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

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, ccc said:

AFD are not racist. They have common sense 

You really have lost it. 

Are you going to share your thoughts on FoM until at least 2021.  

[Tapori]

2 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Sure but the point stands, our government was entirely answerable to us since we retained the ability to vote them out. So, you've repeatedly said that the EU was preventing that from being the case. I don't see how. 

Exactly; you weren't allowed to see how TTP worked in essentially allowing asset stripping of key public services. By LAW, MEPs weren't even allowed to discuss verbatim terms of the draft to their electoral populations.

Previously, we had a referendum in 1975 on joining a trade bloc. Where were the democratic referendums when the setup became the EU? On each of the 4 key treaties that demonstrably devolved power away in key areas of law to Brussels and ECourts? Why were the treaties needed? Do you remember the Lisbon treaty votes?

What could you do to gain control over free movement democratically whilst in the EU?  In what way can you democratically remove the commissioners who have immense powers? How does pooling sovereignty over a vast swathe of laws in any way strengthen our own search for democratic accountability. What power do MEPs actually have to introduce legislation and hold commissioners in the EU to account?

In which areas do their courts act as Apex (Superior to) to ours?

I suggest you look at the full EU democratic machinery in action regarding Greece or any key plans to nationalise. Varoufakis was told categorically by the commissioners that democratic national votes were not meant to have any effect on EU central economic policy. Truly democracy in action!

Truth is, at it's best the EU can and should be incredible; the problem in practice is that it's a synthesis of bureaucracy for the mass centralization of authority and corporate lobbying power over the lives of over 500 million that prevents either right or left movement away from a neo-liberal economic consensus; That markets must be allowed to do their thing but within the social confines of liberalism. Any opposition to  this must be crushed; even if it means destroying/punishing constituent member states.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, highYield said:

It's almost as if running a country is hard work - like really quite difficult stuff. No wonder our politicians mostly want to remain under the EU umbrella, delegating much of their jobs to others.

It is pretty hard, that why they tend to get pretty bright people to do it.

I think we can safely assume you are not one of them.  

Rumor has it that at the last count, before they banned anyone from collating the figure, the amount of work required to prepare for leaving the EU was 150,000 man years. Or in simple terms a lot.   

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It is pretty hard, that why they tend to get pretty bright people to do it.

I think we can safely assume you are not one of them.  

Rumor has it that at the last count, before they banned anyone from collating the figure, the amount of work required to prepare for leaving the EU was 150,000 man years. Or in simple terms a lot.   

Thank you for explaining how difficult running an independent county would be, to someone of my limited intellect.

Have you considered what a great boost to the UK GDP all those lawyer billed hours will contribute?

[Tapori]

FWIW, I can see a transition deal and then a wait by pro-EU supporters for the ultimate re-entry once the demographics shift in their favour. Any HPC and recession will ignore systemic issues and instead use Brexit as a means to garner support for re-joining the EU. And it will probably work after 10-15 years of transition

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Although to be fair since Germany is a federation it could entirely reasonably refer to Germany alone.

And she was talking about the German election. Brexit is was and completely ignored in the election as its a non-issue.

[Confusion of VIs]

16 minutes ago, highYield said:

Thank you for explaining how difficult running an independent county would be, to someone of my limited intellect.

Have you considered what a great boost to the UK GDP all those lawyer billed hours will contribute?

Don't mention it, happy to be of assistance.

I have but doubt it will be provide any great boost to the economy as hopefully it will largely displace more useful work.  I say hopefully because the civil service has a limited management bandwidth and the worst of all possible worlds would be outsourcing the work and just hoping for the best.  

[Sheeple Splinter]

47 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

And she was talking about the German election. Brexit is was and completely ignored in the election as its a non-issue.

Quote

..Schulz says new government must not give ground to UK over Brexit

SPD leader Martin Schulz has said the EU Germany’s new government – of which, at present, he does not intend to be a part – “must not cede any more ground to Britain” in the Brexit negotiations and should not allow the two-year transition period Theresa may said she wanted in her Florence speech on Friday.

“Theresa May is gambling in these talks in an attempt to strengthen her domestic political position,” the SDP leader said. “We cannot give ground. The EU is a community of law and it has certain rules that must be observed.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/sep/24/german-elections-2017-angela-merkel-cdu-spd-afd-live-updates

[dugsbody]

2 hours ago, Tapori said:

Exactly; you weren't allowed to see how TTP worked in essentially allowing asset stripping of key public services. By LAW, MEPs weren't even allowed to discuss verbatim terms of the draft to their electoral populations.

Previously, we had a referendum in 1975 on joining a trade bloc. Where were the democratic referendums when the setup became the EU? On each of the 4 key treaties that demonstrably devolved power away in key areas of law to Brussels and ECourts? Why were the treaties needed? Do you remember the Lisbon treaty votes?

What could you do to gain control over free movement democratically whilst in the EU?  In what way can you democratically remove the commissioners who have immense powers? How does pooling sovereignty over a vast swathe of laws in any way strengthen our own search for democratic accountability. What power do MEPs actually have to introduce legislation and hold commissioners in the EU to account?

In which areas do their courts act as Apex (Superior to) to ours?

I suggest you look at the full EU democratic machinery in action regarding Greece or any key plans to nationalise. Varoufakis was told categorically by the commissioners that democratic national votes were not meant to have any effect on EU central economic policy. Truly democracy in action!

Truth is, at it's best the EU can and should be incredible; the problem in practice is that it's a synthesis of bureaucracy for the mass centralization of authority and corporate lobbying power over the lives of over 500 million that prevents either right or left movement away from a neo-liberal economic consensus; That markets must be allowed to do their thing but within the social confines of liberalism. Any opposition to  this must be crushed; even if it means destroying/punishing constituent member states.

I've found that most real life examples of lack of control come down to freedom of movement. The only answer I have to that point is the same as always:  freedom of movement exists in the UK between 60 million people. I find this concept perfectly right, that humans can move to where they are needed or want to go. I extend this concept to the EU. There is no real underlying reason that the edge of the UK must be where freedom of movement ends, rather than the edge of the EU. Clearly others feel different but these views all boil down to nationalism.

I was also fine with the democratic process of the EU because it seemed good value for money and something that largely worked. When deciding which way to vote, I wanted to base it on reality rather than perception. Examining the evidence, in reality, the UK governments policies have been far more likely to negatively impact me than anything from the EU. This is why I always ask the same question of others but largely receive hand-waving in return.

For example, TTP above. Do you mean TTIP? I can't significantly debate that, I don't know much about it. Just as I've never once known the details about any other trade agreement and am unlikely to know the details in the future. If something significant arises in a future trade deal and we're not in the EU, I'll just have to trust that the media or other bodies will be scrutinising these trade deals because I certainly don't have time in my life. This will be no different than if we are in the EU, in fact I trust that process *even more* than I trust the process in the UK.

The EU courts have the final decision in matters of EU law, they don't supersede UK law otherwise. I'm also fine with that. Why are you not? It makes perfect sense to me that when we join an organisation where we pool certain aspects of law that there is a common body that overseas that law. Again, in reality, which EU laws are you unhappy with and which decisions of the ECJ are you unhappy with?

Then the old subject of Greece comes up. More misrepresentation, and particularly rich from this site. In every other case, particularly here, people would be perfectly happy that an "over indebted borrower" met the consequences of those actions. But because it was a member state of the EU and because the ECB participates in a bailout and debt write off programme, it suddenly isn't fine. In every case where the IMF participates in bailouts, it always imposes economic tightening conditions. You know the UK went to the IMF in 1976 and guess what:

"In 1976 Britain faced financial crisis. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan of nearly $4 billion. IMF negotiators insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy."

So you misrepresent what actually happened again. The Greek people voted to end austerity. The Greek government could have tried this by defaulting on their debts and going to the bond markets to borrow more to fund the Greek lifestyle. How would that have ended? We all know the answer.So the Greek vote, while democratic, holds no power over any other EU citizen or indeed any citizen whose government participates in the IMF. If Greece had voted for the UK to be included in the bailout programme, would you have felt obliged to contribute your tax money? After all, it was a democratic vote!

These are the same arguments that have been rehashed time and again, and no-one ever changes their mind. I guarantee that in one year, we'll still be rehashing how the EU mistreated poor old Greece, while in another thread you're complaining that over indebted BTL landlords and UK mortgagees were bailed out with low interest rates and other government policies (and I'd agree with you on the latter but not the former).

[Silverfinger]

3 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

    Extraordinary admission on the state of Germany and the EU.

Presuming she meant the EU and the translation is accurate...

Translation was not correct. She said keep the EU together (not union) and build a stronger Europe (not Germany).

Edited September 25, 2017 by Silverfinger

[GrizzlyDave]

4 hours ago, Silverfinger said:

Translation was not correct. She said keep the EU together (not union) and build a stronger Europe (not Germany).

[Peter Hun]

6 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/sep/24/german-elections-2017-angela-merkel-cdu-spd-afd-live-updates

The election finished before he made those comments, not that he is any part of the German government.

BTW, the UK has not left the EU yet.

[rollover]

38 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

The election finished before he made those comments, not that he is any part of the German government.

BTW, the UK has not left the EU yet.

But Martin Schulz message is clear: Brexit means Exit.

[HairyOb1]

On 9/24/2017 at 4:14 AM, ExiledMatty said:

Most of EE might not look 3rd World but the mentality of the people most certainly is.

Had the EU not allowed these parasites in then we'd not be anywhere near leaving the bloc or in this mess.

Best thing about Brexit has been seeing these liberal, lefty BBC types not get their own way for once. Whatever the damage to the UK economy, it will have been worth it.

Get back to you Wail please.

[HairyOb1]

15 hours ago, ccc said:

AFD are not racist. They have common sense 

"Not all leavers are racist, but all racists are leavers" - Will Self.

"It's demonstrable that more, less educated, people voted for brexit than educated people" - Goverment stats, quoted by HairyOb1

"AFD are not racist, they have common sense." - Quote of ccc.

Quite amusing really.  AFD aren't racist....

I think we know what kind of leaver ccc is 

[Option5]

Just a question for those with more knowledge on Brexit. Will leaving the EU allow our government to go back to supporting our industries more with tax breaks, subsidies, grants etc?

 

[kzb]

9 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

..Schulz says new government must not give ground to UK over Brexit

SPD leader Martin Schulz has said the EU Germany’s new government – of which, at present, he does not intend to be a part – “must not cede any more ground to Britain” in the Brexit negotiations and should not allow the two-year transition period Theresa may said she wanted in her Florence speech on Friday.

“Theresa May is gambling in these talks in an attempt to strengthen her domestic political position,” the SDP leader said. “We cannot give ground. The EU is a community of law and it has certain rules that must be observed.”...

The key facts are, the SDP do not intend to be part of the new German government (as it says) and also they lost a large amount of vote share compared to last election.

So why are we bothered by anything this Martin Schulz says?

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, Option5 said:

Just a question for those with more knowledge on Brexit. Will leaving the EU allow our government to go back to supporting our industries more with tax breaks, subsidies, grants etc?

Yes.  I believe.  Can they afford to?  Will they?  Different questions.

[kzb]

1 minute ago, Option5 said:

Just a question for those with more knowledge on Brexit. Will leaving the EU allow our government to go back to supporting our industries more with tax breaks, subsidies, grants etc?

 

It's a big reason Jeremy is questioning his party's support for the Single Market (which has strict rules on all this stuff).

He also says any free trade deal needs to be carefully worded.

[Riedquat]

42 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Yes.  I believe.  Can they afford to?  Will they?  Different questions.

Will they want to? Probably. Can they afford to? Well, not being able to afford something doesn't seem to stop governments from doing it anyway...

[Confusion of VIs]

39 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's a big reason Jeremy is questioning his party's support for the Single Market (which has strict rules on all this stuff).

He also says any free trade deal needs to be carefully worded.

Rules that the UK strongly promoted, without us the EU would not have adopted them. For the UK they were a way of stopping unfair competition from subsidised EU industries.

As to whether we can start subsidising loss making industries after we leave the EU, that would depend on the terms of whatever trade deals we sign. If we get a free trade deal with the EU the answer is probably no, and even if we don't we will still have to abide by WTO anti dumping rules.   

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Will they want to? Probably. Can they afford to? Well, not being able to afford something doesn't seem to stop governments from doing it anyway...

The CAP payments to farmers/rich landowners may have to be replaced with something nearly as expensive.  Otherwise UK farmers won't be able to compete with cheaper imported foods.  Unless the pound crashes in a big way of course.

Just hope it is something better than CAP....

[kzb]

19 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Rules that the UK strongly promoted, without us the EU would not have adopted them. For the UK they were a way of stopping unfair competition from subsidised EU industries.

As to whether we can start subsidising loss making industries after we leave the EU, that would depend on the terms of whatever trade deals we sign. If we get a free trade deal with the EU the answer is probably no, and even if we don't we will still have to abide by WTO anti dumping rules.   

Yes, you have got to think our options will remain limited.  Subsidies are bound to be regulated by the rules of any free trade deals we obtain.

But because they are bilateral, hopefully we can have more tailored solutions than we have with the single market.

[pig]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Rules that the UK strongly promoted, without us the EU would not have adopted them. For the UK they were a way of stopping unfair competition from subsidised EU industries.

As to whether we can start subsidising loss making industries after we leave the EU, that would depend on the terms of whatever trade deals we sign. If we get a free trade deal with the EU the answer is probably no, and even if we don't we will still have to abide by WTO anti dumping rules.   

I mean it’s kind of beyond farce if we are reduced to trying to evade the norms we insisted on.

Could that state supported industry be what is ultimately tempting Corbyn/the Left ? 

[Futuroid]

2 hours ago, Option5 said:

Just a question for those with more knowledge on Brexit. Will leaving the EU allow our government to go back to supporting our industries more with tax breaks, subsidies, grants etc?

 

Yes, they can help ailing industries as much as they want.

HOWEVER... if they want to trade with the EU they will need to observe EU rules on state aid. If they forgo an agreement with the EU (or just cack handedly don't manage to actually get one) WTO rules allow other countries to up the tariff charged if they deem our exports to have been subsidized unfairly impacting their own domestic producers. 

http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2016/07/02/together-forever-state-aid-law-will-affect-uk-even-brexit/