Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yes. They made the decision to make this a plebiscite and take the public into their confidence for the duration, they live with the consequences, whatever they are.

It seems to me that you're quite happy for the UK to get a worse deal, that will affect us for decades, just so you can prove a point?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It seems to me that you're quite happy for the UK to get a worse deal, that will affect us for decades, just so you can prove a point?

Some may say the same about the Brexiters 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Some may say the same about the Brexiters 

In what way?

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It seems to me that you're quite happy for the UK to get a worse deal, that will affect us for decades, just so you can prove a point?

I'm thinking that if those who want us out of the EU have the courage of their convictions that they showed while campaigning they can show the rest of us the way and make this work while remaining accountable. 

 

It's not me that's having to prove a point, it's them. And as I've said a few times on here, I hope that they do. Wanting to see the process scrutinised is not the same as wanting to see it fail.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm thinking that if those who want us out of the EU have the courage of their convictions that they showed while campaigning they can show the rest of us the way and make this work while remaining accountable. 

 

It's not me that's having to prove a point, it's them. And as I've said a few times on here, I hope that they do. Wanting to see the process scrutinised is not the same as wanting to see it fail.

You want to tell the people we're negotiating with our negotiating position? Do you think the EU will be going public with their's?There's too much at stake to risk it just to prove how open you are.

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Why weren't the negotiations to try and make us stay in the European Union made transparent and public and why didn't you call for it be so?

 

Also, why did no one on your side not tell us you were going to demand this, and why did a lot of people on your side make it clear during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU meant we would leave the single market, only to demand now after a leave vote that you want parliamentary debates to try and avoid us leaving the single market?

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Who is they?  And when did they decide to do this?  If I recall there was a pretty clear question on the voting form, and it didn't say "Leave, but consult me every step of the way, or at least in the form of a parliamentary vote in which my elected representative can represent my views on any subsequent negotiations on what form that leaving of the EU might take".  Its possible I wasn't reading the small print.

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

You are being ridiculous. You wouldnt ask a friend for advice on career prospects and then take him to the interview with you.

57 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It seems to me that you're quite happy for the UK to get a worse deal, that will affect us for decades, just so you can prove a point?

Damn the unpatriotic Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people.

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You want to tell the people we're negotiating with our negotiating position? Do you think the EU will be going public with their's?There's too much at stake to risk it just to prove how open you are.

Yeah, I understand from the point of view of realpolitik that keeping it opaque is the best idea. 

 

Just strikes me as a lack of faith in the populace, that's all. But they're hardly the only government to display that.

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Damn the unpatriotic Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people.

Which British people? 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Which British people? 

I wouldn't know I didn't bother reading past the headline.  Probably privileged white ones who work for the Murdoch empire. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

I wouldn't know I didn't bother reading past the headline.  Probably privileged white ones who work for the Murdoch empire. 

Who are these people who are demanding  vote on A50 or that we spell out our negotiating position before we start? I'd guess it's a tiny minority and not the British people in general.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Who are these people who are demanding  vote on A50 or that we spell out our negotiating position before we start? I'd guess it's a tiny minority and not the British people in general.

You'll have to take it up with Rupert, I'm not thinking for myself here I'm just repeating his publication's incisive headline without looking into it because it confirmed my biases and must be correct coming from such a reputable source.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You'll have to take it up with Rupert, I'm not thinking for myself here I'm just repeating his publication's incisive headline without looking into it because it confirmed my biases and must be correct coming from such a reputable source.

I've just checked the last 2 pages and nobody has mentioned the Times (which was pro remain) or Sun. What has this got to do with Rupert Murdoch?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I've just checked the last 2 pages and nobody has mentioned the Times (which was pro remain) or Sun. What has this got to do with Rupert Murdoch?

Tbf you're right I've had a mare there - I'm quoting a Rothermere-owned sensationalism there.  Still a very good point that the evil remain voters want to game the system and ruin what we voted for.  I mean I'm convinced.

 

 

But seriously though - it's not rocket science that people still want to secure the best possible outcome for the nation even if they disagree with the result of the referendum.  

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Leaving the EU never inevitably meant leaving the single market - and still doesn't. That is 100% clear from the fact that Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein are in the single market but outside the EU.

 

What I do recall is Remainers saying that we would have to leave the single market if we wanted free movement / control over EU migration. Some dishonest people on the Leave side claimed that we could have our cake and eat it - control our own borders but stay in the single market. Others were more honest and felt leaving the single market was a price worth paying for an end to free movement.

 

During the campaign there was much debate about our status if we voted Leave - "the Norway model", "the Swiss model" etc. Certain individuals on the Leave side made their preferences clear, but Leave as a whole did not. I wouldn't support efforts to get the referendum result overturned by parliament, as the decision to leave was clear. But there was no clear decision to leave the single market - so it's quite valid to campaign for a "soft Brexit" whereby the UK stays in the single market. That's just as valid as the stance apparently taken by the government - that it's worth losing preferential access to our main market and risking serious damage to economy and society in order to control the number of foreigners entering the country.

 

The Prime Minister and Chancellor actually both made it very clear that's exactly what it meant, here's the video of them both saying it - http://order-order.com/2016/10/12/brexit-means-leaving-single-market/

 

I do recall remainers saying that we would have to leave the single market if we wanted free movement / control over EU migration, which is why it was so strange today to hear Miliband, Clegg, Soubry etc standing and arguing that we must stay in the single market but they also understand we have to control our borders, we appear now to have to make a choice.

 

That was pretty much what the referendum came down to, the economy v control of immigration and soveriengty and the people considered the latter more important.

 

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Damn the unpatriotic Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people.

 

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I wouldn't know I didn't bother reading past the headline.  Probably privileged white ones who work for the Murdoch empire. 

 

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You'll have to take it up with Rupert, I'm not thinking for myself here I'm just repeating his publication's incisive headline without looking into it because it confirmed my biases and must be correct coming from such a reputable source.

You seem to have completely lost track about what you are even upset about.

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Prime Minister and Chancellor actually both made it very clear that's exactly what it meant, here's the video of them both saying it - http://order-order.com/2016/10/12/brexit-means-leaving-single-market/

 

I do recall remainers saying that we would have to leave the single market if we wanted free movement / control over EU migration, which is why it was so strange today to hear Miliband, Clegg, Soubry etc standing and arguing that we must stay in the single market but they also understand we have to control our borders, we appear now to have to make a choice.

 

That was pretty much what the referendum came down to, the economy v control of immigration and soveriengty and the people considered the latter more important.

 

 

Those brief comments by Cameron & Osborne have been removed from whatever context they were in originally by someone (Guido Fawkes) with an obvious pro-Brexit axe to grind. They're worthless propaganda without proper context.

It would be pretty stupid if they did say that Brexit inevitably meant leaving the single market as (1) leaving the EU but staying in the single market was widely discussed as an option; (2) several countries, notably Norway, are already in that position.

 

My guess is that they were saying we'd have to leave the single market if we voted Leave AND wanted to end freedom of movement.....which might well be true.

 

That brings me to your second point, a much better one. Yes, Remainers widely claimed that we'd have to choose between ending freedom of movement and staying in the single market (which might still be true). It might seem disingenuous to now want to negotiate to stay in the single market and to compromise on freedom of movement. But at least attempting to negotiate a compromise makes sense.

 

It might be possible to negotiate to leave the EU, stay in the single market, pay a fee and have partial border controls (e.g. freedom of movement for EU citizens with jobs pre-arranged) that might be grudgingly accepted by Brexit Britain and by the EU. Most Remainers would be happy with that outcome now. Of course, that might not be possible. The EU27 might still insist on full freedom of movement as a condition for staying in the single market. If so, we could opt for the single market and freedom of movement, but take internal measures to address stresses perceived to be caused by migration (crackdown on employers abusing cheap migrant labour, extra funds for areas with high migration to boost public services and social integration, better dispersal around the country etc.). I'm sure most on the Left would go with that, despite the risk of a Brexiteer backlash - whereas most on the Right would prefer to ditch the single market - whatever the economic/social risks - and prioritise border controls....it would be economy/society v. immigration/sovereignty, as you suggest. 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

It might be possible to negotiate to leave the EU, stay in the single market, pay a fee and have partial border controls (e.g. freedom of movement for EU citizens with jobs pre-arranged) that might be grudgingly accepted by Brexit Britain and by the EU. Most Remainers would be happy with that outcome now. Of course, that might not be possible. The EU27 might still insist on full freedom of movement as a condition for staying in the single market. If so, we could opt for the single market and freedom of movement, but take internal measures to address stresses perceived to be caused by migration (crackdown on employers abusing cheap migrant labour, extra funds for areas with high migration to boost public services and social integration, better dispersal around the country etc.). I'm sure most on the Left would go with that, despite the risk of a Brexiteer backlash - whereas most on the Right would prefer to ditch the single market - whatever the economic/social risks - and prioritise border controls....it would be economy/society v. immigration/sovereignty, as you suggest. 

I could live with that, as long as we could review it at a later date and change if necessary.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I could live with that, as long as we could review it at a later date and change if necessary.

 

OK, someone call Downing Street and Brussels. No need for 2 years of negotiations any more. Webbo and Alf have reached agreement and sorted it all out. 

[Strokes]

I'd have put immigration quite low on my list of reasons for wanting brexit. I hope we regain total control of our borders but if it is used as a bargaining chip to remain sovereign, democratic and in the single market I will still feel we have amassed a huge victory and can really progress. I still feel freedom of movement is a detriment to the working class and doesn't achieve the freedoms that it was designed/created too. However the country is/has been quite divided since June and I think single market access and a continuation of freedom of movement would probably settle both sides down. A brighter future for all? Here's hoping.

[Webbo]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

OK, someone call Downing Street and Brussels. No need for 2 years of negotiations any more. Webbo and Alf have reached agreement and sorted it all out. 

As the referendum proved, people are fed up with experts, let's put you and me in charge instead.

[SMX11]

If you don't leave the single market there was no point in leaving the EU.

 

This will be the difficult period as our currency will be put under pressure until the government became unanimous ly clear of its position. Price rises are likely in the short term but I can see pressure on the Euro post article 50 particularly because of the state of their banking sectors, continued stagnation in their economirs and the realisation of the need to have a trade agreement.

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

If you don't leave the single market there was no point in leaving the EU.

 

This will be the difficult period as our currency will be put under pressure until the government became unanimous ly clear of its position. Price rises are likely in the short term but I can see pressure on the Euro post article 50 particularly because of the state of their banking sectors, continued stagnation in their economirs and the realisation of the need to have a trade agreement.

It depends on the terms.  Obviously it's beneficial to be able to access the single market on the easiest possible terms but if that gives the EU too much control over our laws, other than product standards, then it's not on. Both sides will have to compromise.

[Jon the Hat]

There seems to be a lot of possibly deliberate confusion of ACCESS to the single market, and being a MEMBER of the single market.  Apart from embargoed countries, there is nothing to stop anyone selling to the EU. The US for example has tariffs imposed on most trade with the EU.  The main issue is in my view customs protocols.  I could see us remaining in the customs union, (like Turkey is) but not in the Single Market in any other way.  With Sterling down 15%, you cant tell me that a 3-4% tariff is going to stop an EU buyer looking at British goods, however painful customs processes could impact it.

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There seems to be a lot of possibly deliberate confusion of ACCESS to the single market, and being a MEMBER of the single market.  Apart from embargoed countries, there is nothing to stop anyone selling to the EU. The US for example has tariffs imposed on most trade with the EU.  The main issue is in my view customs protocols.  I could see us remaining in the customs union, (like Turkey is) but not in the Single Market in any other way.  With Sterling down 15%, you cant tell me that a 3-4% tariff is going to stop an EU buyer looking at British goods, however painful customs processes could impact it.

 

Robert Peston believes it would be impossible for us to remain in the customs union and to negotiate our own trade deals with US, China etc.:

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-22/mays-choice-admit-were-out-of-eu-customs-union-or-fox-is-redundant/

 

"Here is why we cannot stay in the customs union, and have an international trade minister. First of all it is a rule that members of the customs union are prohibited from negotiating free trade deals with countries in the rest of the world (there is relatively trivial flexibility for Turkey, which is a non-EU member of the customs union, but not the degree of flexibility that would be any use to us).But that prohibition would not matter perhaps if it was irrational - because we could have some expectation of negotiating a way around it. However EU governments would be nuts - economically suicidal in fact - to give customs union members free rein to negotiate their own bilateral deals with third-party countries. Because that would give those non-EU countries an invaluable backdoor route into the EU's gloriously lucrative market. Just imagine if the UK as a customs union member did a free trade deal with China. That would allow China to swamp the EU with tariff-free goods, without formal permission from the EU via an EU-China trade deal.The EU would no longer have any power to negotiate its own trading relationship with China. So it's overwhelmingly clear that the EU cannot let Liam Fox do his trade-negotiating thing and also allow the UK to stay in the customs union".

[SMX11]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It depends on the terms.  Obviously it's beneficial to be able to access the single market on the easiest possible terms but if that gives the EU too much control over our laws, other than product standards, then it's not on. Both sides will have to compromise.

If you are apart if the customs union you cannot have the benefits of free trade with the rest of the world. That is why WTO or unilateral free trade is my preferred fall back position. Trade deals are diversionary and have little effect to economies based on world prices and not the EU inflated costs (due to common external tariff and regulation).

 

There is a good vid by Patrick Minford on this subject.

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Those brief comments by Cameron & Osborne have been removed from whatever context they were in originally by someone (Guido Fawkes) with an obvious pro-Brexit axe to grind. They're worthless propaganda without proper context.

It would be pretty stupid if they did say that Brexit inevitably meant leaving the single market as (1) leaving the EU but staying in the single market was widely discussed as an option; (2) several countries, notably Norway, are already in that position.

 

My guess is that they were saying we'd have to leave the single market if we voted Leave AND wanted to end freedom of movement.....which might well be true.

 

That brings me to your second point, a much better one. Yes, Remainers widely claimed that we'd have to choose between ending freedom of movement and staying in the single market (which might still be true). It might seem disingenuous to now want to negotiate to stay in the single market and to compromise on freedom of movement. But at least attempting to negotiate a compromise makes sense.

 

It might be possible to negotiate to leave the EU, stay in the single market, pay a fee and have partial border controls (e.g. freedom of movement for EU citizens with jobs pre-arranged) that might be grudgingly accepted by Brexit Britain and by the EU. Most Remainers would be happy with that outcome now. Of course, that might not be possible. The EU27 might still insist on full freedom of movement as a condition for staying in the single market. If so, we could opt for the single market and freedom of movement, but take internal measures to address stresses perceived to be caused by migration (crackdown on employers abusing cheap migrant labour, extra funds for areas with high migration to boost public services and social integration, better dispersal around the country etc.). I'm sure most on the Left would go with that, despite the risk of a Brexiteer backlash - whereas most on the Right would prefer to ditch the single market - whatever the economic/social risks - and prioritise border controls....it would be economy/society v. immigration/sovereignty, as you suggest. 

Come on, it doesn't matter what website it is that reports the video, we can see it, he doesn't mention immigration alongside it, if the video isn't enough you can read a report of the interview, he even also says the Brexit campaign have made it clear as well that is what will happen.

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

Quote

David Cameron confirmed Sunday that he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the European Union at the upcoming referendum.

The prime minister told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show that it would be impossible to copy the Norwegian model by remaining inside the trading bloc despite being outside the EU because that would mean accepting freedom of movement and trade rules made in Brussels.

He said the Brexit campaign had made it clear to voters that voting to leave also meant pulling out of the single market. The prime minister said he would accept the result as an “instruction” despite warning that leaving would be like planting a “bomb” under the British economy.

There have been reports that the House of Commons, whose MPs are overwhelmingly pro-Remain, could vote against pulling out of the single market in the event of a Brexit. MPs could claim they were accepting voters’ wishes to withdraw from the EU while protecting them from the economic consequences of leaving the trading area.

However, the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the single market.

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

 

 

There is simply no argument that voting to leave the EU didn't mean we were also voting to leave the single market, people knew what they were voting for.

 

What Peston said seems legit, I think we are going to have to leave the customs union to enjoy the benefits of setting our own trade deals with the rest of the World.