Brexit discussion thread II

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

In other news, it seems that Labour are advocating staying in the single market and customs union permanently, thus gaining no advantage whatsoever from Brexit at all. Tom Watson seems to think that staying in both could be a permanent outcome of the negotiation! They do have a wonderful ability of shooting themselves in the foot.

They come out with a fairly reasonable suggestion of staying in both for the transition and then say that they potentially won't leave at all. I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually deliver what the people voted for.

The people voted for Brexit. If politicians do intend to go ahead with it then they must deliver the best outcome for the UK. This involves staying in the SM and CU if youre labour, or inventing a pretend CU and SM for dmage limitation if Tory.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?

The only person who has said this is you. Nobody here has said that the British public are feeble. It's just a way for you to avoid engaging with the points that have been made.

solodeogloria wrote: »

In other news, it seems that Labour are advocating staying in the single market and customs union permanently, thus gaining no advantage whatsoever from Brexit at all.

This seems to be the best available course now that A50 has been triggered. I have yet to see any advantage of leaving the EU.

Jim2007

The aim was to persuade big EU trading nations to put pressure on the EU Commission to start trade talks after the October EU summit but it seems that the end of the year now looks a more likely timescale.

Source

Did the seriously thing that any of the EU's trading partners would put them before the EU....

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think people have brains and are able to make their own conclusions. That is very much democracy.

The problem is, in this as in so much else that you've posted on this topic, that you're expressing this as an article of faith without offering anything in support of it.

Which is, ironically, exactly the root of the problem: the newfound idea that every opinion has equal validity. If someone sincerely believes something stupid, then that's every bit as valuable a belief as someone who believes something because they've invested time and effort into understanding it.

While I was waiting to have my car tested this morning I was subjected to the unsolicited opinions of some randomer who wanted to share his view that man-made climate change was a myth, because there was much more industry and pollution in the nineteenth century than there is now, and anyway the whole planet was buried under miles-thick ice millions of years ago.

Here's the thing: that guy is wrong. He thinks he's right, but he's not. His views are sincerely held, but they're incorrect. When those entirely misguided opinions of his determine how he'll vote in the future, he'll be voting on the basis of objective falsehoods.



Just today, the frigging Telegraph was still printing arrant nonsense about the EU banning powerful vacuum cleaners. Now, I don't think the people who write for and edit the Telegraph are idiots, which means they must be liars. The problem is that the people who read the Telegraph are taking their cue from people who are either idiots or liars, and that's a recipe for those readers making objectively bad decisions at the ballot box.

And that's the Telegraph, which has to at least pretend to give an occasional nod to journalistic ethics. Once you get to social media, the idiots and liars are poised to inherit the earth.

Chips Lovell

demfad wrote: »

The majority of voters in US/UK have facebook accounts etc/ etc.
It was well publicised in recent campaigns that Facebook was the main influencer in these campaigns.

Your argument seems to be that SM users could have chosen MSM etc.
But what of the people who actually chose MSM? Even staying away from the Express, Sun etc. lies about immigrants and Europe other MSM readers would have read about the NHS pledges without due criticism. They would have seen reports about the UK being able to unshackle itself from EU quotas and tariffs under WTO when this was an outright lie.

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

What would be a true subversion of democracy would be if the British Government backed out of following through with Brexit because they claimed it was an "advisory referendum".

We know that the UK does not have a written constitution, but that does not mean you can make it up as you go alone! The UK has a sovereign parliament and therefore referenda are advisory and that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. And that is a fact, no matter how much you'd prefer it not to be.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, I've got zero time for the argument that the British voters were feeble and they shouldn't be listened to. I guess the UK should go back to absolute monarchy and forget the people's vote then? After all that would be democracy right?

No one said that the British voters are feeble but yourself. And as for democracy, you must learn to deal with that fact that the UK has a sovereign parliament that has full right to do as it seem fit on behalf of the Union until the next GE. And that includes joining EFTA and the EEA or attempting to withdraw A50 or what ever else it decides to do.

Sam Russell

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

When we have a referendum, we have a Referendum Commission that gets to inform the voters what the basic issues are. They produce a booklet sent to every home with a synopsis of the facts.

What happens if you vote Yes - Voting yes will mean there is a change in .....

What happens if you vote No - Everything remains as is and there will be no change.

Any arrant nonsense (like £350 million every week will go to the NHS) would be pointed out straight away and arrant nonsense - and this would be carried as a fact in all MSM. There was no attempt to have any arbitration or moderation of the campaign. No wonder lies were the currency of the campaign.

murphaph

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

Sorry but a lot of people are not sophisticated enough to even imagine that they are being targeted and manipulated on social media. This is not advertising like election posters on a lamp post. This is a clear attempt to plant seeds in swing voters minds. It's really quite sinister stuff.

These unsophisticated people have the vote and if you carefully target a relatively small number of them you can influence a poll like Brexit or the US elections. To me this is actually rather scary.

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just today, the frigging Telegraph was still printing arrant nonsense about the EU banning powerful vacuum cleaners.

Dyson , that well known supporter of Brexit is annoyed with the rule limiting vacuum cleaners to 900Watts. He's selling a 28W one with a peak of 100AW

Because it'll save the EU the equivalent of Belgium's household electricity the UK will almost certainly keep this directive.

If Brexit means more Chinese students to replace EU ones then Dyson will probably have another hissy fit.

Nate--IRL--

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

You are missing the point - it is known collectively the electorate are susceptible to propaganda. Individuals don't matter. As a collective the electorate are swayed by very basic arguments that an individual may not be. It is herd mentality you aren't considering.

As such the new methods of disseminating propaganda to wider groups, specifically targeting those who look the most promising to be swayed, help feed an underlying narrative that the herd might follow.

This is nothing new - it has just stepped up a gear from what it was. The Individual is irrelevant.

Nate

Jim2007

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

The thing is that if you are used to Irish or Swiss politics for that matter, you are in a different league to the UK/US voter! You are used to a different type of politics - voters listen to political debates not just party political broadcasts. They have access to independent factual information, they have an understanding of constitutional issues versus general elections and so on. In short they have a different tool set to work with when looking at FB, Twitter or what ever.

I doubt the average UK voter would even have the idea to ask the question was the government's act constitutional or not. And yet it is a question you'll find peppered throughout Irish/Swiss political reporting, along with conformance to EU regulations etc...

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

The most the British can hope for here is a face-saving compromise; jurisdiction of the EFTA court, or jurisdiction of a parallel court set up exclusively to deal with the UK I(though, again, there is nothing in this for the EU and they will not agree to it easily, or without some significant concession in some other area to induce them). And that may be where we end up.

If the UK is in the Customs Union then it has to accept the ECJ.

I can't see a parallel court AND a fully comprehensive FTA. Maybe for a much reduced trade agreement covering fewer items.

The EFTA Court pretty much rubberstamps ECJ decisions, it's what is was set up to do.

ambro25 wrote: »

You talk of 'numerical' bias in the ECJ (which is patent nonsense, and goes a very long way to show your lack of knowledge and understanding of Community law and practice),

The patent nonsense is that the UK wants to continuing to use European Patents while rejecting the ECJ.

Capt'n Midnight

Jim2007 wrote: »

The problem is that the UK thinks the world revolves around them. They forget that the EU has other deals which are subject to the ECJ, such as the Swiss bilateral agreements. So you can bet that if the UK gets an exception, the Swiss will be seeking the same exception in their negotiations with the EU starting next year and so on.

The most favoured nation clause in WTO and most FTA treaties like CETA means that lots of third parties would get UK benefits.

So it could be very expensive for the EU to accede to UK demands without an awful lot in return.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

When we have a referendum, we have a Referendum Commission that gets to inform the voters what the basic issues are. They produce a booklet sent to every home with a synopsis of the facts.

What happens if you vote Yes - Voting yes will mean there is a change in .....

What happens if you vote No - Everything remains as is and there will be no change.

Any arrant nonsense (like £350 million every week will go to the NHS) would be pointed out straight away and arrant nonsense - and this would be carried as a fact in all MSM. There was no attempt to have any arbitration or moderation of the campaign. No wonder lies were the currency of the campaign.

We had a referendum commission in the UK for the Brexit vote. The government sent a pamphlet around to each household to the tune of £9 million. The commission set rules for the conduct of each campaign, the allocation of official designation and a £7 million spending limit for each.

I do not believe your comparison to Ireland is a fair one. If you take the SSM referendum for example, the exact result either way was known. The relevant text of the constitution was readily available as was the proposed change so people could vote on it.

The problem with the EU referendum was that either side was free to make up all sorts of lies and bogus claims without any objective info. The remain campaign focused on disseminating dour economic forecasts and expert advice while the leave side presented Brexit as a tonic for all the nations ills, both read and otherwise. Since these lies, mainly from the Leave side could not be disproven, they weren't. When doubt was cast upon them, we were told that people were fed up of experts or that they were biased or that they were elites or whatever.

Now the problem is that Brexit has become a quasi-religion with skeptics and remainers being treated almost as heretics with words like "undemocratic" and "elitist" being trotted out to attempt to silence any dissent. We can see the likes of Liam Fox already preparing to blame the EU and whomever for any problems because, ultimately they haven't a clue what they're doing and the only party providing any sort of clarity whatsoever is the purported enemy, Mr. Michel Barnier and his Brussels elite pals.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We had a referendum commission in the UK for the Brexit vote. The government sent a pamphlet around to each household to the tune of £9 million. The commission set rules for the conduct of each campaign, the allocation of official designation and a £7 million spending limit for each.

I do not believe your comparison to Ireland is a fair one. If you take the SSM referendum for example, the exact result either way was known. The relevant text of the constitution was readily available as was the proposed change so people could vote on it.

The problem with the EU referendum was that either side was free to make up all sorts of lies and bogus claims without any objective info. The remain campaign focused on disseminating dour economic forecasts and expert advice while the leave side presented Brexit as a tonic for all the nations ills, both read and otherwise. Since these lies, mainly from the Leave side could not be disproven, they weren't. When doubt was cast upon them, we were told that people were fed up of experts or that they were biased or that they were elites or whatever.

Now the problem is that Brexit has become a quasi-religion with skeptics and remainers being treated almost as heretics with words like "undemocratic" and "elitist" being trotted out to attempt to silence any dissent. We can see the likes of Liam Fox already preparing to blame the EU and whomever for any problems because, ultimately they haven't a clue what they're doing and the only party providing any sort of clarity whatsoever is the purported enemy, Mr. Michel Barnier and his Brussels elite pals.

I think the SSM referendum is a bad example.

Perhaps the ones relating to the EU or the one about Dail Committees powers of investigations. These were more complex. Also, the Referendum Commission made interventions, iirc.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Jim2007 wrote: »

We know that the UK does not have a written constitution, but that does not mean you can make it up as you go alone! The UK has a sovereign parliament and therefore referenda are advisory and that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. And that is a fact, no matter how much you'd prefer it not to be.

Admittedly, I think all this complaining about the referendum result is a bit boring. Highly tedious in fact. At the end of the day the referendum was cast, and parliament promised to act on its outcome.

That is what we are seeing now. Article 50 has been triggered, and the UK is leaving.

That is democracy. Complaining about it is in effect being a sore loser.

Jim2007 wrote: »

No one said that the British voters are feeble but yourself. And as for democracy, you must learn to deal with that fact that the UK has a sovereign parliament that has full right to do as it seem fit on behalf of the Union until the next GE. And that includes joining EFTA and the EEA or attempting to withdraw A50 or what ever else it decides to do.

I think people have heavily implied it through saying that people are led by a Russian lad on Twitter, or that people were lied to. As if George Osborne or others directly influencing the result by asking their mates to implore people to stay in on dubious projections was any better.

The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

I suspect the hard remainers know this and that's why they are arguing in this light. If the UK stays in the EU by the backdoor in this manner, I'll personally be campaigning to ensure that the job is finished.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



Admittedly, I think all this complaining about the referendum result is a bit boring. Highly tedious in fact. At the end of the day the referendum was cast, and parliament promised to act on its outcome.

That is what we are seeing now. Article 50 has been triggered, and the UK is leaving.

That is democracy. Complaining about it is in effect being a sore loser.



I think people have heavily implied it through saying that people are led by a Russian lad on Twitter, or that people were lied to. As if George Osborne or others directly influencing the result by asking their mates to implore people to stay in on dubious projections was any better.

The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

I suspect the hard remainers know this and that's why they are arguing in this light. If the UK stays in the EU by the backdoor in this manner, I'll personally be campaigning to ensure that the job is finished.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In short.

I disregard all the facts about collusion to undermine the referendum in the UK something which is heavily documented. A referendum that I supposedly voted remain in but am now the most ardent exit campaigner.

Perplexing to say the least.

If I was a writer this novel would get laughed at.

Gerry T

While I think discussing voter manipulation is off topic, the vote is finished, no going back...as a break from the subject matter it is an interesting element of what's happening to look at. My own opinion would be the govt did a very poor job of laying out what the pros and cons of brexit were. The leave side were also guilty of this as there campaign was built on romantic views of past glory..empire...self control. But throw in the mix of foreign (Russian) manipulation does show the power and strength of social media.
I had a chat one night, drink fueled where I took the position that people should not automatically have a vote, that each person should have to answer a number of questions relating to the subject matter of a vote so it can be demonstrated they have a basic grasp of what the vote is about. Essential my position (drunk) was if you don't know what's going on, you don't get to vote.
With what's happened in usa, UK and almost in France I'm starting to think voter "testing" is a good idea.
Now back on topic, irrespective of how we find ourselves in "brexit" theres no going back, I also believe the EU will benefit and prosper from the UK leaving and the UK, in time will also be happier as a stand alone country.
I'm coming to the conclusion that there is a power shift happening, the UK will not get free trade and will have to back down from their current position. The EU won't budge because it doesn't have to, but will give concessions in areas that hold no relevance.
Either way I've enjoyed reading all posts in this thread, thanks to Solo we've had a healthy debate. Time is short ane we will soon watch history unfold.

Rain Ascending

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!
The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

This is an interesting hypothesis. Note that it wasn't the question asked in the referendum, but there is anecdotal evidence that this was part of the thinking of many leave voters. But take back control of what? Immigration is definitely one item. For that reason, I suspect that the UK will be unable to stay in the single market. Neither the Conservatives or Labour will want to take the risk of incurring voter wrath that may come with signing up to free movement of people. There is also the side effect of avoiding the appearance of signing up to European regulation en masse.

The customs union is a different beast. How many in the UK really care about trade agreements? At the end of the day, despite the huge focus here in this forum on the topic, it is quite an esoteric topic. I could see the UK signing up to that, particularly with a Labour government.

If I'm wrong, however, and the Brexit purist view wins out and the staying in the customs union is ruled out, then that signals a very low tolerance for any kind of loss of control implied by international agreements. So, for example, the British body politic may then find it tough to ratify any trade agreement with any country because every UK interest group fighting their own corner in trade deals will successfully fly the "loss of control" flag for every concession yielded in negotiations.

Bottom line: any international agreement implies loss of control and the chlorinated chickens will come home to roost.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



Admittedly, I think all this complaining about the referendum result is a bit boring. Highly tedious in fact. At the end of the day the referendum was cast, and parliament promised to act on its outcome.

That is what we are seeing now. Article 50 has been triggered, and the UK is leaving.

That is democracy. Complaining about it is in effect being a sore loser.



I think people have heavily implied it through saying that people are led by a Russian lad on Twitter, or that people were lied to. As if George Osborne or others directly influencing the result by asking their mates to implore people to stay in on dubious projections was any better.

The campaign was explicitly won on the basis of taking back control from the European Union. If that doesn't happen, we've not genuinely left the EU, but stayed in by the back door.

I suspect the hard remainers know this and that's why they are arguing in this light. If the UK stays in the EU by the backdoor in this manner, I'll personally be campaigning to ensure that the job is finished.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you voted remain, yet now you think the UK should "take back control". So not only has the vote changed your mind about wanting to stay in the EU, you now believe the UK had no control. No we see you're vigorously campaigning for a hard Brexit. An Irish man who's campaigning for Brexit because you believe the UK is being bullied.

Mate I don't know where to start. I try to debate everyone fairly, but I can only do that if the stance is credible.

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

So you voted remain, yet now you think the UK should "take back control". So not only has the vote changed your mind about wanting to stay in the EU, you now believe the UK had no control. No we see you're vigorously campaigning for a hard Brexit. An Irish man who's campaigning for Brexit because you believe the UK is being bullied.

Mate I don't know where to start. I try to debate everyone fairly, but I can only do that if the stance is credible.

Time to press the ignore button we've entertained this chap for long enough!

Jim2007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The most favoured nation clause in WTO and most FTA treaties like CETA means that lots of third parties would get UK benefits.

So it could be very expensive for the EU to accede to UK demands without an awful lot in return.

Yep like I said....

The latest is that they now realize that the EU/Swiss bilateral means they will be treated as third country by Switzerland after BREXIT. Switzerland is about their 6th biggest trading partner so not too important, but important enough.

And of course they want a special deal... Switzerland is in the same situation - anything granted to the U.K. would have to be granted to other third countries, so unlikely to happen esp. as EU has proi on FMOP etc..

Nate--IRL--

But surely the UK is first inline for a trade deal with Switzerland? ....Or have I missed the point?

Nate

solodeogloria

Good morning!

listermint wrote: »

In short.

I disregard all the facts about collusion to undermine the referendum in the UK something which is heavily documented. A referendum that I supposedly voted remain in but am now the most ardent exit campaigner.

Perplexing to say the least.

If I was a writer this novel would get laughed at.

You'd get laughed at for saying someone can change their minds on assessing the facts?

Interesting. I don't think a user on Twitter is massively significant. I think people were clever enough to make up their own mind.

The vote of the people needs to be respected. If it isn't I'll definitely be campaigning in some way to ensure that it is.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

This is an interesting hypothesis. Note that it wasn't the question asked in the referendum, but there is anecdotal evidence that this was part of the thinking of many leave voters. But take back control of what? Immigration is definitely one item. For that reason, I suspect that the UK will be unable to stay in the single market. Neither the Conservatives or Labour will want to take the risk of incurring voter wrath that may come with signing up to free movement of people. There is also the side effect of avoiding the appearance of signing up to European regulation en masse.

If you were around in the UK between March and June in 2016 you'd know it wasn't a hypothesis. The Leave campaign was fought in the basis of taking back control of borders, laws and money.

You can't do this whilst being subject to the ECJ, giving the EU control over trade policy and continuing free movement of people.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

The customs union is a different beast. How many in the UK really care about trade agreements? At the end of the day, despite the huge focus here in this forum on the topic, it is quite an esoteric topic. I could see the UK signing up to that, particularly with a Labour government.

Trade policy and opportunities coming from that were also a key part of the campaign. You can't truly take back control of your laws of you hand over trade policy to Brussels.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

If I'm wrong, however, and the Brexit purist view wins out and the staying in the customs union is ruled out, then that signals a very low tolerance for any kind of loss of control implied by international agreements. So, for example, the British body politic may then find it tough to ratify any trade agreement with any country because every UK interest group fighting their own corner in trade deals will successfully fly the "loss of control" flag for every concession yielded in negotiations.

Not true. I think most people understand the difference in scale to being a member of the UN or NATO versus being a member of the EU. The difference is the scale of control that is required to be handed over.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Bottom line: any international agreement implies loss of control and the chlorinated chickens will come home to roost.

We've already had the chicken chat. I'm personally not that fussed about it but Michael Gove and David Davis now seem to think it isn't a runner. Let's see.

I guess the question for people who think this is a horrendous prospect is do they eat chicken when they visit America?

steddyeddy wrote: »

So you voted remain, yet now you think the UK should "take back control". So not only has the vote changed your mind about wanting to stay in the EU, you now believe the UK had no control. No we see you're vigorously campaigning for a hard Brexit. An Irish man who's campaigning for Brexit because you believe the UK is being bullied.

Mate I don't know where to start. I try to debate everyone fairly, but I can only do that if the stance is credible.

Yes, I changed my mind on assessing the facts. What's so difficult about that?

If the UK doesn't deliver what the people voted for then I'll definitely find some way of being involved in campaigning to finish the job. If the UK stays in the single market and customs union permanently it hasn't regained any control whatsoever.

You haven't even debated me. You've offered one liners for the most part. I've yet to see any robust defence of your position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

But surely the UK is first inline for a trade deal with Switzerland? ....Or have I missed the point?

Nate

No they are not first inline. A new deal with the EU on financial services etc is the first priority and the ground work for talks is being prepared. Switzerland fully accepts that it will need to make further concessions and further contributions to the EU budget to obtain this and that will impact any future deal with the U.K. as well.

Switzerland cannot offer more to the U.K. than it does to the US, China etc...otherwise it will face demands for the same concession in other deals. That for instance means:
- No priority for work permits. As agreed with the EU it is: CH & EU/EEA already resident, EU/EEA and then third country including now the U.K.!
- Automatic right to permanent residence after five years will go to 12 years plus a language test and confirm of integration, the same as for other third countries
- UK goods and services cannot be used in quotations for government work, the priority is for EU goods and services
- All UK goods will be treated as third country for quotas and tariffs

In order to limit immigration, Switzerland issues very few third country permit each year- we're talking thousands here. To get one, the employer must show there is no one available to take the job in the EU/EEA/CH block base on Eurostat figures not advertising. If the stats show there are people available but no one applied, the employer is told to up the wages and conditions until someone does!

A new tag has started to appear on job ads: CH/EU-27 only, meaning no U.K. need apply.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you were around in the UK between March and June in 2016 you'd know it wasn't a hypothesis. The Leave campaign was fought in the basis of taking back control of borders, laws and money.

You can't do this whilst being subject to the ECJ, giving the EU control over trade policy and continuing free movement of people.

I have asked you before, do you realise that you cannot take back control and still have a close relationship to the EU? That means trade barriers to the biggest trading partner you have. Do you understand what is coming or are you still believing David Davis and his magical deal that he will get?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Trade policy and opportunities coming from that were also a key part of the campaign. You can't truly take back control of your laws of you hand over trade policy to Brussels.

I will ask again, seeing as you typed it again, what laws have the EU forced on the UK? Talking about laws here, that you want to get control of.

Nody

Jim2007 wrote: »

In order to limit immigration, Switzerland issues very few third country permit each year- we're talking thousands here. To get one, the employer must show there is no one available to take the job in the EU/EEA/CH block base on Eurostat figures not advertising. If the stats show there are people available but no one applied, the employer is told to up the wages and conditions until someone does!

A new tag has started to appear on job ads: CH/EU-27 only, meaning no U.K. need apply.

This one will actually be quite big due to the number of HQs in Switzerland from international companies who'll struggle to get UK senior management over (and UK senior management are now competing with world wide group of people for the same role vs. EU only previously).

Thargor

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A.) It's possible to have a Facebook and Twitter account and ignore half the rubbish shared there, B.) Nobody's forcing people to buy the Daily Mail etc.

I'll put it this way. If you can inform yourself properly about Brexit (and I'm assuming you consider yourself informed) why can't anyone else?

You're still thinking about it in individual terms instead of its overall effect on the herd, especially in things like Brexit/Trump that come down to 49/51 splits. Are you happy for major decisions that will impact us economically for generations to be decided by lying vested interests and the Russian government? (Or "A lad over in Russia on Twitter" as solodeogloria insists on referring to it for some reason :rolleyes:)

ambro25

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

You talk of 'numerical' bias in the ECJ (which is patent nonsense, and goes a very long way to show your lack of knowledge and understanding of Community law and practice),

The patent nonsense is that the UK wants to continuing to use European Patents while rejecting the ECJ.

The European patent system has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or the ECJ (as the EPO Boards of Appeal never miss an opportunity to remind all those who foolishly try and bring EU case law into proceedings - same story with the ECHR and its own case law).

The Unified Patent Court agreement does, to a limited extent. But it's yet to be ratified for coming into force. Brexit is an issued for that one, but not the European patent system as such.

Just FYI :-)

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



Why was going to Brussels weak? This is what leaders like Hollande and Merkel were doing all the time. I think the only difference between Britain's position and that of France and Germany is that Britain wanted less integration and France and Germany wanted more.



Not all of these trade deals are free trade agreements. Many of them leave tariffs unchanged. You can see the details on the European Commission's website.

When it comes to free trade deals the EU have a knack of either scuppering them (as with TTIP) or dragging them out for a very long time (like CETA).

When you don't have to ratify every trade deal in 27 countries. No doubt this will get quicker.



You didn't answer my question about how being subject to the ECJ is in the British national interest. It obviously isn't. A bilateral deal should have equal representation of both parties and a third party.

The UK won't be permitted to sit on the ECJ after Brexit if it isn't a member of the EU.

On the 44% I ninja edited your post to deal with another poster.



In two a two worded question - who cares? I definitely don't.

This comes from the same line of thinking that says that voters are too feeble to decide anything for themselves.

If that's true, we might as well just scrap elections and move back to single party rule.



Obviously it isn't the same as single market membership. I accept that much. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat something everyone already understands.

The objective with EU trade seems to be to preserve as much of it as possible whilst looking to the wider world for increased trade. I think this is the biggest advantage of Brexit. Control over trade policy.



Yet, you've provided not a single good reason as to why or how seeking free trade deals with other countries is "fairy tale economics".

You need to start backing up your ad hominems with substance.



The Conservatives have seats in Wales and Scotland. Hardly regional. You could also say this about Labour, who also have a majority of their seats in England.

Again, this seems to be just an argumentum ad hominem. Encouraging a good business environment is good for everyone, dealing with the deficit is good for everyone. The working class voted for the Conservatives in increasing numbers in the last election. Labour's vote actually increased amongst the middle classes.

Don't let the facts get in the way of the ad hominems though.



The UK are looking to be outside of the European Union, the single market and the customs union ultimately. This is a different deal to what they have now.

The UK need to say no to the ECJ. It isn't reasonable to have a biased court sitting over UK affairs.

There is no point leaving the EU if Britain will have none of the benefits of doing so. That's key. The UK isn't going to simply roll over to the EU. It has to argue for the best outcome for the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Because it allows access to the single market. This has seen Britain's economy go from near bankrupt to one of the richest countries in the world. The referendum and the UK's subsequent threat of leaving the single market have seen Britain reduced to the worst performing economy in the world.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



You'd get laughed at for saying someone can change their minds on assessing the facts?

Interesting. I don't think a user on Twitter is massively significant. I think people were clever enough to make up their own mind.

The vote of the people needs to be respected. If it isn't I'll definitely be campaigning in some way to ensure that it is.



If you were around in the UK between March and June in 2016 you'd know it wasn't a hypothesis. The Leave campaign was fought in the basis of taking back control of borders, laws and money.

You can't do this whilst being subject to the ECJ, giving the EU control over trade policy and continuing free movement of people.



Trade policy and opportunities coming from that were also a key part of the campaign. You can't truly take back control of your laws of you hand over trade policy to Brussels.



Not true. I think most people understand the difference in scale to being a member of the UN or NATO versus being a member of the EU. The difference is the scale of control that is required to be handed over.



We've already had the chicken chat. I'm personally not that fussed about it but Michael Gove and David Davis now seem to think it isn't a runner. Let's see.

I guess the question for people who think this is a horrendous prospect is do they eat chicken when they visit America?



Yes, I changed my mind on assessing the facts. What's so difficult about that?

If the UK doesn't deliver what the people voted for then I'll definitely find some way of being involved in campaigning to finish the job. If the UK stays in the single market and customs union permanently it hasn't regained any control whatsoever.

You haven't even debated me. You've offered one liners for the most part. I've yet to see any robust defence of your position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Because they're not facts. Also you've changed motive several times. There's no one position to debate. It's gone from:

• Britain will get a decent deal and do OK.
  
• Britain will thrive outside the EU.
  
• Britain should get the most from EU trade.
  
• and an example of a complete reversal from the proceeding view and my personal favorite, "I will campaign for a hard Brexit.

murphaph

With Labour now moving towards staying in the customs union and single market, there is almost certainly no parliamentary majority in favour of a hard Brexit.

I am now thinking the UK will end up asking for this and it will be granted subject to continued payment into the budget.

I see this long transitional phase becoming semi permanent and the UK averting a complete disaster but it being damaging enough to scare them back into the EU (as proper members) in about 10 years.

It's that or the cliff edge and I think business will begin to scream as they finally realise what this means in reality.

Gerry T

murphaph wrote:

With Labour now moving towards staying in the customs union and single market, there is almost certainly no parliamentary majority in favour of a hard Brexit.

Leaving the EU, do you think that there's an option to stay in the customs union and single market, I don't.

Calina

I think th option might have existed until May mixed up her courts and redlined ECJ.

Now it will take serious negotiation and so far the UK has not demonstrated the nous.

murphaph

Gerry T wrote: »

Leaving the EU, do you think that there's an option to stay in the customs union and single market, I don't.

Yeah I think there is, at least in practice but only if the UK subjects itself to the ECJ like the rest of us of course.

It'll be sold as a transitional phase to avoid cliff edge disaster and then it'll bed down and another referendum will be held in 10 years or so on rejoining as fully committed members including € and Schengen.

It'll be that or the cliff edge in a few months. I don't really believe they are preparing to blame the EU on the failure to reach a deal. I genuinely think the Tory arrogance led them to believe they were on an equal footing to 440 million people in the rest of the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Gerry T wrote: »

Leaving the EU, do you think that there's an option to stay in the customs union and single market, I don't.

Of course there is - it would be beneficial for both sides if the UK stays in the customs union. It would be beneficial for both sides if the UK stays in the Single Market.

Mind you, it would be beneficial for both sides if the UK called the whole stupid Brexit thing off, but they seem determined to self-harm.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Of course there is - it would be beneficial for both sides if the UK stays in the customs union. It would be beneficial for both sides if the UK stays in the Single Market.

Of course, but then that would mean they couldn't sign all those great trade deals that the nasty EU is stopping.

I wonder when reality will dawn?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because it allows access to the single market. This has seen Britain's economy go from near bankrupt to one of the richest countries in the world. The referendum and the UK's subsequent threat of leaving the single market have seen Britain reduced to the worst performing economy in the world.

You're confusing two things again. Access to the single market is different to membership. A free trade agreement provides access to the single market and regaining control. That's why I prefer this option.

Also the slowest in the G7 isn't the same as the worst performing economy in the world. There is uncertainty during the negotiations but the economy is still growing and will pick up when things become clearer.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because they're not facts. Also you've changed motive several times. There's no one position to debate. It's gone from:

• Britain will get a decent deal and do OK.
  
• Britain will thrive outside the EU.
  
• Britain should get the most from EU trade.
  
• and an example of a complete reversal from the proceeding view and my personal favorite, "I will campaign for a hard Brexit.

Pointing to Britain's trade figures and seeing how most trade is outside the EU and could be expanded on more favourable terms is based on the figures.

On the other hand you've not really made a positive argument for your position. Stating that my position isn't based on facts without any justification doesn't make it true.

There is no such thing as hard or soft Brexit. There's only Brexit. So called "soft Brexit" isn't what the people voted for. It just means staying in the EU by the backdoor without seeking the obvious advantages that come from being outside.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



You're confusing two things again. Access to the single market is different to !membership. A free trade agreement provides access to the single market and regaining control. That's why I prefer this option.

Also the slowest in the G7 isn't the same as the worst performing economy in the world. There is uncertainty during the negotiations but the economy is still growing and will pick up when things become clearer.



Pointing to Britain's trade figures and seeing how most trade is outside the EU and could bve expanded on more favourable terms is based on the figures.

On the other hand you've not really made a positive argument for your position. Stating that my position isn't based on facts without any justification doesn't make it true.

There is no such thing as hard or soft Brexit. There's only Brexit. So called "soft Brexit" isn't what the people voted for. It just means staying in the EU by the backdoor without seeking the obvious advantages that come from being outside.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You want access to the single market without the regulations and you want to be totally out of the EU........

Sorry S. I tried but I don't believe you find that position credible unless you're parodying the Brexit negotiating team.

I'll just debate against Brexit in general as I don't think your posts make sense.

oppenheimer1

If the Sunday times is to be believed, they are reporting that May has secretly agreed to a €50bn exit fee.

This kind of kite flying is interesting had to be said.

Junkyard Tom

Britain will pay its exit fee. The GB-exit fee is bigger than Britain, it's about world economic order. The British have a big stake in world economic order with thier global FIRE sector. If Britain didn't play ball on the exit fee it would be considered an unreliable partner in any future negotiation with other trading blocs.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You're confusing two things again. Access to the single market is different to !membership. A free trade agreement provides access to the single market and regaining control. That's why I prefer this option.

A free trade agreement doesn't provide carte blanche.

For CETA some of the reductions will be phased in over as many as 8 years. Goods in Category E won't have any reductions. For many foodstuffs there are quotas.

http://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/campaign-campagne/ceta-aecg/find_your_tariff_rate-trouvez_votre_taux_tarifaire.aspx?lang=eng

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/text-texte/02-A.aspx?lang=eng


Anyone think the UK car industry can thrive for seven years on tariffs in addition to the uncertain time until a deal is reached ?
http://wardsauto.com/industry/canadian-eu-auto-industries-welcome-trade-pact

Tariffs on all Canada-built vehicles, including 10% on automobiles, will be phased out over seven years, some sooner than that: EU tariffs of up to 22% on light-goods vehicles will be phased out over three years, while tariffs of up to 16% on minibuses carrying at least 10 people will be phased out over five years.

Note this is assuming the UK can get as good a deal as Canada.

Jim2007

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If Britain didn't play ball on the exit fee it would be considered an unreliable partner in any future negotiation with other trading blocs.

If the UK does not sort out an exit agreement they will never get to trade talks. EU member states will simply block their WTO full membership with objection after objection to their trade schedules etc... That is probably the only thing that keeps them at the table.

Calina

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If the Sunday times is to be believed, they are reporting that May has secretly agreed to a €50bn exit fee.

This kind of kite flying is interesting had to be said.

This after the three hour powerpoint whinge during the week?

A detailed rationale for any price that the UK media claims that they have agreed is deeply desired. They have been a bit detached from the concept of detail to date.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Of course there is - it would be beneficial for both sides if the UK stays in the customs union. It would be beneficial for both sides if the UK stays in the Single Market.

IMHO the EU will lay a couple of conditions before any temporary single union trade agreement. Such as freedom of movement of people from EU into UK, with all relating benefits, ECJ for disputes, full commitment on obligations present and future. And no say in the future direction of Europe. And even at that I don't think all EU members will allow them that benefit, so it prob won't happen.

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

This after the three hour powerpoint whinge during the week?

That just reminds me of the photo from the first day of negotiations when the EU showed up with documents and pens and the UK didn't.

Samaris

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah I think there is, at least in practice but only if the UK subjects itself to the ECJ like the rest of us of course.

It'll be sold as a transitional phase to avoid cliff edge disaster and then it'll bed down and another referendum will be held in 10 years or so on rejoining as fully committed members including € and Schengen.

It'll be that or the cliff edge in a few months. I don't really believe they are preparing to blame the EU on the failure to reach a deal. I genuinely think the Tory arrogance led them to believe they were on an equal footing to 440 million people in the rest of the EU.

I agree with the last line, but I suspect it will go for "blame the EU" anyway. The newspapers are at it already and once people have been softened up a bit by the idea being introduced by the Express (squeezed in between the ever-popular WORLD WAR 3!! headlines), Telegraph et al, it's the obvious excuse the politicians will go for.

Cowardly and lying, yes, but it's what they'll do. These people are not statesmen and -women. They are snake-oil salesmen well out of their depth who are going to be unpopular with a large portion of the country no matter what they do. And they don't seem to know what to do anyway.

Akrasia

This is the slowest car crash in history. We can see it coming a mile away, there have been countless opportunities for the UK to avoid brexit or to have a pseudo brexit but they are too proud to admit that they screwed up and they're just going to keep barrelling down the wrong side of the motorway with their eyes closed actively ignoring all the signs urging them to turn around.

Capt'n Midnight

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the slowest car crash in history.

What's worse is that even if May is leading them at the next election and they win it, maybe they could use the FF guide to buying elections, they won't win the next one unless Brexit is the resounding success everyone knows it won't be.

It's like the Conservatives are repeating the pattern of making themselves unelectable for a generation.

And that's probably the best case scenario.


The problem with a two party system in FPTP is that you can end up with politics of fear where your support from the centre is from people who fear the far right or far left more than they like your party. And then it's another round of flip flop.

Worst case is changing the political landscape such that the harder left wing are now seen as viable alternative by those who will have to bare the brunt of any new austerity.


Have a read of this for an alternative that was unthinkable not so long ago
https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/09/02/brexit-a-revolution-drifting-towards-failure/

Jim2007

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the slowest car crash in history. We can see it coming a mile away, there have been countless opportunities for the UK to avoid brexit or to have a pseudo brexit but they are too proud to admit that they screwed up and they're just going to keep barrelling down the wrong side of the motorway with their eyes closed actively ignoring all the signs urging them to turn around.

The problem is that they have no acceptable mechanism for changing their mind - the political parties own the decision and that makes it a big U turn issue! If I look at Ireland and Switzerland (the two I know), the people own the decision and it is not seen as a failing or victory for a political party. That makes it easier to renegotiate, to reconsider and vote again.