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

[OnionTerror]

13 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Melodrama.

CP is the middle way. And yes, Dave Beans, it prevents a hard border.

Why is everyone refusing to accept that CP is a potential way out of this - if the EU can be persuaded to accede? Again...we'd have full access to Single Market, so no hard border. NI border would be unchanged. And we could make our own trade deals. May could put CP to the HoC and defeat Mogg and co.

So get behind it.

 

How does it prevent a hard border?

[Confusion of VIs]

48 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

Yes but we'll get blue passports? 

Yes, but the Brexiteers cannot even get that right. Apparently we are getting Slovakian blue which is nothing like the old British passports.

Oh and they will be made in France, and maybe even have a slight whiff of garlic.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Confusion of VIs

[rollover]

22 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Melodrama.

CP is the middle way. And yes, Dave Beans, it prevents a hard border.

Why is everyone refusing to accept that CP is a potential way out of this - if the EU can be persuaded to accede? Again...we'd have full access to Single Market, so no hard border. NI border would be unchanged. And we could make our own trade deals. May could put CP to the HoC and defeat Mogg and co.

So get behind it.

 

Are you for real? The PM does not have the option.

[thehowler]

14 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

How does it prevent a hard border?

It gives us full and unfettered access to the SM.

Where is the hard border?

[thehowler]

4 minutes ago, rollover said:

Are you for real? The PM does not have the option.

Who would stop her?

[Confusion of VIs]

2 minutes ago, thehowler said:

It gives us full and unfettered access to the SM.

Where is the hard border?

It only really works if we don't use our right to diverge from EU rules and regulations.

The hard line Brexiters hate it because they see it becoming a BRINO, as while we have the right to diverge the practical difficulties of doing so will mean we don't.   

[Confusion of VIs]

8 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Who would stop her?

Remind me was the CP the pointless, insane or impossible option.

[OnionTerror]

14 minutes ago, thehowler said:

It gives us full and unfettered access to the SM.

Where is the hard border?

Access ain’t membership.  Two completely different animals

[thecrashingisles]

1 hour ago, thehowler said:

Melodrama.

CP is the middle way. And yes, Dave Beans, it prevents a hard border.

Why is everyone refusing to accept that CP is a potential way out of this - if the EU can be persuaded to accede? Again...we'd have full access to Single Market, so no hard border. NI border would be unchanged. And we could make our own trade deals. May could put CP to the HoC and defeat Mogg and co.

So get behind it.

The reason Brexiteers are not getting behind it is that although in theory it would mean we could make our own trade deals, in practice it would make no sense to do so.  Plus we'd still need to keep full alignment with the single market to solve the border issue.

[pig]

5 hours ago, highYield said:

You appear to be forgetting that the few main advocates on this thread for a hard Brexit are remainers.

Is that supposed to exonerate the 60 Hard Brexit MP’s ?

[IMHAL]

8 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

No, my view has always been that Brexit will be a slow motion car crash. It will probably take 10 years before the true scale of the damage becomes clear. 

Of course whatever happens the Brexiteers will deny it has anything to do to Brexit, just like they are already in denial that the UK's relative economic underperformance since the vote has anything to do with Brexit.  

I cannot find any public figures to verify this (the published figures are too lumpy to discern underlying trends) but last month I was told by someone working in DexEU that they estimate the vote has already cost the UK £60bn of foreign direct investment and that the downward trend is accelerating. This is now one of their major concerns over Brexit.

What is in the open is the OECD's estimate that the loss to the UK economy has already exceeded our annual contributions to the EU and will be double them by the time we Leave in 2019.

Unfortunately we are a slowly boiling frog. It would actually be better for us if the damage was going to be immediately apparent but with things like reduced FDI and trade frictions causing firms to consolidate production within the single market, by the time the damage is apparent it is already too late to do anything about it. Meanwhile the Brexiteers will keep their fingers in their ears while chanting project fear to avoid having to accept any evidence of damage.  

As for rejoining. Once we are out (possibly including out of transition) the chances of getting back in will be remote. First we would have to come to terms with the national humiliation of asking to be let back in and then not have our application vetoed by one or more countries. 

I agree... it will be a slo mo car crash....

However, we will in the end go back to the EU, cap in hand and  beg them to let us in, Euro an all. Even humiliation has a price not worth paying.

[jonb2]

19 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

EU policies like FOM are supra national ideological policies.

These policies unfortunately have realistic consequences that have to be dealt with (or more frequently not dealt with) at a national level.

The problem with people moving around a trading block is that block does not have uniform social policy, or give consistent benefits to different people within the block. That creates imbalances as people move around the block seeking their best advantage. Imbalances in jobs, housing, health service, schools to name a few.

It's not just an issue of people moving to the "best" places. It's also an issue that the "worst" places get depleted in skills and get unbalanced demographics over a short timescale.

In answer to your questions :

"Why shouldn't people in the EU be allowed to move around in their own trading union to seek employment?" - to me no reason why they shouldn't, so long as social policy is harmonised within the block and politicians ensure the needs of the people are properly met across all areas. If it isn't, then it's a bad idea because it creates imbalances which lead to problems.

"Why do you want to limit humans based on their ability so that those who aren't as able have even less ability to better their lives?" - because human populations need managing. The simple counter to your argument is that if this idea is such a good one then we should do away with passports altogether for all countries. Why don't we ? There is the second issue that ability in this context means "ability to travel". There is no other form of selection based on talent.

This is a good post Slug and correct in its conclusion IMO. Mass-immigration into a developed country traditionally leads to social problems - particularly if the country is already creaking in general infrastructure.

But your argument applies to the complacency and perhaps something more sinister of a policy by our own government.

Starting with Blair and 'enhanced' by the Tories. Westminster have always had the choice and means to control the level of immigration. They just didn't. They can't govern.

[cashinmattress]

I guess this belongs here...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-summit-why-join-eu-balkans-serbia-albania-berlin-process-a8347111.html?amp

Quote

Brexit: UK government to host summit on why other countries should join the EU UK says EU accession is important for the 'security, stability and prosperity' of six states outside the bloc

...apparently the large hadron collider opened a parallel universe of stupidity...centred somewhere in the UK.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, cashinmattress said:

I guess this belongs here...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-summit-why-join-eu-balkans-serbia-albania-berlin-process-a8347111.html?amp

...apparently the large hadron collider opened a parallel universe of stupidity...centred somewhere in the UK.

?

[pig]

2 hours ago, cashinmattress said:

I guess this belongs here...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-summit-why-join-eu-balkans-serbia-albania-berlin-process-a8347111.html?amp

...apparently the large hadron collider opened a parallel universe of stupidity...centred somewhere in the UK.

Well not really -  hosting it at this time is a deft move allowing us to join in with the aspiration at very little expense. Quite appropriate now Brexit has ‘Balkanised’ the nation.

Edited May 14, 2018 by pig

[thehowler]

11 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Remind me was the CP the pointless, insane or impossible option.

No, it's the one even Ken Clarke thinks is possible and acceptable...On BBC Sunday Politics yesterday:

If this partnership can be devised...so it actually produces no unnecessary new barriers to trade, investment and supply lines then I personally would be prepared to settle for that...

There's one of your key Tory rebels won over. Soubry and Grieve indicating similar views. The WTO-preferable leavers are running out of runway.

[thehowler]

11 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

ccess ain’t membership.  Two completely different animals

You will never be satisfied.

[thehowler]

10 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

The reason Brexiteers are not getting behind it is that although in theory it would mean we could make our own trade deals, in practice it would make no sense to do so.

Why so? It just means the UK wouldn't be an attractive conduit into the EU for admin reasons and there would be no savings (tariff the same whether you send your cobalt/toothpaste etc to Southampton or Rotterdam).

But we could, for example, make a trade deal with Kenya to flood the UK with cheap fruit and flowers - any tariff exempt for goods staying within the UK.

Boris and co are trying to muddy the waters by saying we couldn't keep control of our own money, couldn't trade, couldn't have different regs for different nations - it's all codswallop. We'd just have new and more complex layers of import control.

[pig]

4 minutes ago, thehowler said:

No, it's the one even Ken Clarke thinks is possible and acceptable...On BBC Sunday Politics yesterday:

If this partnership can be devised...so it actually produces no unnecessary new barriers to trade, investment and supply lines then I personally would be prepared to settle for that...

There's one of your key Tory rebels won over. Soubry and Grieve indicating similar views. The WTO-preferable leavers are running out of runway.

But the architecture of the process seems to me to be set-up for a hard Brexit. Any dissent from this is shouted down by handing the Batshit Brexiters a megaphone as if they are Leaves  sole representatives.

Rinse repeat all the way to exit: so long as parliament is paralysed Hard Brexit, perhaps with some pitying charity from Europe is the default.

[thehowler]

6 minutes ago, pig said:

But the architecture of the process seems to me to be set-up for a hard Brexit.

Why, because we won't be members of the Single Market? Or do you think it's a ploy to kill time until we have to crash out?

CP looks like a workable solution to me - and to moderates like Clarke - if the EU can swallow it. Once you accept that all talk of reversing Brexit and holding a 2nd referendum is a waste of breath (as I think the EU have) then CP makes a lot of sense.

[ccc]

A fair few people on here should click on this link. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

[Confusion of VIs]

29 minutes ago, thehowler said:

No, it's the one even Ken Clarke thinks is possible and acceptable...On BBC Sunday Politics yesterday:

If this partnership can be devised...so it actually produces no unnecessary new barriers to trade, investment and supply lines then I personally would be prepared to settle for that...

There's one of your key Tory rebels won over. Soubry and Grieve indicating similar views. The WTO-preferable leavers are running out of runway.

Ken and Co. are onboard because its the pointless option.

The cost of divergence in terms of added trade frictions will outweigh any benefits of divergence so we will remain in step with the EU while having the right to diverge if we wish to self harm.  

Another hurdle for May is the EU will only accept it if we continue to contribute to maintaining the single market.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 minute ago, ccc said:

A fair few people on here should click on this link. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Most people on here already have a reasonable grasp of English but if it helps knock yourself out. 

[kzb]

11 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

The reason Brexiteers are not getting behind it is that although in theory it would mean we could make our own trade deals, in practice it would make no sense to do so.  Plus we'd still need to keep full alignment with the single market to solve the border issue.

I think we only keep full alignment where we need to do so.

I think like Howler it is a good idea and would be a win-win.  Which is precisely why everyone is putting it down.

There is a genuine problem, and that is the speed of implementation of a complex system.

On the other hand the EU is bound by the WTO Facilitation of Trade agreement to minimise friction at borders.  To do otherwise would be illegal.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

I think we only keep full alignment where we need to do so.

I think like Howler it is a good idea and would be a win-win.  Which is precisely why everyone is putting it down.

There is a genuine problem, and that is the speed of implementation of a complex system.

On the other hand the EU is bound by the WTO Facilitation of Trade agreement to minimise friction at borders.  To do otherwise would be illegal.

Where exactly is that, once you go down that route you very quickly conclude that it makes sense to retain full alignment - this is why this is described as the pointless option. Also you ignore that to have this "have cake and eat it" deal the EU will want us to pay for the cake. 

 

How is this relevant, answer is it's not. What is much more relevant is the WTO requirement to have effective external boarders.