Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

As expected. The positives that you yourself posted to exist , simply don't.
.I asked you to post the positives because you said there was some when you responded to me. As per forum rules you were asked to provide evidence to back up your own claims.

I was not demanding anything but the minimum required of such a forum.

So basically there are no positives. Your current stance is nothing more than bluster and a true example as any of British exceptionalism. But sure it's the EUs fault isn't it...

You swore blind to me the UK had been excluded from the EHIC (untrue)and when I mentioned the authorities are trying to change the hospital name in Drogheda (which is true)you accused me of "false news"so maybe give him a break.

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The benefits are not economic, but sovereignty and independence are worth the price to some.

Everyone here sneers at these as benefits of Brexit, but these are the same reasons Switzerland, Norway and Sweden put the brakes on full membership of the EU, and I don't hear people slagging them off for it.

Norway, like Scotland exports raw materials, food and energy. So like Turkey taking control of food makes sense.

The UK imports half it's food.
And didn't even bother to take control of fishing from the Faroe Islands.

So taking back control but not using it ? Insanity.

If the UK ends up in a Norway style arrangement, I think that would be a fair reflection of the referendum result.

I think so too.
But only as a punishment for not understanding what it actually entails.

Count the red lines.

Four Freedoms. Especially movement. (Labour and Tories differ on which others to reject)
Schengen. As in NO checks on arrivals from the EU or EFTA.
No passporting for financials.
Membership costs per capita for Norway are the same as the UK.
Hard Border ( a handful of borders over vast distances and some are car only / close at night )
European Courts
Adopting three quarters of the EU’s rules and legislation.
No say in the rules


You don't want Norway
You want Norway ++ + + + + + + (with variations on the first ++)

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

You swore blind to me the UK had been excluded from the EHIC (untrue)and when I mentioned the authorities are trying to change the hospital name in Drogheda (which is true)you accused me of "false news"so maybe give him a break.

I think you are confusing posters.

Because I didn't swear anything to you or anything about EHIC.

Cheers though.

And as for the change in hospital name .I never said the story was untrue I told you the reasons for it that you were suggesting was untrue. And yes it was false news and yes you were spreading it.

Folkstonian

Calina wrote: »

Norway style arrangement has less input to decision making.

Yes, but equally it means that the vast sums of money channeled off to the European Union are reduced significantly, the areas over which EU law must be adhered are also lessened greatly, no future obligation to participate in political union, a firm distance between the U.K. and European ventures such as military integration. It’s not a ‘full fat brexit’ but is probably more like a semi-skimmed one. It doesn’t fulfill on all the promises, but for now it might be a compromise the majority can stomach.

Capt'n Midnight

lawred2 wrote: »

Zero hour contracts... Almost 1m of them now in the UK. Almost 500% increase since the end of the last decade.

It's reported that near 50% of new jobs are in the gig economy i.e. self employment

Bollocks really and evidence of a massive expansion of the service sector with no real correlating increase in national output. Basically minimum wage jobs with no security or benefits.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK economey has chronic problems with productivity, companies engage in outdated labour intensive work parctices rather than make capital investment in better tech. It keeps employment high, but it reduces efficiency accross the economey which means that people's incomes are relativly depressed.

This is not a Brexit problem, its a longterm pattern in the UK.

It's a Brexit problem now that the trend has accelerated. The car industry alone used to invest £2.5Bn a year, it's now down to £0.6Bn

Right now there's a lot of work in contingency plans for Brexit.

Will the new hires be needed after Brexit day ?

listermint

Folkstonian wrote: »

Yes, but equally it means that the vast sums of money channeled off to the European Union are reduced significantly, the areas over which EU law must be adhered are also lessened greatly, no future obligation to participate in political union, a firm distance between the U.K. and European ventures such as military integration. It’s not a ‘full fat brexit’ but is probably more like a semi-skimmed one. It doesn’t fulfill on all the promises, but for now it might be a compromise the majority can stomach.

The money is the same.

The EU law would still have to be adhered to as would EU standards.

This is more untruths exposed.

What promises? The ones that can't be achieved because they were lies not promises.

You have to stand by your convictions folk and give actual positives. Is it a case you can't and are just repeating the same rethoric that you hear from your heroes in the ERG.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

The money is the same.

The EU law would still have to be adhered to as would EU standards.

This is more untruths exposed.

What promises? The ones that can't be achieved because they were lies not promises.

You have to stand by your convictions folk and give actual positives. Is it a case you can't and are just repeating the same rethoric that you hear from your heroes in the ERG.

Reduced amount of money and laws I think.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The benefits are not economic, but sovereignty and independence are worth the price to some.

Everyone here sneers at these as benefits of Brexit, but these are the same reasons Switzerland, Norway and Sweden put the brakes on full membership of the EU, and I don't hear people slagging them off for it.

If the UK ends up in a Norway style arrangement, I think that would be a fair reflection of the referendum result.

The problem is that the UK politically won't accept a Norway style agreement. The political class still think they control India.

This is a fairly good video. The British essentially 'fooled' the whole people of India into subservience.

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

Reduced amount of money and laws I think.

How exactly?

Norway pays more per capita into the EU than the UK does today. How would it be smaller contributions and the only laws I know of is state competition. But there's plenty in free trade deals that would Kerb that.

Brexit is great isn't it....

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

Yes, but equally it means that the vast sums of money channeled off to the European Union are reduced significantly, the areas over which EU law must be adhered are also lessened greatly, no future obligation to participate in political union, a firm distance between the U.K. and European ventures such as military integration. It’s not a ‘full fat brexit’ but is probably more like a semi-skimmed one. It doesn’t fulfill on all the promises, but for now it might be a compromise the majority can stomach.

I really don't understand the 'vast sums of money' argument at all. The amount that's paid into the EU by the UK, barely gets over the 1% of GDP mark. And it doesn't include the direct payments made to agriculture or structural funds that come back into the UK. And Norway pay the same amount per capita as the UK.

And it's not a payment that just gets absorbed and buys no value for the UK. As the UK are now finding out. It pays for a centralised bureaucracy that delivers economies of scale in many areas that the UK will now have to pay on their own. Thousands of new civil servants are now being deployed into areas that the EU used to do for them. 7,000 at the last count (and I haven't been keeping up to date on that for a few months). It's estimated that this alone will wipe out any benefit of not making those payments in the future.

And that's before you get into the benefit of having a massive bloc negotiating trade deals on your behalf. One that can take it or leave it if the terms don't suit. It seems to me like the guy who wants to leave a golf society because he reckons he'll get better green fee deals than the society will.

listermint

prawnsambo wrote: »

I really don't understand the 'vast sums of money' argument at all. The amount that's paid into the EU by the UK, barely gets over the 1% of GDP mark. And it doesn't include the direct payments made to agriculture or structural funds that come back into the UK. And Norway pay the same amount per capita as the UK.

And it's not a payment that just gets absorbed and buys no value for the UK. As the UK are now finding out. It pays for a centralised bureaucracy that delivers economies of scale in many areas that the UK will now have to pay on their own. Thousands of new civil servants are now being deployed into areas that the EU used to do for them. 7,000 at the last count (and I haven't been keeping up to date on that for a few months). It's estimated that this alone will wipe out any benefit of not making those payments in the future.

And that's before you get into the benefit of having a massive bloc negotiating trade deals on your behalf. One that can take it or leave it if the terms don't suit. It seems to me like the guy who wants to leave a golf society because he reckons he'll get better green fee deals than the society will.

You barely have to scrape beneath the surface of the bluster to expose the lies. There is no factual basis to these claims.

There is no factual basis for optimisum
There is no factual positives.

If there was then brexiteers would be able to proudly shout them from the rooftops and vigorously defend that position.

They can't because there isn't.

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

Reduced amount of money and laws I think.

Certain regulations don't apply. But there is a lot of discussion. The Norwegians do talk about legislation by fax though.

On the money front, Norway per capita contributions about about 2/3s what the UK pays gross so the rebate brings them quite a bit closer. https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/ An exact comparison is difficult. But the likely saving is potentially 12-25% depending on what the UK wants to pay in for.

Certainly unlikely to be getting back 350 million per week for the NHS.

Water John

I've no problem with No Brexit or a Soft Brexit, with the NI backstop, just once No Deal is off the table.
A Soft Brexit would have been the sensible choice to pursue the day after the Ref.
That's not just hindsight, it was obvious at the time.
The lapse of time left the mad boys and ERG push the extreme and May's Lancaster House 3 red lines totally cooked the goose.

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

Certain regulations don't apply. But there is a lot of discussion. The Norwegians do talk about legislation by fax though.

On the money front, Norway per capita contributions about about 2/3s what the UK pays gross so the rebate brings them quite a bit closer. https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/ An exact comparison is difficult. But the likely saving is potentially 12-25% depending on what the UK wants to pay in for.

Certainly unlikely to be getting back 350 million per week for the NHS.

Galileo GPS high availability is so vital to UK defence that the UK insisted that it wouldn't be available to non-EU countries.

So Norway doesn't get access to Galileo. That alone is going to cost the UK £5Bn to replace.


So a Norway deal isn't cheaper than staying in.

And that's before you consider just how many Red Lines a Norway deal would cross.

RobMc59

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Galileo GPS high availability is so vital to UK defence that the UK insisted that it wouldn't be available to non-EU countries.

So Norway doesn't get access to Galileo. That alone is going to cost the UK £5Bn to replace.


So a Norway deal isn't cheaper than staying in.

And that's before you consider just how many Red Lines a Norway deal would cross.

The worst thing about that is the EU were willing to let the UK use Galileo but not participate in its further development I believe.
As regards Norway, what do they use instead of galileo for GPS?

jochenstacker

There's no point discussing a Norway deal for the UK. HoC is so utterly paralysed that I don't see support for any deal winning out, so no deal will happen by default.
And "sorry, we're having a meltdown" will not be a good enough excuse to extend or delay.
The end result will be "3...2...1...done" as bickering, backstabbing and just sheer panic reigns.
Forcing a reality onto the UK will be a wonderful way to focus the mind.
Giving in now and throwing concessions would be a disaster.

Capt'n Midnight

Folkstonian wrote: »

Yes, but equally it means that the vast sums of money channeled off to the European Union are reduced significantly, the areas over which EU law must be adhered are also lessened greatly, no future obligation to participate in political union, a firm distance between the U.K. and European ventures such as military integration. It’s not a ‘full fat brexit’ but is probably more like a semi-skimmed one. It doesn’t fulfill on all the promises, but for now it might be a compromise the majority can stomach.

Vast sums ?
According to the Bank of England Brexit is costing £800m a week and it could be called off tomorrow if MP's were allowed a free vote.

Laws lessened greatly ? Norway signs up to three quarters of EU laws according to the UK parliament.

Military integration ? Perhaps you have heard of NATO , as in 2% of GDP. Please. Try. Harder.

The last line is golden
It doesn’t fulfill on all the promises, but for now it might be a compromise the majority can stomach.
IIRC May's deal got 16% support in a public poll. There is no one size fits all Brexit. There is no common ground for Leavers.

The only thing that might unite all is immigration. The main thing May has done is deport people who are no longer paying taxes. But she has also has opened the floodgates even before everyone from the Indians to the Kiwis (Asia to Zealand) demand more visas and longer visas.

So we are right back at :
What is the point in sacrificing so much to take back control if you aren't going to use it ?
( see also not restricting the A8 countries like others did )

liamtech

jochenstacker wrote: »

There's no point discussing a Norway deal for the UK. HoC is so utterly paralysed that I don't see support for any deal winning out, so no deal will happen by default.
And "sorry, we're having a meltdown" will not be a good enough excuse to extend or delay.
The end result will be "3...2...1...done" as bickering, backstabbing and just sheer panic reigns.
Forcing a reality onto the UK will be a wonderful way to focus the mind.
Giving in now and throwing concessions would be a disaster.

its a peculiar situation, because that is a terrible situation but i am forced to agree - i cant see a way out - politics is cannibalizing itself in the UK - the ethical reality would be

-for MAY to admit she cannot do this.. ask for an extension
-Once she gets it, which i think she will
-Resign and call a general election

She wont do this because like so many leaders of the conservative party, she places its status and condition and wellbeing of the party, ahead of the country

Folkstonian

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Vast sums ?
According to the Bank of England Brexit is costing £800m a week and it could be called off tomorrow if MP's were allowed a free vote.

Laws lessened greatly ? Norway signs up to three quarters of EU laws according to the UK parliament.

Military integration ? Perhaps you have heard of NATO , as in 2% of GDP. Please. Try. Harder.

The last line is golden
It doesn’t fulfill on all the promises, but for now it might be a compromise the majority can stomach.
IIRC May's deal got 16% support in a public poll. There is no one size fits all Brexit. There is no common ground for Leavers.

The only thing that might unite all is immigration. The main thing May has done is deport people who are no longer paying taxes. But she has also has opened the floodgates even before everyone from the Indians to the Kiwis (Asia to Zealand) demand more visas and longer visas.

So we are right back at :
What is the point in sacrificing so much to take back control if you aren't going to use it ?
( see also not restricting the A8 countries like others did )

Your point about ‘opening the floodgates’ to everyone from Indians to kiwis - so what? Why is a Frenchman or an Austrian a better immigrant than one from New Delhi?
I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the two (indeed I’ve probably more in common with the Indian, given the fact I’ve travelled around South Asia extensively, adore the cuisine and the culture, and am a big cricket fan but that is all of peripheral importance) and feel no specific kinship with the European.
The only key difference I see is that with non-EU migrants, the current U.K. govt, the next one, and governments for decades to come can fully control the number and type of migrants that come to Britain. That’s not a particularly bad thing in my eyes.

On NATO - I fully support Britain’s enduring commitment to collective security as one independent military power under the NATO umbrella. I’m proud that we do more than any other European country to help Eastern European members from the spectre of putin. I’m unnerved at the apparent duplication of NATO structures that the EU is pursuing, this despite the fact that very few European nations take defence in the least bit seriously. It’s a total folly, and a vanity project cheerlead mostly by ardent pan-Europeanist politicians from their Brussels offices.

Are these factors, among others obviously, important enough to people that they are worth foregoing the economic benefits of being in the EU? For some they are, for others they aren’t. My view? On the fence

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

The worst thing about that is the EU were willing to let the UK use Galileo but not participate in its further development I believe.
As regards Norway, what do they use instead of galileo for GPS?

Norway have such a special relationship with the USA that they would never have a need to develop their own independent system.



The UK has sunk about £1.2Bn into Galileo and not only won't they be allowed use the military grade signals, they won't get future contracts on the high tech stuff. Bits are made in the UK, but by companies like Airbus so divisions and jobs that might have to be moved to the EU.

ancapailldorcha

Folkstonian wrote: »

‘Nonsense’. Right ho. Maybe you should take a class in advanced moderating, then they may allow you to decide what I can and can’t post.

I’ve avoided responding to the other guy’s demand because a) it’s mildly amusing to see him carry on about it like he can actually make ‘demands’ and expect people to react kindly and b) the percieved benefits of leaving the EU are well known and roundly dismissed out of hand, rendering it a waste of time to even type them. This is thread 7 on the topic, anything original that’s going to be said has already been said, many times over

Yeah, this is trolling. Banned.

breatheme

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The benefits are not economic, but sovereignty and independence are worth the price to some.

Everyone here sneers at these as benefits of Brexit, but these are the same reasons Switzerland, Norway and Sweden put the brakes on full membership of the EU, and I don't hear people slagging them off for it.

If the UK ends up in a Norway style arrangement, I think that would be a fair reflection of the referendum result.

Ignoring Sweden (which is an EU member) I don't slag them for it because I find it that they're pretty much in the EU in all but name and if they want to sit outside the room and get their laws faxed in then sure, ok.

And if this is what happens to the UK, I'll be more than just a bit amused.

Capt'n Midnight

More unnamed sources so really only using it as a reminder that the divorce bill is less than half of what the UK economy has lost since the vote.

Prime Minister Theresa May is making progress on winning Brexit concessions from the European Union, a senior minister said on Sunday

May is making a last-ditch effort to get changes to the divorce package before lawmakers try as early as Wednesday to grab control of Brexit.

I love this comment from a while back over on
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2019/01/28/data_flows_in_a_nodeal_brexit_are_significant_concern_say_mps/

The £39bn is basically the UK settling its account - it's not a purchase of goodwill.

The way I see the situation, it's running up a large bar tab at your local hostelry. You decide to take your business elsewhere, so the landlord expects you to settle the bill before you go. In the case of Brexit, you can extend the analogy that it's like you've spent the last few years calling the barman a c***, but still expect him to sell you beer at a discount.

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

More unnamed sources so really only using it as a reminder that the divorce bill is less than half of what the UK economy has lost since the vote.

Prime Minister Theresa May is making progress on winning Brexit concessions from the European Union, a senior minister said on Sunday


I love this comment from a while back over on
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2019/01/28/data_flows_in_a_nodeal_brexit_are_significant_concern_say_mps/

That was Gove on the Marr show. He was spinning so much I thought his head would fall off.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That was Gove on the Marr show. He was spinning so much I thought his head would fall off.

Thanks.

Oddly enough I was half watching it this morning. But have tuned out anything he says long ago. Scary to think he's as good chance as anyone of becoming leader next.

ancapailldorcha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thanks.

Oddly enough I was half watching it this morning. But have tuned out anything he says long ago. Scary to think he's as good chance as anyone of becoming leader next.

Gove is definitely one of the saner choices if you can get over his opposition to the GFA. Someone like Rees-Mogg would be infinitely worse and might even split the Tories though that might not be a bad thing.

EdgeCase

There's a huge problem with how they've attempted to negotiate with a multilateral international body as if were an opposition political party.

All the snide and nasty comments aimed at the EU haven't achieved anything at all other than to reinforce football hollogan style stereotypes and get people's backs up.

Meanwhile the attempts to use spin, political lies and brinkmanship with what is a very pragmatic, technocratic organisation that operates on consensus finding and tends to move slowly, deliberately and be very facts based was also absolutely crazy. All it's done is destroy trust between the EU and the UK and has left a lot of people somewhat shocked at how they've been treated.

The door was open and the EU was very willing to come up with a sane a sensible exit plan, that might have been a long, careful and pragmatic departure that maybe might take 10-15 years to complete.

The UK had basically burnt every bridge that's been put in front of it with sets of absolute demands to achieve impossible things immediately.

There is no solution to this. If the rhetoric doesn't calm down by March it'll be a crash out with some last minute attempts by the EU to mitigate absolute disaster, but that's all they'll be.

It's pointless even trying to discuss this with most commentators from the UK. Everything about diehard nationalism or domestic politics.

You might as well be trying to get the DUP to discuss the Irish language act and same sex marriage. It's just pure dogmatic positions and there's no negotiation really at all. They're not even being polite about it.

At this stage I think this thread has become basically just a place to collate the latest news on Brexit, as we all know that unless something siesmic happens in British politics, there will be no solution and from what I am reading of Westminster, all that's going to come over the next 30 days is chaos and paralysis.

Inquitus

EdgeCase wrote: »

At this stage I think this thread has become basically just a place to collate the latest news on Brexit, as we all know that unless something siesmic happens in British politics, there will be no solution and from what I am reading of Westminster, all that's going to come over the next 30 days is chaos and paralysis.

I think there is a good chance parliament will take some sort of control of the process next week, if May comes back empty handed from Brussels, there is a majority in favour of ruling out no deal.

Evd-Burner

Inquitus wrote: »

I think there is a good chance parliament will take some sort of control of the process next week, if May comes back empty handed from Brussels, there is a majority in favour of ruling out no deal.

Them just wanting to rule it out isn't enough. They need a majority consensus for something, not just against something. Parliament taking control might end up in a no deal regardless unless by some divine intervention they request a delay in order to run a second referendum, something I just can't see happening.

Sam Russell

Evd-Burner wrote: »

Them just wanting to rule it out isn't enough. They need a majority consensus for something, not just against something. Parliament taking control might end up in a no deal regardless unless by some divine intervention they request a delay in order to run a second referendum, something I just can't see happening.

Well there could be a consesus for revoking Art 50. If the choice is 'No Deal' or 'Revoke' the choice would be 'Revoke' within the HoC.