Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[ccc]

24 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You are either very young or have a short memory. There used to be huge resentment against Irish immigrants, to the extent that my farther had to change his name to get a job when he first arrived.  

Not for a very long time. 6 million is not a concern compared to 505 million. 

19 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Actually it's a very small cost in comparison with the internal transfers between SE and the rest of the UK.

It's not a small cost by any comparison.

11 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

Everything is a mess economically as we all know but for me "Brexit Y/N?" doesn't even begin to offer a positive solution and only offers negatives.

 I might be willing to say yes to Brexit if it meant us first leaving the UK then England rejoins the EU, if the new terms were right as I think they might be if we did not have to bring the other countries. Otherwise just stay as we are (no Brexit, keep UK) is second best. Plain Brexit definitely no as I already said. 

This is your opinion. The majority disagree. That's democracy.

[Confusion of VIs]

9 minutes ago, ccc said:

Not for a very long time. 6 million is not a concern compared to 505 million. 

It's not a small cost by any comparison.

This is your opinion. The majority disagree. That's democracy.

The majority disagreed on June 23rd last year. However, as always the world moves on and what's important is what the majority thinks in about 18 months time, once we no what the deal is. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-changed-minds-brexit-second-referendum-poll-finds-a7795591.html

[Funn3r]

6 minutes ago, ccc said:

Not for a very long time. 6 million is not a concern compared to 505 million. 

It's not a small cost by any comparison.

This is your opinion. The majority disagree. That's democracy.

Democracy is not to do with opinions it is to do with ruling. In my perfect world I would be able to do my own personal tiny part of ruling, instead of as now being limited to handing over my ruling power to a bunch of donkeys and wasters. However it is what it is and the donkeys and wasters are calling the shots. Perhaps turkeys is a better metaphor than donkeys and I cannot believe they will ever vote for "brexmas". 

[ccc]

15 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The majority disagreed on June 23rd last year. However, as always the world moves on and what's important is what the majority thinks in about 18 months time, once we no what the deal is. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-changed-minds-brexit-second-referendum-poll-finds-a7795591.html

So let's have a vote every year and jump in and out of the EU on a regular basis ? 

Nuts.

15 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

Democracy is not to do with opinions it is to do with ruling. In my perfect world I would be able to do my own personal tiny part of ruling, instead of as now being limited to handing over my ruling power to a bunch of donkeys and wasters. However it is what it is and the donkeys and wasters are calling the shots. Perhaps turkeys is a better metaphor than donkeys and I cannot believe they will ever vote for "brexmas". 

If you want to be in the EU it's a vote for more donkeys and wasters to rule over you. 

How anyone can consciously vote for that really is beyond me.

[BorrowToLeech]

It seems to me that freedom of movement would be the easiest thing to negotiate on. 

Simply apply a tarriff to companies employing foreign staff (applied only to new staff after a certain date). Make it reciprocal, and make the tax lower for EU than on-EU. 

You're taxing company's operations here, not companies in Europe, you keep FOM, the tax can be raised or lowered to make immigration sustainable.

I fail to see why European countries would object to this. According to their own ideology it would be bad for the UK and good for them. 

I think sovereignty of parliament is much harder to deal with. 

[slawek]

The latest poll on Brexit. People want soft Brexit with the referendum.

http://mailchi.mp/survation/post-election-poll-for-the-mail-on-sunday-1118637?e=c37db807f4

[ccc]

27 minutes ago, slawek said:

The latest poll on Brexit. People want soft Brexit with the referendum.

http://mailchi.mp/survation/post-election-poll-for-the-mail-on-sunday-1118637?e=c37db807f4

Poll ? 

You do realise these days they're usually terrible in terms of predictions. Not always though. 

[ccc]

And I seem to have missed where in that "poll" there is a soft and a hard option ?

Even though these words are completely pointless in this situation. 

[SqueezePlay]

Thanks to Futeroid who gave his definition of hardvand soft brexit and the direction to the Flexit website. Lots of good stuff there.

No, i am not David Davies ! Just trying to work this stuff out in my head. There is a dearth of high quality info available but lots of opinons !

The tory manifesto had leaving the single market and the customs union. Marr this morning had Hammond  and Keir Stammer agreing that we could not remain in the sinjle market but there was a difference with regard to the custom union. Hammond clearly out and Starmer up for negotition. The interesting thing with Hammond was his statement about a transition period. So, we leave all the EU institutions to reach a 'neither in or out' period with full assess to the single market which would mean FOM but we could negotiate trade agreement (without implementing them). At the end of this period, we would be fully out, put in place our new trade agreements and end FOM. Is this credible ? How long would it last for ? What are the pros and cons ?

Cheeers 

Squeeze

[OnionTerror]

3 hours ago, SqueezePlay said:

Thanks to Futeroid who gave his definition of hardvand soft brexit and the direction to the Flexit website. Lots of good stuff there.

No, i am not David Davies ! Just trying to work this stuff out in my head. There is a dearth of high quality info available but lots of opinons !

The tory manifesto had leaving the single market and the customs union. Marr this morning had Hammond  and Keir Stammer agreing that we could not remain in the sinjle market but there was a difference with regard to the custom union. Hammond clearly out and Starmer up for negotition. The interesting thing with Hammond was his statement about a transition period. So, we leave all the EU institutions to reach a 'neither in or out' period with full assess to the single market which would mean FOM but we could negotiate trade agreement (without implementing them). At the end of this period, we would be fully out, put in place our new trade agreements and end FOM. Is this credible ? How long would it last for ? What are the pros and cons ?

Cheeers 

Squeeze

We can still be inside the single market, but outside of the jurisdiction of the ECJ.  However, if we remain in the customs union, we remain in the jurisdiction of the ECJ.  The only way that we'll "safely" leave is via the EEA.  WTO = economic catastrophe, associate membership = worse than what we have now.  Whatever deal we have in the future, and we want to access many parts of the single market (EMA, Single European Sky et al) we will have to have EU law on the statute book.

[SqueezePlay]

How can we reject one of the pillars of the single market, namely FOM whilst remaining inside the single market ? That looks like having our cake and eating it. So, is your propsal that we tolerate FOM ?

I agree that the WTO rules would be terrible.

Is the question, what price are we prepared to pay to reduce immigration from the EU ?

Clearly, there are some folk who would prioritise reducing immigration over trade. The tory manifesto states their intentions of leaving the single market and substantially reducing immigration. It would be good to understand how they intend to achieve both of these goals. They have been repeatedly asked what we should understand by their mantra of 'No deal is better than a bad deal'. And failed to give a clear answer. Back to having your cake and eating it.

Thanks for your reply

Squeeze

[onlooker]

Just now, hotairmail said:

I have heard the EU state that FOM is a key pillar of the Single Market. But to me it just looks like a man made subjective rule for the sake of it. I have not heard anyone persuasively arguing why it is the case.

In terms of reshaping the UK economy for the future, IMHO, getting out of the customs union is vital, so that we can sign trade deals to our own advantage, rather than being dragged in a different direction by the 27. Hammond (who I am suspicious of, but does occasionally say intelligent things) says that the level of tariffs is not a significant issue, as long as trade continues seamlessly between the UK and EU. He has stated we will leave the single market, but by implication he seems to want access for which we will be forced to pay. ISTM that he wants somethng like a Norway option - out of the CU, access to the SM, but not bound by the ECJ, though bound by the EFTA court - I am not sure of the difference. But this seems to require FOM.

If the Tories were sensible they would use this opportunity to dismantle all the welfare attractions which pull in EU immigrants to the UK like TC and HB. It is hard to judge what the Tory and Labour attitudes to FOM really is. Most the working class UKIP vote seems to have gone back to Corbyn, so I think it could be argued that the objections to FOM are weakly held. The Tories owe these inconsistent ex UKIP voters nothing. I see the beginnings of a compromise EEA/EFTA membership.

 

[Riedquat]

31 minutes ago, SqueezePlay said:

How can we reject one of the pillars of the single market, namely FOM whilst remaining inside the single market ? That looks like having our cake and eating it. So, is your propsal that we tolerate FOM ?

Only because the EU is so obstinate about FoM, and that's only because one country having a good relationship without it would call the whole EU into question, rather than it being of any fundamental benefit that would mean such a deal was very one-sided without it. Getting a good trade deal in place should be a win-win situation. Insisting on anything whatsoever on top of that in order to have it is wanting to have your cake and eat it.

[rollover]

Loss of EU law to make UK refugee capital of Europe

BRITAIN is about to become the last chance saloon for every refugee in Europe – and it’s all down to Brexit. If borders checks move back across the channel, we may end up with camps like the Calais Jungle in Kent. So far we’ve been saved from the worst of the Mediterranean migrant crisis by various agreements. But with Brexit straining relations with our neighbours, those deals could soon be history. If that happens, the border moves back to Britain and we have to process all asylum applications here. Once Brexit kicks in, however, the Dublin deal no longer applies and every rejected refugee in Europe will have a new place to make their case – the UK. dailystar

  Edited June 18, 2017 by rollover

[HairyOb1]

8 hours ago, ccc said:

So let's have a vote every year and jump in and out of the EU on a regular basis ? 

Nuts.

If you want to be in the EU it's a vote for more donkeys and wasters to rule over you. 

How anyone can consciously vote for that really is beyond me.

 

Look, people are fickle, minds change.  What I do believe, responsible on all parts, is to have a vote on 'the deal'. That way we get to know what we're actually voting for this time.

You have your opinion, which lots of folk will find odd, you think others opinions are odd too.  Great.  Some people look outwardly, others inwardly.  To dress this up as wrong or right in any fashion dilutes all arguments.

Give us a vote on what we're aiming for.  Simple. The argument stops overnight.

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by HairyOb1

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

I have heard the EU state that FOM is a key pillar of the Single Market. But to me it just looks like a man made subjective rule for the sake of it. I have not heard anyone persuasively arguing why it is the case. Why is a common taxation policy or a common benefits system, a common currency, or a common minimum wage not an 'essential component' for instance?

FoM is negotiable to an extent, and an offer will be made to allow the UK to put restrictions on it for an extended period probably 10-15years.

The reason why the other things you mention are not essential is because they are not affordable in the short term and FoM is meant to encourage a long term leveling up. 

 

[HairyOb1]

57 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Only because the EU is so obstinate about FoM, and that's only because one country having a good relationship without it would call the whole EU into question, rather than it being of any fundamental benefit that would mean such a deal was very one-sided without it. Getting a good trade deal in place should be a win-win situation. Insisting on anything whatsoever on top of that in order to have it is wanting to have your cake and eat it.

 

They're not 'obstinate' about it, it's one of the 4 pillars of the EU; we're not talking about arranging a meeting, we're talking about a fundamental part of a project for crying out loud

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

FoM is negotiable to an extent, and an offer will be made to allow the UK to put restrictions on it for an extended period probably 10-15years.

The reason why the other things you mention are not essential is because they are not affordable in the short term and FoM is meant to encourage a long term leveling up. 

 

Equivalence

It's worked massively in the southern states, as to where they were in the 80's. If we 'manned up', Romania, et al, would cease to be an issue in 4 - 8 years.  Its mental no one can see these benefits.  I travelled in Spain, France, Greece, Italy  in the 80's and they were basket cases.  They're not now.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, onlooker said:

In terms of reshaping the UK economy for the future, IMHO, getting out of the customs union is vital, so that we can sign trade deals to our own advantage, rather than being dragged in a different direction by the 27. Hammond (who I am suspicious of, but does occasionally say intelligent things) says that the level of tariffs is not a significant issue, as long as trade continues seamlessly between the UK and EU. He has stated we will leave the single market, but by implication he seems to want access for which we will be forced to pay. ISTM that he wants somethng like a Norway option - out of the CU, access to the SM, but not bound by the ECJ, though bound by the EFTA court - I am not sure of the difference. But this seems to require FOM.

If the Tories were sensible they would use this opportunity to dismantle all the welfare attractions which pull in EU immigrants to the UK like TC and HB. It is hard to judge what the Tory and Labour attitudes to FOM really is. Most the working class UKIP vote seems to have gone back to Corbyn, so I think it could be argued that the objections to FOM are weakly held. The Tories owe these inconsistent ex UKIP voters nothing. I see the beginnings of a compromise EEA/EFTA membership.

 

What makes you think we will actually sign these trade deals.

If you believe the EU is holding us back how do you explain our failure to sign trade deals on services with other nations. Services are far more important to our economy than goods and we allowed to sign deals for the exchange of services but we haven't.   

[HairyOb1]

Just now, hotairmail said:

Why is FOM an "essential pillar" of the single market for goods and services?

Do you really want me to answer that?  Do you need me to answer that, seriously?

Maybe the notion of 'European'?

[HairyOb1]

In my many years in England, I am yet to meet a 100% pure blood English person....

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

I preferred them then. Now we are converging on a mono culture where everything looks more and more the same. A brutalised, cookie cutter landscape with a severely degraded natural environment due to CAP. Birds are the biggest losers from EU policies right across Europe where once they flourished - most recently with the accession of eastern European states

CAP is about farming, not the EU.  This has nothing to do with the EU, but more about farming practises.  The RPA is a client of mine, so I know my beans in this area.  This is nothing to do with the Eu, more about farmers maximising profit.

The Single market is about 'Europe' as a project.  Therefore, the notion of European is essential.  I know, from your posts, that you're a clever guy, so I know you get this, I really do, so I can't see how you can argue against it?

[Confusion of VIs]

9 hours ago, pig said:

I've just read that Lord Bridges  - allegedly an incredibly important asset - resigned as opposed to being reshuffled out.

That sounds worryingly ominous.

Bridges is just the latest person to go in what has become a clear out of anyone with knowledge of negotiating with the EU.

Add to that the fact (as I posted months ago) they have refused to pay a market rate for trade negotiators and as a result have been unable to recruit anyone with top level experience of negotiating trade deals, any sane person would worry about the competence of out team to go up against what is probably the worlds most capable negotiating team.

At the slightly lower level they are also facing people, having gained a promotion into the DEEU now looking to go back into other less exposed civil service posts or waiting for 12 months for the promotion pay rise to feed into their final salary pension before they take retirement.      

[OnionTerror]

1 hour ago, SqueezePlay said:

How can we reject one of the pillars of the single market, namely FOM whilst remaining inside the single market ? That looks like having our cake and eating it. So, is your propsal that we tolerate FOM ?

I agree that the WTO rules would be terrible.

Is the question, what price are we prepared to pay to reduce immigration from the EU ?

Clearly, there are some folk who would prioritise reducing immigration over trade. The tory manifesto states their intentions of leaving the single market and substantially reducing immigration. It would be good to understand how they intend to achieve both of these goals. They have been repeatedly asked what we should understand by their mantra of 'No deal is better than a bad deal'. And failed to give a clear answer. Back to having your cake and eating it.

Thanks for your reply

Squeeze

Liechtenstein has quotas regarding FOM, but are inside the single market under EEA.

As for the customs union, it is the common commercial policy that is the reason why we can't sign trade deals, not the CU.

The EEA comes under the jurisdiction of the EFTA court, not the ECJ.  It's findings are not legally binding, unlike the ECJ.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Dave Beans

[HairyOb1]

4 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Liechtenstein has quotas regarding FOM, but are inside the single market under EEA.

As for the customs union, it is the common commercial policy that is the reason why we can't sign trade deals, not the CU.

A country half the size of the IOW has an arrangement, "sectoral adaptations" applicable to a very small country that is reviewed every 5 years.

Yeah. can't see them tying that one off by 2020..