration, what laws and regulations is so insufferable from the EU that has been forced onto the UK?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not so sure if the Australians or the Icelanders would agree with your point of view, but in any case, the example is just to show that outward looking trade deals are possible.

What are your thoughts on the following though from the FTA between the US and Australia,

The critics were right. Ten years after the Australia–United States free trade agreement (AUSFTA) came into force, new analysis of the data shows that the agreement diverted trade away from the lowest cost sources. Australia and the United States have reduced their trade by US$53 billion with rest of the world and are worse off than they would have been without the agreement.

The costs of Australia’s ‘free trade’ agreement with America/

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Please make up your mind. If the EU asks for a hard border to be imposed externally it's the UK's fault. If the UK proposes a light touch border which allows for traffic to move freely, it's "not good enough".

From what I can tell, the document hasn't been published yet. So it needs to be given a read before we can say anything of substance about it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo, Its not me or Ireland that needs to make up its mind, its the UK government. The UK wants to withdraw from the CU and SM which necessitates customs posts on the border. What the UK appears to be proposing (based upon reports) is an unworkable fudge that will leave Ireland liable to becoming a a smuggling route, and the Irish government on the hook for dealing with the costs of that.

A light touch border and the UK being outside the customs union are two non-compatible positions, its as simple as that. A normal border (hard) will destroy trade and will become a target for dissidents, not to mention being completely unenforceable.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Please make up your mind. If the EU asks for a hard border to be imposed externally it's the UK's fault. If the UK proposes a light touch border which allows for traffic to move freely, it's "not good enough".

From what I can tell, the document hasn't been published yet. So it needs to be given a read before we can say anything of substance about it.

I missed this point. We know that the UK will leave the customs union and the single market.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Hammond and Mr Fox said the UK definitely would leave both the customs union and the single market when it exits the EU in March 2019.

Philip Hammond and Liam Fox in post-Brexit deal call

So how can there be anything but a border, but the UK wants a CTA between Ireland and the UK? Tell me how you see this being possible? The UK wants the CTA to continue, but it is now putting up the "fences" that will prevent this.

So you have been posting a while how the UK has told us what they want to happen regarding the border between the UK and Ireland and how they want nothing to change in effect. But now we have it from the cabinet that they are leaving the customs union and the single market so there will have to be a border for goods at least and if they want to control immigration checks on people would make sense. Do you still share the optimistic view on the border between the UK and Ireland?

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

I missed this point. We know that the UK will leave the customs union and the single market.



Philip Hammond and Liam Fox in post-Brexit deal call

So how can there be anything but a border, but the UK wants a CTA between Ireland and the UK? Tell me how you see this being possible? The UK wants the CTA to continue, but it is now putting up the "fences" that will prevent this.

So you have been posting a while how the UK has told us what they want to happen regarding the border between the UK and Ireland and how they want nothing to change in effect. But now we have it from the cabinet that they are leaving the customs union and the single market so there will have to be a border for goods at least and if they want to control immigration checks on people would make sense. Do you still share the optimistic view on the border between the UK and Ireland?

Good afternoon!

You need to read the post that I'm replying to. The point is that the poster opposes UK proposals to use technology such as number plate recognition so that customs do not need to be handled directly on the border.

The poster opposes this even though it effectively means that the UK are keeping the border open to traffic. The UK get criticised either way. If they are very accommodating, like they are with this proposal (yet to be published) they are criticised. If the EU insist on imposing a harder border still they are criticised.

This is why I've asked the poster to make up his mind because he can't have it both ways. He doesn't have the luxury of saying that the UK want a hard border because they want a light touch border.

To argue that it won't work is one thing but to say its the same as the UK wanting a hard border is just a lie.

EDIT:

Enzokk wrote: »

Since you brought it up again, other than immigration, what laws and regulations is so insufferable from the EU that has been forced onto the UK?

This question misses the point. It's a high level objection about handing over control. British political philosophy isn't compatible with handing over large levels of control over policy as broad as who can fish in British waters to who the UK can establish free trade agreements with. British political philosophy suggests that the British people should be sovereign over British affairs, and the history of the UK backs this up. Maastricht was the mistake. It should have never been agreed to.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Solo, if Ireland mistook the EEC for a purely economic endeavour then we are as guilty as the UK of not reading what's on the tin (ie in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome)

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

This question misses the point. It's a high level objection about handing over control. British political philosophy isn't compatible with handing over large levels of control over policy as broad as who can fish in British waters to who the UK can establish free trade agreements with. British political philosophy suggests that the British people should be sovereign over British affairs, and the history of the UK backs this up. Maastricht was the mistake. It should have never been agreed to.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The customs union was established in 1958 and was a key component of the EEC which the UK joined freely. Nothing to do with Maastricht.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, if Ireland mistook the EEC for a purely economic endeavour then we are as guilty as the UK of not reading what's on the tin (ie in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome)

It's not about if Ireland "mistook" anything. Just because something is in the Treaty of Rome (which is incredibly lofty reading in places, it includes the weasel phrase "an ever closer union" in its preamble).

The point that different countries joined for different reasons is manifest. My point is very simple. Not all countries joined for the same reason. That's obvious.

I don't agree with your argument that all of the countries joined for the same reason that Germany did.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The customs union was established in 1958 and was a key component of the EEC which the UK joined freely. Nothing to do with Maastricht.

You need to read my posts as a whole:

Britain never had a well articulated reason for joining the EU. This is why David Cameron's government failed to give a well articulated reason to stay in the EU to the British voters. Britain wasn't going to gain in terms of capital investment, perhaps in trade, but trade deals could have been done without the EU. EEA membership would have been the offer if the UK had rejected Maastricht (as I believe it should have done). Undoing EEA membership later if they wanted to would have been less cumbersome than Brexit now.

The point about Maastricht and agreeing to further integration without a public vote stands.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - I think the UK Government have overall done a good job of summarising the outcome of the referendum and highlighting the concerns that were raised in it and coming up with a broad negotiating position as a result. I think that's important, because the electorate won't be fooled.

I can't believe you seriously accept this. The electorate was very definitely misled in the run up to the referendum. They are very capable of being fooled.

The outcome of the referendum has not been well summarised in my view because pre-referendum, the outcome of a yes to Brexit vote was not defined at all. This is why the UK has been so badly prepared. In the grand scheme of running referenda, it was incompetent and the ensuing election has demonstrated that the country is very deeply divided. You may think the UK government have overall done a good job but the Tory party was not returned with a majority which suggests the electorate at large does not agree. Of course you can argue they were fooled in both the referendum and the election. Taken together, they suggest that clarity is lacking.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - as for the Leave campaign and lies. Yes, I think there were some obvious lies in the leave campaign, but there were also obvious lies in the remain campaign, and in the projections from the Treasury and from other organisations such as the IMF to scare people into voting remain. It isn't honest to say that people only voted leave because they were lied to. There were a number of true advantages that the leave campaign outlined including control over trade policy which are genuine advantages.

Elements of pooling power in trade policy comes with very distinct advantages, which the UK knows as they have been busy to point out the opportunities brought with the Canada-EU trade deal.

Much of what the Remain campaign suggested as possible is coming on stream. The currency drop was immediate and the economic figures are turning downwards now as well.

But I agree. It isn't true that people voted out because they were misled. Many people just have had an irrational dislike of the EU for years. You can see this in BTL discussions on UK sites which can be very irrational.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - on the "advisory" referendum. Yes, in law the referendum may have been advisory but when it was passed through parliament the Government were clear that they would act on the outcome of the referendum. They failed to convince the public that they should remain in the European Union. Therefore the UK is leaving the European Union.

David Allen Green wrote extensively on this. Quite frankly I think the issue is that no one in the UK government seriously thought their electorate would be stupid enough to vote out so of course they said up front they would implement the decision. They expected the decision to be "Stay".

Personally I think the UK government should have
a) contingency planned a Brexit vote
b) defined up front the outcome of a Brexit vote

It did neither.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Fourth - I don't think the British are "sucking it up" and "obeying". I think most British people think that getting on and leaving the European Union is the best outcome and that there are a number of good opportunities on the other side.

There tends to be a bit of handwaving about trade but no one has actually clearly enumerated the benefits and opportunities on the other side. The potential losses caused by leaving the EU have been calculated to exceed the possible growth options from ROW. Most British people in my view dislike uncertainty so they want whatever is happening to happen in the short term. It would be naive to assume that people in favour of EU membership will leave it at that though. After all, the anti-EU brigade campaigned for a long long time to have their second referendum.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Fifth - I think some posters on here are still under the illusion that remaining in the European Union is an option for Britain. If you were living in the UK (or at least outside of a metropolitan bubble in and around central London) you would see that this genuinely isn't an option that will be accepted.

I actually don't think this is true. I think when the economic cost starts to bite, you will find people start to re-examine reality versus what they were promised.

However, in practical terms, the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 and absent a fudge, there isn't a way around that, even with a second referendum. I've noted already that I think that discussions around a referendum regarding any exit agreement need to be clearly defined as a choice between this agreement and crashing out. It is not a choice between this agreement and staying in the EU. I really don't think this is made clear enough at all in any discussion I have seen on the matter. The UK has already had one referendum where there was a dearth of clear discussion rather than tabloid headline focused discussion. They really don't need a second.

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I mean by British political culture is that British people generally aren't comfortable with binding decisions being made elsewhere about domestic matters. The idea of a technocratic institution in Brussels wasn't an idea that British people were and are comfortable with.

Ironically, the vast majority of people I have heard voice this kind of opinion have also demonstrated that they do not really understand either the EU or the history of certain decisions around it. If you're familiar with the concept of subsidiarity, you'll be aware that binding decisions are generally not made about domestic matters and that domestic matters broadly remain with the most appropriate local authority. John Major was responsible for that by the way

But that being said, the UK is a member of the UN, NATO and the WTO. It's grand with pooling sovereignty as a concept really. Plus some people want to join EFTA too.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It probably does hit back to a historical precedent, not without some ugly background. Namely that the British haven't been used to being subjugated to external powers. If anything the other way around.

I have mixed feelings with this. As far as I know, the generations with some experience of WW1 and WW2 broadly voted to stay in the EU although the next generation after them, also over 60 tipped in the other direction.

But this however is not a rational reason for committing an act of utter economic vandalism on itself.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also don't agree with you that arguing for reasonable controls on migration counts as xenophobia. It doesn't in any other country in the world and it shouldn't in Ireland either.

The UK has signally failed to exert reasonable controls on those immigrants it can control. Anyone who thinks they will control anything post Brexit is naive in the least. The point is, every country does exert control on migration. The UK hasn't even bothered to apply rules under EU legislation which could limit EU numbers.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Several British Governments have denied people a vote about further European integration. The public should have been consulted about Maastricht as that was a fundamental change to the previous agreement. They should have also been consulted about Lisbon under Gordon Brown, but they weren't. Eventually this issue was going to boil over.

The UK is a representative democracy with no history of referendums on the scale of Ireland. Decisions of this nature are and have historically been taken by Parliament acting in the interest of the people with a recognition that sometimes the interests of the people may not align with what is popular. The public is regularly consulted via election in terms of who they wish to act on their behalf.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Most countries have had an obvious reason to be a part of the EU. murphaph claimed that there is a homogenous reason why all European countries wanted to join together in the EU, and that was because of peace in wartime Europe. But that is only Germany's reason. Germany advocated the EEC and the EU because it felt it was the right way to atone for mistakes of the second world war. This isn't why every country in Europe joined the EU. Ireland and the eastern countries joined primarily for additional investment in their respective economies and infrastructure, not because they felt a need to atone for the second world war.

The ECSC which is the fore-runner to all of that was not a German invention. It was dreamed up by Jean Monnet and announced in a speech by Robert Schumann, a French foreign minister. In the context of its time which is five years after the war, it was a big risk.

The UK and people like you bring up Germany constantly. But the underlying rationale was to lock countries together in trade so that they wouldn't fight it out in war. What the UK ceases to recall is that it joined EFTA and left it to join the EU because ultimately, trade dictated.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain never had a well articulated reason for joining the EU. This is why David Cameron's government failed to give a well articulated reason to stay in the EU to the British voters.

And yet Britain found a reason to leave EFTA and join the EEC in 1973. And held a referendum on the matter in 1975 which resulted in staying. Providing a counterweight to France and Germany is a very good one though, and one which the UK often fulfilled.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain wasn't going to gain in terms of capital investment, perhaps in trade, but trade deals could have been done without the EU. EEA membership would have been the offer if the UK had rejected Maastricht (as I believe it should have done). Undoing EEA membership later if they wanted to would have been less cumbersome than Brexit now.

But Britain did not reject Maastricht and do not forget that they were involved in negotiating Maastricht as members. They had the opportunity to influence. It wasn't, as it were, done to them.

As some of the discussion around Brexit has included EFTA membership and remaining in the EEA, I think it would still be on the table if Norway agrees although I wouldn't blame Norway for vetoing this for any reason. They've already walked out on EFTA once and are walking out on the EU at present. It is not hard to see why there may be some concern that the UK is not to be trusted in terms of international trade organisations at present along with changes it may cause in the balance within EFTA. Plus of course, that brings back with it EEA membership and freedom of movement which is one of the UK's (current) red lines.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Are you suggesting Ireland was incapable of being a grown up country because it put Maastricht to the vote? This was the right thing to ask the British people about. Thatcher was right. The UK would have been spared a lot of difficulty if it just called it quits early. It's difficult to unravel something later than earlier.

The UK's difficulties at present are self inflicted via the Brexit vote.

However, Ireland has a joined up constitution which requires certain matters to be put to referendum and when it runs those referendums, the discussions tend to be reasonably indepth and not trial by tabloid.

The UK has a representative democracy and its constitutional law, such as exists, provides for delegation of decisions of this nature. It is not grown up to have referendums which a population is not accustomed to and which are not necessary.

Ultimately, the fact that the UK negotiated an agreement, agreed to it, and you claim, should now not have done that because it's hard, isn't it, is not a grown up position to take.

solodeogloria wrote: »

"EU funding" is just redistributed British money given that the UK is a net contributor to the EU. The UK will also have £8bn additional funds after Brexit.

Except it won't. A great deal of activities currently pooled with Europe will have to be replicated in the UK. The 8 billion additional funds depends on an all other things remaining equal basis which is an unwise assumption given that a substantial amount of trade may move out of the UK and tax take may fall. The one thing I think is reasonably clear is that the UK will not have a lot of spare cash knocking around.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Regional funding, research funding and everything else can still be maintained.

Research funding depended on EU in the UK because the UK authorities are incredibly stingy. Additionally, Cornwall and Wales have been given zero comfort that their regional funding will continue post Brexit. The farmers, likewise, have been told they will have to "earn" their keep. In a country which already cannot feed itself.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Trade deals can be arranged. There's no reason to believe that we need nanny EU to help with either trade policy or with funding.

Well on the trade policy front, I'd dispute that. Liam Fox has not been covering himself with glory here.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not so sure if the Australians or the Icelanders would agree with your point of view, but in any case, the example is just to show that outward looking trade deals are possible.

Have a read of this on Australia-US. I haven't looked at Iceland-China in much detail so I'm not going to comment only to point out that China is a far bigger economy than Iceland and so can make greater demands in certain respects. A lot depends on whether their interests dovetail and when the agreement was signed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So Canada has a rubbish trade deal with the EU given it's population or is this false?

Actually I did not state that it was anything to do with population. I stated weaker countries would do worse out of trade deals. The UK will desperately need trade deals. This puts the UK in a weaker position.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Please make up your mind. If the EU asks for a hard border to be imposed externally it's the UK's fault. If the UK proposes a light touch border which allows for traffic to move freely, it's "not good enough".

The UK is currently looking for a hard border. It just thinks it can have an invisible one. This is part of what happens if you want to be outside a customs union and single market. The EU doesn't demand a hard border; it is a logical outcome of a decision to leave a customs union.

As it happens, the UK is in the process of a major customs IT project which was projected on the basis of continued EU membership. The vibes I get is that scaling it may be difficult.

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to read my posts as a whole:


The point about Maastricht and agreeing to further integration without a public vote stands.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You argued there that the EU limits what states from negotiating their own free trade deals with third parties. I'm simply stating that this has always been the case since the UK joined the EEC. i.e. If British political philosophy was fundamentally opposed to this idea, then they would never have joined the EEC.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't agree with your argument that all of the countries joined for the same reason that Germany did.

Pedantic point.

Germany never joined the EEC or the EU. It was West Germany that joined. East Germany and West Germany became Germany and East Germany became members as a result.

Would East Germany have voted to join the EU? Would West Germany have voted for it? They were not asked, so a moot point.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I won't reply to absolutely every block of text line by line, but I'll comment on some interesting bits in passing.

Calina wrote: »

Ironically, the vast majority of people I have heard voice this kind of opinion have also demonstrated that they do not really understand either the EU or the history of certain decisions around it. If you're familiar with the concept of subsidiarity, you'll be aware that binding decisions are generally not made about domestic matters and that domestic matters broadly remain with the most appropriate local authority. John Major was responsible for that by the way

But that being said, the UK is a member of the UN, NATO and the WTO. It's grand with pooling sovereignty as a concept really. Plus some people want to join EFTA too.

On pooling sovereignty - I think my argument against comparing the UN and NATO and the WTO is that they have very different functions and that none of these organisations required the same amount of control to be given away as the European Union required.

I think this is a nuance in my position that I conceded to murphaph a few posts ago in good faith. Yes, collaboration is good, but it depends on how much control an organisation asks you to give and on what the possibilities are for change later when circumstances change.

Calina wrote: »

I have mixed feelings with this. As far as I know, the generations with some experience of WW1 and WW2 broadly voted to stay in the EU although the next generation after them, also over 60 tipped in the other direction.

But this however is not a rational reason for committing an act of utter economic vandalism on itself.

I don't agree that leaving the EU is economic vandalism given the opportunities that become open to Britain as a result. I suspect you know this is my position, so there's probably not much point going back and forward on this particular point.

However, I think the political philosophy point is important. It explains the psyche of the leave voter and also the overriding philosophy of the nation at large.

I think the reason why Cameron had to phrase the referendum as a cost benefit analysis is because he knew he had no overriding reason for Britain's continued membership of the EU. Therefore the campaign was fought on "project fear". I think that's a fair point.

Gordon Brown did slightly better at invoking the national memory of World War 2 in a video in the shelled out Coventry Cathedral. But, again, this isn't Britain's reason for joining the EU. It joined much later. It's Germany's reason for being in the EU. That's why it didn't register with the British public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgwtfWYdTs

This is a point worth thinking about. Political philosophy matters and it explains a lot.

Calina wrote: »

The UK has signally failed to exert reasonable controls on those immigrants it can control. Anyone who thinks they will control anything post Brexit is naive in the least. The point is, every country does exert control on migration. The UK hasn't even bothered to apply rules under EU legislation which could limit EU numbers.

I think I agree with you, but when we're looking to the referendum we need to think not just about what the Government has done. The Government was in favour of EU membership in 2016, so it isn't an accurate reflection of a leave voter.

There's also more complexity in this. Non-EU immigrants aren't the same as EU immigrants in a number of respects.

They are subject to controls on wage, and on qualifications. They are not available for low skilled visas in the current environment. They need proof of earnings above a certain amount. There are of course people who come on student visas and break the rules, but there are lot more restrictions on what part of the economy they actually work in.

They are also subject to controls on duration of stay in a way that EU nationals aren't. Most people I know on a Tier 2 visa are only allowed to stay in the country for 2 years. Most of these visas at least in IT are bound to employment. If the employment ends then they are asked to leave the country.

The visas tend to be subject to control on how much access they can have to the welfare system in a way that EU immigrants are not.

So a non-EU migrant is a very different migrant to the EU migrant for these reasons.

EU immigration has been overwhelmingly a good thing. I personally only support very light control on low wage labour. I also think the UK Government needs to start including training schemes for British nationals in these lines of work to even the playing ground. Cheap EU labour has made the British government lazy in this regard. This is the reason why a Tier 3 visa for low skilled workers was never introduced for non-EU nationals, and it's also another reason why I think they are not comparable by and large.

Immigration isn't a matter of mere numbers, there are nuances involved. An immigrant who can stay for 2 years is very different to an immigrant who can stay indefinitely.

Calina wrote: »

The UK is a representative democracy with no history of referendums on the scale of Ireland. Decisions of this nature are and have historically been taken by Parliament acting in the interest of the people with a recognition that sometimes the interests of the people may not align with what is popular. The public is regularly consulted via election in terms of who they wish to act on their behalf.

Yes, and no. There is a flaw in the British parliamentary system. The referendum was a necessary adaption to the system to deal with particular issues. It can mean that political parties can ignore particular issues, and it means they can become blind to the will of the public on particular issues. There's a role for referendums in British politics and I think they aren't going away.

On the European Union there is precedent for referendums since the 1975 referendum. It should have followed that all European Union or EEC matters should have been put to the people. My point about Maastricht is that the British public could have been consulted on this far earlier and it could have found a more appropriate relationship much earlier instead of having to do this rather painful unravelling now.

Calina wrote: »

The ECSC which is the fore-runner to all of that was not a German invention. It was dreamed up by Jean Monnet and announced in a speech by Robert Schumann, a French foreign minister. In the context of its time which is five years after the war, it was a big risk.

The UK and people like you bring up Germany constantly. But the underlying rationale was to lock countries together in trade so that they wouldn't fight it out in war. What the UK ceases to recall is that it joined EFTA and left it to join the EU because ultimately, trade dictated.

I'm only bringing up Germany as an example to say that not every country joined the EU for the same reason. My basic underlying point is that Britain did not have a good reason for why it was a member of the EU. It wasn't communicated in the referendum and all we got was scaremongering as a result. Germany on the other hand does have a clear explicable reason for being in the EU and it permeates down to its people. This did not happen for the UK. I wonder if perhaps this was down to the fact that it joined the EEC very late after Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's membership initially due to it's cultural closeness to the United States. This perhaps explains the UK's enthusiasm for NATO.

Calina wrote: »

And yet Britain found a reason to leave EFTA and join the EEC in 1973. And held a referendum on the matter in 1975 which resulted in staying. Providing a counterweight to France and Germany is a very good one though, and one which the UK often fulfilled.

Yes it did find a reason that worked in 1975, but I suspect the reason was largely economic. The EEC in 1975 was a very different thing to the EU in 2016. I don't think Britain ever had a reason that was as deep rooted as Germany's.

You can claim that Britain being a "counterweight" is a reason, but it isn't a deep rooted reason that people can get a hold of. Being a counterweight in an organisation isn't in and of itself a reason as to why they should be a member to begin with or a reason that grips a nation.

I think you can see where I'm coming from. It's a point about political philosophy.

Calina wrote: »

But Britain did not reject Maastricht and do not forget that they were involved in negotiating Maastricht as members. They had the opportunity to influence. It wasn't, as it were, done to them.

I suspect had John Major put it to the people there would have been a better result. I think we need to distinguish what particular Governments thought about the EU and what people thought about the EU. They are both different things.

The flaw in British parliamentary democracy produced an effect where people could vote for particular parties for wider reasons but still have this construed as being pro-EU because being pro-EU was one particular policy of the party. They may and I suspect did vote for the Tories and Labour in their particular day for different reasons.

This is why the referendum is a useful tool in British politics, and it is why it needs to continue being a tool. It is an evolution, but it is the right step forward for the British constitution.

Calina wrote: »

The UK's difficulties at present are self inflicted via the Brexit vote.

Yes they are self-inflicted to a degree, but you need to understand the point.

The only reason why there are painful things to unravel is because of the amount of control the EU required.

Take trade policy as one example. People have argued on this thread on occasion that Britain doesn't have a trade negotiation competence and this makes negotiating trade deals difficult.

This is true, but it isn't an argument for EU membership. It simply shows us just how integrated Britain was into the EU. It is painful to resolve, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do.

I think you can see the logic?

Calina wrote: »

However, Ireland has a joined up constitution which requires certain matters to be put to referendum and when it runs those referendums, the discussions tend to be reasonably indepth and not trial by tabloid.

The UK has a representative democracy and its constitutional law, such as exists, provides for delegation of decisions of this nature. It is not grown up to have referendums which a population is not accustomed to and which are not necessary.

Ultimately, the fact that the UK negotiated an agreement, agreed to it, and you claim, should now not have done that because it's hard, isn't it, is not a grown up position to take.

Firstly - it is a grown up decision to realise that membership of a bloc wasn't suitable and to take action to address it in the best way possible.

Secondly - as explained above referenda are a fairly modern evolution of the British constitution, but they are a necessary one for the flaw I described above about determining why people voted for party X or party Y. I think referenda are here to stay and I don't think we can reject them from Britain's constitution. There should have been a precedent on European integration that required the Government to put these decisions to a referendum. The law was altered late in the day by David Cameron to ensure this due to the feeling there had been over the Lisbon Treaty and how it wasn't put to the public despite the fact it was a major treaty change to the European Union.

Claiming that Britain is grown up or not grown up is a matter of opinion. It's one that I happen to disagree with you on in this regard.

Calina wrote: »

Except it won't. A great deal of activities currently pooled with Europe will have to be replicated in the UK. The 8 billion additional funds depends on an all other things remaining equal basis which is an unwise assumption given that a substantial amount of trade may move out of the UK and tax take may fall. The one thing I think is reasonably clear is that the UK will not have a lot of spare cash knocking around.

On what basis do you say this?

It's a fairly basic argument. Concerns about EU funding are pretty much moot.

The UK gives about £13 billion to the European Union after the rebate. It receives £4.5bn for CAP and other domestic priorities. Even in the hypothetical scenario that it doesn't get the additional £8 billion (I think it will get a lot of it) the £4.5bn can be ensured. Yes, of course it is a matter for the British government for how it is spent, but the idea that Britain is going to lose out without "EU funds" is a fallacy. It will be able to spend the same money.

I don't agree with you on Britain's prospect for trade either with the EU or with other countries. There's no point going round and round in circles as to why. I've been very clear.

Calina wrote: »

Research funding depended on EU in the UK because the UK authorities are incredibly stingy. Additionally, Cornwall and Wales have been given zero comfort that their regional funding will continue post Brexit. The farmers, likewise, have been told they will have to "earn" their keep. In a country which already cannot feed itself.

Again, why do you think the UK will not be able to use at the very least the £4.5bn that it currently receives from the EU today.

I do see the "EU funding" issue as a huge fallacy. I'd love to know why it is actually a concern. It is true that Britain won't spend the money in exactly the same way Brussels would, but it will be able to contribute to research funding and agriculture.

I don't see why people think the UK needs the EU as its nanny to look after its own money and its own priorities. This comes down to technocracy versus democracy again I suspect.

Calina wrote: »

The UK is currently looking for a hard border. It just thinks it can have an invisible one. This is part of what happens if you want to be outside a customs union and single market. The EU doesn't demand a hard border; it is a logical outcome of a decision to leave a customs union.

As it happens, the UK is in the process of a major customs IT project which was projected on the basis of continued EU membership. The vibes I get is that scaling it may be difficult.

An invisible border is by definition not hard. I think we all agree that there will have to be some form of checks, but if technology can be used to make the border more open I think that's a welcome contribution from the UK and I think it should be welcomed. It's much much better than having hard border posts on the border. Rules of origin checks amongst other things can be done further in land. Traffic can go in and out of Northern Ireland with relative ease and vice versa.

Criticising the UK no matter what it does isn't a reasonable position. I want to read the policy in detail when it is published, but from what I hear I think it sounds like a very good proposal.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Pedantic point.

Germany never joined the EEC or the EU. It was West Germany that joined. East Germany and West Germany became Germany and East Germany became members as a result.

Would East Germany have voted to join the EU? Would West Germany have voted for it? They were not asked, so a moot point.

You reply to a pedantic point by making a pedantic point.

My point wasn't about whether or not Germany voted to join the EU. My point was about the reason why Germany is a member. You need to re-read what I said if you don't understand my point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Solo, the key gap in the UK parliamentary system is FPTP. Until that is addressed and people are used to having their vote count, the electorate is not tooled up for referenda.

But the people rejected a move to AV via referendum a few years ago.

In reality, they are not equipped for a move towards referenda, and a codified constitution might help a lot there. But none of this is being done and I suspect tradition dictates it will not be.

I really can't reply to the rest via phone so I will leave it there.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

You reply to a pedantic point by making a pedantic point.

My point wasn't about whether or not Germany voted to join the EU. My point was about the reason why Germany is a member. You need to re-read what I said if you don't understand my point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think you should do a bit of research as to why the EEC was formed originally.

There were two fundamental reasons.

1. To stop future wars in Europe, particularly in the terms of WW I and WW II.

2. To prevent starvation in Europe and make it self sufficient in food. Hence the CAP.

This was to be achieved through trade, and in particular free trade between the members of the EEC.

The EU was to bring more competition to benefit the citizens of the EU by
having a single market. This has largely been achieved. For example, the Open Skies and roaming charges. Also, regulations that protect air travellers from airlines when things go wrong. Ryanair exploited the open skies, but got caught out on the compensations following the Iceland dust cloud.

Before the UK joined the EEC, it was a basket case economically. If you take out financial services, it still is a basket case. Brexit will take out a a large portion of financial services. So back to a basket case.

Zerbini Blewitt

A lot of posters have been consistently focused on the (forlorn?) hope that the UK could find a way to reverse Brexit since 24 June 2016. I was definitely in this camp as the months ticked by, even up until the results came in from this June election – largely because of Brexits likely disasterous economic & social consequences for people & businesses here, in Britain & on the continent.

Now, however –to my surprise- I have come to accept the argument (mostly from demoralised British remainers) that what is required is the hardest Brexit possible (whether in 2019 or (Hammond’s) 2022, makes no difference).

One way for the profoundly poisonous express/mail/telegraph/sun media phenomenon in the UK
-
which is what I think led to the massive growth of Euroscepticism in the public since the late 1980’s & thus UKIP support & thus Camerons referendum folly (i.e. the mass propagandistic / mass persuasion media owned by unaccountable billionaires in democratic countries)
-
to be neutralised or eliminated is by the UK (economy) suffering ongoing, grinding consequences of this non-sequiter, profoundly idiotic decision for a long number of years. Then, the people who were conned will have their response?!

Remember what it was like here in the 70’s & 80’s. I remember looking on enviously as other countries even HAD (boom/) bust cycles. That’s how miserable Ireland’s situation was 30 odd years ago.

So why should this UK specific media issue matter here? I think from our economic perspective, other countries in the EU’s perspective and supporters of European co-operation in the UK – this inchoate madness was coming at some point (for the above reason). So, better to get it lanced once and for all.

Of course, Euro-scepticism can be a valid stance but when all the main eurosceptic ideas presented have been debunked as comprehensively and often as they have been and when at it’s root for most of its proponents is:-

Germany – aaaghh!!!
4th Reich – aaaaghhh!!!
German revenge for defeat in WWII - Boo, hiss!!

– it’s hard to take such painfully neurotic delusions seriously.

However, for someone like Nicholas Ridley (remember him -- "EMU was a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe") this was a core article of faith - the same as the Eurosceptic billionaires media owners for whom Brexit is a largely consequence free plaything, not unlike a game of Backgammon with an afternoon Pimms & lemonade.

I think its nearly impossible to understand such pampered views that are so far removed from the economic reality of 90% of the population of even the developed world.

Therefore, alas with reluctance……Roll On Hard Brexit

And…….Brace!

steddyeddy

It looks like Hammond has caved to May and the rest of the Brexiters.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/13/philip-hammond-hard-brexit-tories-uk-customs-union

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Calina wrote: »

Solo, the key gap in the UK parliamentary system is FPTP. Until that is addressed and people are used to having their vote count, the electorate is not tooled up for referenda.

But the people rejected a move to AV via referendum a few years ago.

In reality, they are not equipped for a move towards referenda, and a codified constitution might help a lot there. But none of this is being done and I suspect tradition dictates it will not be.

I really can't reply to the rest via phone so I will leave it there.

This is a good point also, and I think it adds something to the discussion. Proportional representation would allow for a broader set of parliamentarians to present a wider range of views. I think the reason why the people don't like it is because it requires forming coalitions, which is another thing that the British aren't good at. But the reason why they aren't good at it is because of first past the post, so it's a circular argument.

But proportional representation still doesn't solve the problem that I was referring to.

Parties consolidate a list of policies in a manifesto and that is put to the people in a general election. A general election tells you what party you would prefer to govern.

However, party A could have 3 policies in their manifesto. A vote for party A doesn't necessarily mean that people agree with all of the policies in the manifesto. In the case of either the Conservatives or Labour, the electorate might have agreed with their general platform, but they mightn't have been in full agreement with being pro-EU or pushing for further integration with Europe.

I suspect this is what happened. The question was never addressed because no party chose to address it since Thatcher in a real sense. UKIP filled the void. UKIP was formed straight after Maastricht. UKIP would have been dead in the water if the Conservatives under John Major pushed for a referendum in 1992 and if it was settled.

I still don't understand why you think referenda don't work in Britain. They've been utilised and they are a good mechanism for determining what the public think on important issues. We can't say that referenda don't work because they sometimes throw up outcomes we don't like.

The reason in part why referenda are a good thing is because it encourages our parliamentarians and our governing class to get in tune with the public and to rethink again when they say no to what they are seeking.

I think it's an evolution of the British electoral system that is positive and will be here to stay.

Also, a lot of people sneer at populism as if a mass participation in democracy is a bad thing. I've not seen such an enthusiastic engagement in politics as what happened during Brexit last year and its aftermath. Sociologists and political scientists had been thinking for a long time about why people don't bother voting. In Brexit and in the recent election people voted in record numbers. I can only describe that as a good thing even if people don't give us the result we're after.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you should do a bit of research as to why the EEC was formed originally.

There were two fundamental reasons.

1. To stop future wars in Europe, particularly in the terms of WW I and WW II.

2. To prevent starvation in Europe and make it self sufficient in food. Hence the CAP.

This was to be achieved through trade, and in particular free trade between the members of the EEC.

The EU was to bring more competition to benefit the citizens of the EU by
having a single market. This has largely been achieved. For example, the Open Skies and roaming charges. Also, regulations that protect air travellers from airlines when things go wrong. Ryanair exploited the open skies, but got caught out on the compensations following the Iceland dust cloud.

Before the UK joined the EEC, it was a basket case economically. If you take out financial services, it still is a basket case. Brexit will take out a a large portion of financial services. So back to a basket case.

I think you've misunderstood where I was coming from. You need to understand what I'm saying and where I'm coming from.

I'm not referring to reasons why the EU exists from founding documents. They can define themselves in whatever terms they like.

I'm discussing about the motivations and the drivers for why different countries are members of the EU. If you like their membership narrative. Germany's is very much centred around the second world war. But you can't say this about Ireland or Poland, because their reasons for joining were very different to Germany's.

My point is about understanding the national psyche behind the European project or the European Union. For the record, I think Ireland's is centred around gratitude as a beneficiary of EU structural funds. Even though it is now just a contributor to the EU. It sees the EU as a source of common good through the structural assistance and help that it received and it wants to do the same for other countries. The second world war doesn't even feature in it's rationale behind it from what I see.

For Britain, that isn't a narrative that follows because Britain has always been a net contributor. The problem with Britain is that it never had a coherent narrative behind its membership that could be conveyed to the public.

As I said a few posts ago, Gordon Brown tried to use Germany's reason for being in the EU to convince the British public to remain in the referendum. It failed, because it isn't a British reason. David Cameron didn't even offer a reason. He offered scaremongering. It didn't work, because British people are a rather cynical and sceptical bunch, particularly when it comes to their ruling
classes.

Edit: It's also worth pointing out that threatening the UK to stay in the EU by a sort of ad-baculum argument won't work either. What the UK would need would be a convincing reason why it should be a member that goes beyond the project fear of the referendum and a positive case for being a member that would convince its citizens. There isn't a convincing reason right now in the same sense as Germany having a convincing reason or Ireland having a convincing reason. Unless the UK gets one I think it's better off out on philosophical terms as well as long term material terms.

Understanding why other countries are passionate about the EU is the key to understanding Brexit. This is also one of the more interesting aspects of Brexit.

The fear mongering from hard remainers isn't interesting, and the bravado of hard leavers isn't either. Neither will be fulfilled in practice anyway. The result of Brexit will be a typical European fudge I suspect. But Brexit as a political philosophical proposition and its causes are riveting.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

robindch

solodeogloria wrote: »

I still don't understand why you think referenda don't work in Britain. They've been utilised and they are a good mechanism for determining what the public think on important issues. We can't say that referenda don't work because they sometimes throw up outcomes we don't like.

Occasional referendums haven't worked in the UK for much the same reasons that they don't work elsewhere - that many people don't vote on the issue at hand, but instead, on proxy issues unrelated to the subject matter.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, the leave-side lied through their teeth right through the campaign and used widespread ignorance of the EU to spread fear and hatred where they could. So even if people had wanted to vote on the subject of the referendum, many weren't intellectually or emotionally equipped to do so, and it's clear that a substantial minority -
more than sufficient to swing the result - did not.

If you can't accept that firstly, people were lied to wholesale, and secondly, that many people voted assuming these lies were true, then any further discussion is probably not worth the time.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

This question misses the point. It's a high level objection about handing over control. British political philosophy isn't compatible with handing over large levels of control over policy as broad as who can fish in British waters to who the UK can establish free trade agreements with. British political philosophy suggests that the British people should be sovereign over British affairs, and the history of the UK backs this up. Maastricht was the mistake. It should have never been agreed to.

It misses the point because its not true. The UK has never been told what it can or cannot do domestically. If they were the examples would have been shown time and again by the Leave campaign and you are sure Nigel Farage would not have missed an opportunity to show it to the people. The fact that hardly anyone can point to an example just proves that people, including you, have been indoctrinated to believe a lie and you now take it as fact as a reason to leave the EU.

That is why when talking about the EU we have stories about bendy bananas and them telling people not to wear high heels. Both of these are false, but they are used as examples. I mean the EU are a miserable bunch when they want their citizens to have good quality food that they eat. And how dare they tell hairdressers they need to wear safe footwear if they are going to be in an area that will be slippery.

oppenheimer1

Enzokk wrote: »

It misses the point because its not true. The UK has never been told what it can or cannot do domestically. If they were the examples would have been shown time and again by the Leave campaign and you are sure Nigel Farage would not have missed an opportunity to show it to the people. The fact that hardly anyone can point to an example just proves that people, including you, have been indoctrinated to believe a lie and you now take it as fact as a reason to leave the EU.

That is why when talking about the EU we have stories about bendy bananas and them telling people not to wear high heels. Both of these are false, but they are used as examples. I mean the EU are a miserable bunch when they want their citizens to have good quality food that they eat. And how dare they tell hairdressers they need to wear safe footwear if they are going to be in an area that will be slippery.

Indeed. Solo has yet to explain how if it's against British political philosophy to hand over control of say setting trade agreements, why did they do so for 40 years?

Every competency the UK gave to Brussels, it did so voluntarily. Nothing was taken from the UK.

Peregrinus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Indeed. Solo has yet to explain how if it's against British political philosophy to hand over control of say setting trade agreements, why did they do so for 40 years? . . .

The whole notion of there being a "British political philosophy" is absurd. British people are just as capable as any other nation of holding diverse political philosophies, and the political philosophy of one Briton may flatly contradict that of another.

Solo, I fear, may have unwittingly bought into the language that prevails in a particular strain of right-wing Brexitry in which only the Brexit position is authentically "British", and those who hold less Eurosceptic view are not truly "British", but are cosmopolitan types of suspect allegiance.

Jim2007

I still don't understand why you think referenda don't work in Britain. They've been utilised and they are a good mechanism for determining what the public think on important issues. We can't say that referenda don't work because they sometimes throw up outcomes we don't like.

Because you can't have a sovereign people and a sovereign parliament at the same time, it simply leads to the kind of confusion we have seen in the U.K.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

It misses the point because its not true. The UK has never been told what it can or cannot do domestically. If they were the examples would have been shown time and again by the Leave campaign and you are sure Nigel Farage would not have missed an opportunity to show it to the people. The fact that hardly anyone can point to an example just proves that people, including you, have been indoctrinated to believe a lie and you now take it as fact as a reason to leave the EU.

That is why when talking about the EU we have stories about bendy bananas and them telling people not to wear high heels. Both of these are false, but they are used as examples. I mean the EU are a miserable bunch when they want their citizens to have good quality food that they eat. And how dare they tell hairdressers they need to wear safe footwear if they are going to be in an area that will be slippery.

Good morning!

You don't get to redefine what I said. There's no point claiming that I'm lying if you've changed what I've said in your reply.

What I said was that the UK handed over control to the EU. That's true. That's what we see in treaties such as TFEU when we see the terms "exclusive competence" or the EU having overriding authority over the member state or "shared competence" which means that the member state can exercise it's competence only when the EU hasn't done so.

Continuing on about why the UK was happy to have the EEC decide it's trade terms. My estimation is probably because the EU had a bigger share of global trade in the 1970's than it does now. The EU has a big share but not a majority of British exports in 2016. The rest of the world is growing more quickly and Britain exports more to it. (56% versus 44%).

Although in the 1970's it might have made sense to agree to a restrictive trade policy, in 2017 it no longer makes sense.

This is why Britain's reason for being in the EU was fickle. I think it was economics initially. The problem with not having a deeper reason to be in the EU is that when an underlying parameter like the global economy changes it's no longer valid. On the other hand Germany's reason will always be true. This is the type of deep membership narrative Britain lacks.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Because you can't have a sovereign people and a sovereign parliament at the same time, it simply leads to the kind of confusion we have seen in the U.K.

So you object to pretty much every major democratic system on the earth then including Ireland and America?

A sovereign parliament is also elected by a sovereign people. There's no reason why a sovereign parliament cannot consult the sovereign people they elected and are accountable to.

The lack of faith in democracy on this thread staggers me. Ireland's democracy in particular is predicated on the referendum.

EDIT:

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole notion of there being a "British political philosophy" is absurd. British people are just as capable as any other nation of holding diverse political philosophies, and the political philosophy of one Briton may flatly contradict that of another.

Solo, I fear, may have unwittingly bought into the language that prevails in a particular strain of right-wing Brexitry in which only the Brexit position is authentically "British", and those who hold less Eurosceptic view are not truly "British", but are cosmopolitan types of suspect allegiance.

Obviously there are contested views on issues. I'm not suggesting there isn't.

What I am suggesting is that each country has a prevailing political philosophy or political culture. Looking at the underlying motivation of each country to be in the EU (and I've not got an understanding of all of them by any stretch of the imagination) is central to understanding why the UK isn't. I'd be interested to hear analysis about this from others. It's entirely my opinion but I think it makes sense. This lack of a membership narrative in the case of the UK explains a lot.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Continuing on about why the UK was happy to have the EEC decide it's trade terms. My estimation is probably because the EU had a bigger share of global trade in the 1970's than it does now . . .

This seems improbable, given that the EEC (as it then was) had only six members when the UK joined it.

Even if it were true, so what? If the EU's share of global trade has been shrinking, that's because the share of developing economies - Korea, China, India, etc - has been growing. While this would make trade with those economies a more attractive proposition than it was back in 1973, that in itself wouldn't be a reason for the UK to leave the EU. For Brexit to be a rational response to the growth in the developing economies, two things have to prevail. First, you have to believe that the UK will be better placed to trade with those developing economies as an independent player than it will as a part of the EU - i.e. that it can negotiate more advantageous trading arrangements than the EU can. And, secondly, that it can do this by sufficiently wide margins to offset the damage that Brexit will do to the 60% or so of its trade which is currently conducted within the EU, or under the terms of EU trade deals with third countries which the UK will be leaving.

I've seen no serious analysis which suggests that this is likely. Have you, solo? It's a question I have put to you before, but you have never found the time to answer it.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

This seems improbable, given that the EEC (as it then was) had only six members when the UK joined it.

Even if it were true, so what? If the EU's share of global trade has been shrinking, that's because the share of developing economies - Korea, China, India, etc - has been growing. While this would make trade with those economies a more attractive proposition than it was back in 1973, that in itself wouldn't be a reason for the UK to leave the EU. For the Brexit to be a rational response to the growth in the developing economies, two things have to prevail. First, you have to believe that the UK will be better placed to trade with those developing economies as an independent player than it will as a part of the EU - i.e. that it can negotiation more advantageous trading arrangements than the EU can. And, secondly, that it can do this by sufficiently wide margins to offset the damage that Brexit will do to the 60% or so of its trade which is currently conducted within the EU, or under the terms of EU trade deals with third countries which the UK will be leaving.

I've seen no serious analysis which suggests that this is likely. Have you, solo? It's a question I have put to you before, but you have never found the time to answer it.

Good morning!

Firstly to comment on the more interesting side of what you've said in your post. It's interesting that you phrase the discussion in terms of reasons to leave. I think the UK has many including this one. The problem which led to Brexit is that the UK had no clear reason to stay in the EU apart from what was offered in terms of fearmongering. The UK needs a better reason to be in.

Secondly - to address the second half of your post. I don't agree with your assumptions which make it difficult to answer your question.

I don't agree with the assumption that Britain cannot get free trade deals with other economies just because it is smaller than the EU. I agree with the fact that the EU is bigger and therefore has a good place to negotiate together. I don't think it's nimble enough though.

I also don't agree with your either or comparison in respect to trade. I don't see why you think that trade with the EU is going to collapse to such an extent. You need to explain to me why that is the case.

Taking two countries on their own. China and America. Britain exports about £100bn with them both. There's an opportunity to expand opportunity to trade with both with the right free trade agreement. I'm sure this is true of many others. I don't see why the shortfall couldn't be made up.

You need to explain to me why you think trade with the EU is going to go through the floor. If the transition period includes leaving the customs union then that will provide a buffer to agree new quotas with existing external trade partners and agree a new arbitration mechanism, finalise the trade agreement with the EU and start negotiating with China and America.

Again, perhaps I'm missing the armageddon scenario that is behind your question.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

Stuff that Britain hasn't yet taken into account:

- Their primary industries rely on migrants, especially the food sectors, and particularly fruit and veg picking and canning. Numbers for the harvest are already down 20% this year because people aren't going to the UK anymore, because they feel unwelcome. That is already causing issues.
- Their National Health system relies on foreign healthcare workers - see above.
- They are not particularly going to be at the front of any queues and they will have to take outsider status in terms of trading with the EU.
- They will have to negotiate dozens of trade deals just to keep the same partners - and they will be negotiating for themselves rather than having the full weight of one of the largest markets in the world negotiating. That makes for a lot less clout.
- They are still going to have to manufacture to EU specifications if they want to export to the EU.
- The headache of border checks on both their Irish border and Calais.
- Euratom relies on EU aid. This impacts health treatment in terms of chemotherapy in particular.
- Their nuclear power stations are coming up towards end of life and all nuclear material is sourced from the EU under EU laws.
- Large questionmark hanging over British expats (mostly elderly) who live in the EU, as they will have the same rights under reciprocal deals that the British government gives EU citizens. So far, the British offer has been "same as everyone else". If Britain end up with a large flow back of pensioners who cannot contribute to the labour force and will need support, that won't improve things for them either.
- What happens to research collaboration within EU institutions?
- Yes, as expected, major banks are moving headquarters away from London, albeit keeping a presence there.

That's just off the top of my head first thing in the morning, so it's not comprehensive. But this whole thing was ill-planned and is being poorly carried out.

Sam Russell

Samaris wrote: »

Stuff that Britain hasn't yet taken into account:

- Their primary industries rely on migrants, especially the food sectors, and particularly fruit and veg picking and canning. Numbers for the harvest are already down 20% this year because people aren't going to the UK anymore, because they feel unwelcome. That is already causing issues.
- Their National Health system relies on foreign healthcare workers - see above.
- They are not particularly going to be at the front of any queues and they will have to take outsider status in terms of trading with the EU.
- They will have to negotiate dozens of trade deals just to keep the same partners - and they will be negotiating for themselves rather than having the full weight of one of the largest markets in the world negotiating. That makes for a lot less clout.
- They are still going to have to manufacture to EU specifications if they want to export to the EU.
- The headache of border checks on both their Irish border and Calais.
- Euratom relies on EU aid. This impacts health treatment in terms of chemotherapy in particular.
- Their nuclear power stations are coming up towards end of life and all nuclear material is sourced from the EU under EU laws.
- Large questionmark hanging over British expats (mostly elderly) who live in the EU, as they will have the same rights under reciprocal deals that the British government gives EU citizens. So far, the British offer has been "same as everyone else". If Britain end up with a large flow back of pensioners who cannot contribute to the labour force and will need support, that won't improve things for them either.
- What happens to research collaboration within EU institutions?
- Yes, as expected, major banks are moving headquarters away from London, albeit keeping a presence there.

That's just off the top of my head first thing in the morning, so it's not comprehensive. But this whole thing was ill-planned and is being poorly carried out.

They will also have to do all the work currently being done by the 'un-elected bureaucrats' in Brussels (and elsewhere in the EU) and this will be done by new 'Loyal Civil Servants'. I would imagine the cost of one civil servant would be at least £100,000 per year taking into account salary pension and office accommodation. There was number given that 10,000 civil servants would be required to negotiate Brexit, and that would cost £1 billion/year. I think the £10 billion saving of net payments will soon be eaten up by their new merry band of civil servants doing the work done by the EU.

For example the EU Medicine board, currently in London, will have to be replicated by the UK and the UK have estimated it will need at least a staff of 60% currently employed, all funded by the UK. This will be replicated in the hundred or so EU quangos.

That just takes into account work currently done by the EU. Add in 'new' work, like customs checking at EU borders, staff to negotiate trade deals, staff to do immigration checks, etc. etc.

I doubt if any of this has had much consideration - how much easier continued membership of the SM and CU would be.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

The lack of faith in democracy on this thread staggers me.

You shouldn't be conflating the notion that a democratic decision is always equal to a right decision. If its clear that such a vote will lead to conditions worsening for a country as a whole there's no problem in having a second vote to reverse it.

Oh and btw, I despise referendums, especially those that deal with macroeconomic situations, which Brexit was about essentially, since its clear that a substantial number of voters didn't have a clue what they were voting about, or voted motivated by prejudices held personally that clouded their judgement as regards the strategic issues.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

You don't get to redefine what I said. There's no point claiming that I'm lying if you've changed what I've said in your reply.

What I said was that the UK handed over control to the EU. That's true. That's what we see in treaties such as TFEU when we see the terms "exclusive competence" or the EU having overriding authority over the member state or "shared competence" which means that the member state can exercise it's competence only when the EU hasn't done so.

Continuing on about why the UK was happy to have the EEC decide it's trade terms. My estimation is probably because the EU had a bigger share of global trade in the 1970's than it does now. The EU has a big share but not a majority of British exports in 2016. The rest of the world is growing more quickly and Britain exports more to it. (56% versus 44%).

Although in the 1970's it might have made sense to agree to a restrictive trade policy, in 2017 it no longer makes sense.

This is why Britain's reason for being in the EU was fickle. I think it was economics initially. The problem with not having a deeper reason to be in the EU is that when an underlying parameter like the global economy changes it's no longer valid. On the other hand Germany's reason will always be true. This is the type of deep membership narrative Britain lacks.

But is that what most leave voters were upset by? That was really never a reason given for voting to leave though, it was more to do with immigration and not having sovereignty over laws that seemed to come up more than not being able to negotiate their own trade deals. It was used as a benefit of Brexit but I cannot recall it being used on a side of a bus as a reason to vote Brexit.

Also, weren't one of the reasons for voting Brexit given that the British economy is strong and can easily stand on its own? Now it seems you want to claim that in fact the EU was holding it back? Is this what you are posting now? If I have your position wrong please correct me. Has their been any positives from EU membership in your eyes? If not, why did you vote to remain? Has the EU been holding the UK back by not having its interests when negotiating trade deals before?