Politics, politics, politics

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

It is entirely legitimate to leave. Its not petulance or being a brat.

That said, we are certainly disorganised which could really skew how we are viewed.

Our position is weakest how?

You're right it's not petulant to leave.

But it is ill-advised to claim an 'eat cake and have it' entitlement.

We're weaker because we're the smaller party, working against a deadline of our own setting with no (apparent) plan whilst those in charge seem split on how best to achieve whatever it is we think we want.

 

[monkeybarry]

It is entirely legitimate to leave. Its not petulance or being a brat.

That said, we are certainly disorganised which could really skew how we are viewed.

Our position is weakest how?

Who said voting to leave was like being a brat?

Our position is weakest because a) we are disorganised b) we have nothing in place, and cannot have anything in place, until agreements are made. The EU know what most things will look like in 2019, the only question marks being the position with the UK. We know what nothing will look like and are having to try and negotiate for something. The EU only have negotiate for the position they want, we have to negotiate for anything better than WTO rules across all trading partners (not just the EU).

We needed to tackle it head on rather than expecting the EU to set the direction.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The EU are setting all the dates and steps, and deliberatly boxing us out of the conversations we really want to have.

Give us money before we talk about what you want.

After that though, the way I see it, is we need each other. They need our money. They need our trade. We need to trade with them. I dont see it as that we are obviously in a weaker position.

According to this:
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-trade-partners/

We import £3.5bn more than we Export from France, and £17bn more from Germany than we export.

Thats even more loss on top of the withdrawal of our contributions to the only two nations that will be proping up the union.

In fact, scanning through that map only Denmark import more from us than we do them in meaningful numbers. Most other countries export significantly more to us than we from them. Impeding that is hitting each individual economy for billions, how does that impact the EU collectively?

Not only are we not contributing to the budget directly, but a lack of trade with us hits it indirectly as well.

We might be little old Britain, we might be disorganised, but the way I see it we still hold a good hand in these negotiations.

 

[SpurMeUp]

@nayimfromthehalfwayline what I don't get is your willing to give up so much for so little. Essentially you're saying that we'll gain a bit sovereignty, and won't gain much else - reading through your extensive posts. Migration will be the same you say. It's debatable how much sovereignty we will get, and whether it's really that useful to us, but the point is, for so little gained, doesn't the potential huge losses (jobs, free trade) outweighing any small sovereignty gain?

If being able to vote on things is so important, why/did you vote for any MEPs?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Im still not sure what it is Im supposed to be giving up.

As yet, nothing. We wont know for some time how it will play out.

If common sense prevails we will pay a fee to continue trading. An amended Norway/EEA deal perhaps, and from a trade perspective little will be lost. And for the EU they still have funding and also dont have to deal with our resistance to ever closer union.

What we gain, then, is the ability to decide what we do, who we do it with, who we let in - we have the ability to change things as we see fit.

And as I said way upthread, its not all practical is it? Its also principal. And that counts for a hell of a lot for many people.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Im still not sure what it is Im supposed to be giving up.

As yet, nothing. We wont know for some time how it will play out.

If common sense prevails we will pay a fee to continue trading. An amended Norway/EEA deal perhaps, and from a trade perspective little will be lost. And for the EU they still have funding and also dont have to deal with our resistance to ever closer union.

What we gain, then, is the ability to decide what we do, who we do it with, who we let in - we have the ability to change things as we see fit.

And as I said way upthread, its not all practical is it? Its also principal. And that counts for a hell of a lot for many people.

What you and we have given up so far:

• 10 - 30% increase in prices in the shops. Food, electronic goods anything imported, now costs us Brits more.
• If you go on holiday everything will cost you 15-20% more.
• Not you personally, but UK investment has dropped off a cliff. See investment in the car industry. Investment equals jobs, taxes, and prosperity long term.

Lets look at your common sense scenario:

If we become like Norway we pay to get less sovereignty than we have now. We lose the European Medical Agency, and we no longer have a stake in controlling what these regulators decide for trade. We are also ruled by an EU court and probably have some form of free movement too. So we get a worse deal than now. Hardly worth leaving right? You are right an EEA setup and at least we'll retain jobs and trade. What exactly will we be able to decide in an EEA setup that we can't now? Need facts here. If its a hard Brexit without a trade agreement, then we'll be giving up a chunk of GDP and jobs. The UK will be a poorer country with less money for schools, hospitals and services. We're already seeing the UKs growth falter while the EU kicks on. But don't let hard economic data get in the way of your views.

Yes its not practical I agree, many would argue that if it were we wouldn't be leaving. The way UKIP and the alt right got this thru was with the cheap trick of playing on nationalistic emotions, not practicalities. They knew that if the referendum vote was about the economy they'd lose the vote..

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Im still not sure what it is Im supposed to be giving up.

As yet, nothing. We wont know for some time how it will play out.

If common sense prevails we will pay a fee to continue trading. An amended Norway/EEA deal perhaps, and from a trade perspective little will be lost. And for the EU they still have funding and also dont have to deal with our resistance to ever closer union.

What we gain, then, is the ability to decide what we do, who we do it with, who we let in - we have the ability to change things as we see fit.

And as I said way upthread, its not all practical is it? Its also principal. And that counts for a hell of a lot for many people.

Sadly, that seems to be a big "if" at the moment. There's been little evidence of it so far; all ideology and ego for much of it.

Re: little will be lost. Quite possibly and I sure hope so. But isn't it an indictment that we're in a position where damage limitation (perhaps in the short to medium term) is what we're hoping for.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What you and we have given up so:

• 10 - 30% increase in prices in the shops. Food, electronic goods anything imported, now costs us Brits more.
• If you go on holiday everything will cost you 15-20% more.
• Not you personally, but UK investment has dropped off a cliff. See investment in the car industry. Investment equals jobs, taxes, and prosperity long term.

Lets look at your common sense scenario:

If we become like Norway we pay to get less sovereignty than we have now. We lose the European Medical Agency, and we no longer have a stake in controlling what these regulators decide for trade. We are also ruled by an EU court and probably have some form of free movement too. So we get a worse deal than now. Hardly worth leaving right? You are right an EEA setup and at least we'll retain jobs and trade. What exactly will we be able to decide in an EEA setup that we can't now? Need facts here. If its a hard Brexit without a trade agreement, then we'll be giving up a chunk of GDP and jobs. The UK will be a poorer country with less money for schools, hospitals and services. We're already seeing the UKs growth falter while the EU kicks on. But don't let hard economic data get in the way of your views.

Yes its not practical I agree, many would argue that if it were we wouldn't be leaving. The way UKIP and the alt right got this thru was with the cheap trick of playing on nationalistic emotions, not practicalities. They know that if the referendum vote was about the economy they'd lose the vote..

Whatever we have lost to date is due to uncertainty, and will either disappear or get worse depending on the state of things once we have an agreement.

Your "facts" are nothing but short term observation, there is little so suggest they will be the status quo going forward.

If common sense prevails things should just level out, shouldnt they? Little point using short term effects as long term pointers, its obvious why they are like they are - which is entirely due to a lack of clarity - which is forthcoming.

I said an amended EEA set up, not the same as Norway. Free movement is pretty fundamental on the leave side of things, I find it hard to see major concessions there. It seems we want a pure trade deal, if we can achieve that then we have certainly gained.

The only fact is that we have no idea what things will look like post brexit. That has been my point all along.

People are throwing around the "facts" that we will lose massively, that we are the only party who will lose, that the EU will just trundle along happily afterwards, that we are heading back to the stone ages....

All Ive tried to point out here is that that is either untrue or unknowable. That the EU does indeed stand to lose a great deal too - that THAT is why I think reasonable compromises can be found.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Sadly, that seems to be a big "if" at the moment. There's been little evidence of it so far; all ideology and ego for much of it.

Re: little will be lost. Quite possibly and I sure hope so. But isn't it an indictment that we're in a position where damage limitation (perhaps in the short to medium term) is what we're hoping for.

It would be so much better if our representation looked like it had a clue.

Truthfully though I see much of the ego and ideology as early negotiation as much as anything else. Same as all this talk of cliff edge/hard brexit preparation - we need them to know we will take that option if needed - even though we likely have no intention of it.

Sooner or later one party will take a step nearer the middle and then we will see what either side is really made of. How much is actually just ego or how much was bluster.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Whatever we have lost to date is due to uncertainty, and will either disappear or get worse depending on the state of things once we have an agreement.

Your "facts" are nothing but short term observation, there is little so suggest they will be the status quo going forward.

If common sense prevails things should just level out, shouldnt they? Little point using short term effects as long term pointers, its obvious why they are like they are - which is entirely due to a lack of clarity - which is forthcoming.

I said an amended EEA set up, not the same as Norway. Free movement is pretty fundamental on the leave side of things, I find it hard to see major concessions there. It seems we want a pure trade deal, if we can achieve that then we have certainly gained.

The only fact is that we have no idea what things will look like post brexit. That has been my point all along.

People are throwing around the "facts" that we will lose massively, that we are the only party who will lose, that the EU will just trundle along happily afterwards, that we are heading back to the stone ages....

All Ive tried to point out here is that that is either untrue or unknowable. That the EU does indeed stand to lose a great deal too - that THAT is why I think reasonable compromises can be found.

Its only been a short period since the vote, with no actual Brexit yet, but how can you dismiss clear monetary data as 'observations' and not facts? Are you saying that the amounts of money invested in the UK is not a genuine statistic. That the FT is publishing 'observations' not facts? Or that the UK and the EUs growth data is made up?

If 'common sense prevailed' we'd cancel Brexit - as recent polls show people would like - and we'd get on with achieving the aims of Brexit from within the EU. We won't get a great deal from the EU. Isn't that obvious? Clearly not as Leave politicians maintained it would be easy to. Why would the EU sort us out over its members? Nonsensical. I'm not being negative, we simply won't get a cake and eat it deal. But you're not the only one who seems blinded by simple logic. Here's the guy who's in charge of negotiating now:

“So be under no doubt we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly... I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others.” David Davis

Liam Fox predicted that a free-trade deal with the EU, giving us continued access to EU markets after Brexit, “should be one of the easiest in human history”. John Redwood, “Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation”

It's gonads of course. Deluded. And these are the people who have power. Yet football supporters on here knew before the vote that a trade deal would not be easy. Something is seriously amiss don't you think - when our leaders are so miss informed?

As for 'them vs us' the EU will lose out too. Its a lose-lose scenario. Free trade is generally win win. But, the EU countries would actually lose less than the UK. The EU nations have a smaller percentage of trade with us, than we do with them. It's simple, we, or our market is 55m people and they have about 500m.

The only winning Leave argument here is based on emotions, not facts, whether you use parenthesis or not. Essentially you have to say, yes we'll be poorer but be able to rebuild and maybe longer term we'll do something a bit different. Be more agile and be able to be a tax haven to attract investment again. But trying to ignore what is obvious and damaging about leaving because of an emotional connection to it, is questionable at best and dangerous at worst.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Of course its not made up. But what does it mean? Only that markets etc have reacted to uncertainty. No more, no less. It means nothing with regard to a post brexit state. A decent deal would see that certainty return, the money and investment and growth... A bad deal the opposite - itll be worse than it is now. So what do your facts tell you other than "this is what its like right now"?

We tried to achieve our aims from within the EU, thats how we ended up with a referendum and a Leave vote in the first place.

Why would the EU cut a deal with us? Why wouldnt they?! Look at all Ive said over the last few pages, it cannot be underestimated just how much THEY get out of it. Its not a once sided arrangement.

Im not blinded by anything. If anything, Im the one keeping my eyes open rather than following a myopic point of view. Its playground stuff to consider them screwing us as a cautionary tale to the rest of the EU when the whole EU's survival could hinge on our input. They need our money, they need our trade. Its not a take it or leave it thing for them.

I would agree that its delusion to suggest its a simple thing to agree. These are incredibly complex and could take years, but the principle is straightforward enough.

They lose billions in trade, and in funding. I dont care what percentages you want to use to belittle that, thats no small matter that can be brushed off.

We are one of only three net contributors. Everyone else is a drain. Removing that contribution will be enormously damaging.

Neither you nor I know we WILL BE POORER. Therefore, this is not a fact. Just as we do not know we will be better off. Its opinion at best to state either.

I am not a "leaver". I am not emotionally invested in leaving. Ive stated Im more pro leave than remain, but trust me its not that emotive for me.

Im just fed up of things being repeated relentlessly to the point of being accepted truths. The whole narrative of us shooting ourselves in the foot and the EU just carrying on all fine and dandy while we suffer simply isnt a fair reflection IMO. And it, or variances of, are extremely pervasive.

I am happy to admit I have no idea what will happen. Because I dont. I can see potential wins and loses, but until tangible events occur we have no idea of knowing what is likely to happen.

All I do know is that they need us as well as we need them, and that ultimately that "truth" should prevail to a point where both sides are happy.

 

[parklane1]

Neither you nor I know we WILL BE POORER. Therefore, this is not a fact. Just as we do not know we will be better off. Its opinion at best to state either.

I am happy to admit I have no idea what will happen. Because I dont. I can see potential wins and loses, but until tangible events occur we have no idea of knowing what is likely to happen.
.

Apologies mate for cutting your post down as it was all good, however the above sentences are the REAL crux of this whole debate ( imo). None of us know how any of this will REALLY turn out if we were honest with ourselves/ themselves, and a lot of those who voted out said the same when they went to the polls, but it seems that those who voted to stay are sure its going to be a disaster and have convinced themselves that its all going to end badly.

Its guess work and using scare tactics that are nothing more then trying to prove that those who voted out are wrong is in my view hypothetical at best.

 

[parklane1]

I think it's opened the eyes.
The problem is you have all the other politicians and press who keep shutting the curtains.
The successor to Corbyn is key to any potential sustained change in politicians. If they doesn't happen I genuinely don't know where we go from there.

If that is the case it's a pity it took so long to make them do so, as i say the swing has been going on for years ( it started with UKIP winning as many council seats 4/5 years ago). It was obvious that there were many who wanted change but our so called
knowledgeable pundits/folks shut the eyes/brains and said it was nothing to worry about and look at what happened.

Since then its been happening not just here but in other countries and yet there are still some who can not understand why, none so blind as those that can not see.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Apologies mate for cutting your post down as it was all good, however the above sentences are the REAL crux of this whole debate ( imo). None of us know how any of this will REALLY turn out if we were honest with ourselves/ themselves, and a lot of those who voted out said the same when they went to the polls, but it seems that those who voted to stay are sure its going to be a disaster and have convinced themselves that its all going to end badly.

Its guess work and using scare tactics that are nothing more then trying to prove that those who voted out are wrong is in my view hypothetical at best.

It's a bit like saying Burnley winning the PL is likely. Brexit may leave us all better off, but look at it logically, with all the information we have at our disposal so far, and its unlikely that we will be better off. Just like its unlikely Burnley will win the PL. Maybe they will uncover a star player, or some other miracle like Leicester's success, but if you weight it up, you can make a logical assessment without it having happened.

At one point Trump might have sorted the UK out with a favourable trade deal as Brexit was seen as part of his movement. So there are unknowns (I think that has been dashed now and the US will put itself first as every nation or trading block will).

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Whatever we have lost to date is due to uncertainty, and will either disappear or get worse depending on the state of things once we have an agreement.

Your "facts" are nothing but short term observation, there is little so suggest they will be the status quo going forward.

If common sense prevails things should just level out, shouldnt they? Little point using short term effects as long term pointers, its obvious why they are like they are - which is entirely due to a lack of clarity - which is forthcoming.

I said an amended EEA set up, not the same as Norway. Free movement is pretty fundamental on the leave side of things, I find it hard to see major concessions there. It seems we want a pure trade deal, if we can achieve that then we have certainly gained.

The only fact is that we have no idea what things will look like post brexit. That has been my point all along.

People are throwing around the "facts" that we will lose massively, that we are the only party who will lose, that the EU will just trundle along happily afterwards, that we are heading back to the stone ages....

All Ive tried to point out here is that that is either untrue or unknowable. That the EU does indeed stand to lose a great deal too - that THAT is why I think reasonable compromises can be found.

Yep.

Which brings us right around to the beginning again.

 

[parklane1]

It's a bit like saying Burnley winning the PL is likely. Brexit may leave us all better off, but look at it logically, with all the information we have so far at our disposal, and its unlikely Burnley will win the PL. Now maybe they will uncover a star player, or some other miracle like Leicester's success, but if you weight it up you can make a logically assessment without it having happened.

At one point Trump might have sorted the UK out with a favourable trade deal as Brexit was seen as part of his movement. So there are unknowns but I think that has been dashed now and the US will put itself first as every nation will.

Now you are REALLY being foolish its nothing like saying Burnley winning the PL, but you keep pushing the doom and gloom message mate ( it sounds like you are trying to convince yourself).

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Apologies mate for cutting your post down as it was all good, however the above sentences are the REAL crux of this whole debate ( imo)..

[QUOTE]None of us know how any of this will REALLY turn out if we were honest with ourselves/ themselves, and a lot of those who voted out saidhh the same when they went to the polls, but it seems that those who voted to stay are sure its going to be a disaster and have convinced themselves that its all going to end badly.[/QUOTE]

And there were also plenty who told us, very vocally, that they knew what they voted for, who now seem unable to accept that a lot of it was and is a bunch of unknown unknowns.

Did your man in the street honestly know about Euratom? Or the meds agency? Or Open Skies? Or that non-EU immigration was higher than that from the EU, and that the EU numbers included students who tend to leave after their course?

Did those in areas that voted to leave know the EU had helped to or had paid for some of their local infrastructure projects?

And yes, no doubt there are doom-sayer remainers, but if we take the extremes out of the conversation, we shouldn't dismiss the remainers that are simply saying we need to get on top of this and are calling those responsible to account.

I mean, do you think it looks or feels like it's going well?

I agree that no-one knows how it will turn out. All I'm saying is that the greater risk was with leaving but there doesn't even seem to recognition of that surely obvious position. There are far more unknowns when it comes tonkeaving. As we're seeing. I don't think the choice to leave based on what we knew, or were being told at the time, was the right one.

Then it was compounded with the premature triggering of A50, the shambolic election, and now the glacial negotiations from which we've not even ticked off the first three things on the list, not even the supposedly easy one of EU citizens' rights.

Now we've got about a year to get things sorted.

Its guess work and using scare tactics that are nothing more then trying to prove that those who voted out are wrong is in my view hypothetical at best.

Sure, there has been some of that but I think we need to be careful not to dismiss everything as Project Fear.

I mean, you've even got Hammond and Grayling openly discussing and warning about no-deal and its affect on Open Skies and the port of Dover respectively.

These are in the govt that's handling Brexit, so there are concerns being raised from that 'side' of the argument. There are also concerns being raised by the civil service, British chambers of commerce, OBR (iirc) and BOE so it not just 'liberal elite' journos and luvvies that are piping up.

I also don't think it's at all about trying to prove anyone wrong - it's much, much bigger than that. All I'm interested in is the best for me, my family, my job and my future, those of my friends, family and community at large. It's not a tinkling contest. It's a genuinely held belief that we've bought a pig in a poke.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

The new Austrian leader seems a character. Would signal Europe moving a certain way.

 

[DeleHarry]

Six benefits of Brexit


What you need to know

The negotiations to leave the EU are mired in problems, but there are already upsides emerging. Whether they result in a net benefit is unclear. But as these six points make clear that there are powerful positives to the equation, no matter the end result.

1 We’re getting a crash course in trade law


The Brexit process has been one of frantic education. Politicians, businesses, and the press have been nose-deep in guides to Free Trade Agreements, Rules of Origin, and World Trade Organisation quotas. It’s as if the nation has been asleep, and suddenly woken up. No one has learned more than our chief negotiator, David Davis. Before the vote he was unaware that the EU holds sold competence for trade on behalf of members, believing he could do a deal with “Berlin”.

Now even civil servants are now being given emergency tuition in the fundamentals of international commerce. It’s long overdue.

2 Frictionless borders

The British report on the Northern Irish border problem contained a dynamite idea: the border should stay frictionless, and instead be policed by number plate recognition and an online registration system. If it works it’ll do more than resolve the Irish problem. It could pave the way for frictionless trade across global borders. Today trade between Panama and Guatemala involves inspections and delays. If an automated system works in Ireland it can be rolled out across Africa, Asia, and other territories log-jammed by border controls.

3 Rediscovery of MRAs

A Mutual Recognition Agreement is when two regulatory authorities agree to recognise each other’s verdicts. So if a pharmaceuticals maker in the US gets approval for a drug it can be released in the EU without further testing. MRAs are tragically under-used. But Brexit has lit the blue touch paper. Suddenly the UK, EU, US, and other world economies are rediscovering this incredibly useful tool.

4 ….and AEO status

Another essential acronym! An AEO is Authorised Economic Operator status. It it’s a global scheme which recognises reliable exporters. These companies are viewed as trustworthy, so their goods glide through customs with minimal inspection. AEO status is a great way for companies to improve their exporting. But under EU membership too many British firms felt it wasn’t worth the paperwork. Now AEO status is gaining attention: with the potential to lubricate the way UK firms send goods to multiple destinations worldwide.

5 Zero tariff trade worldwide

Exporting to Brazil incurs horrific penalties. Often as much as the cost of the good. The post-Brexit landscape could look rather different. The UK government is pursuing a philosophy of zero tariffs. The response from counter-parties has been sensational. In September, the Brazil finance minister declared his country was ready to talk free trade as soon as Britain is able. So far, Australia, India, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, China, Chile, Iceland, and at least twenty other nations have expressed a desire for an FTA with Britain. That’s two-thirds of global GDP opening up to British firms.

6 Staff training

Sandwich maker Pret A Manger revealed only one in 50 of its staff is from Britain. The reliance on overseas labour had become staggering across industry, leading to accusations that many British firms use imported talent to avoid the cost of training. That is now changing. Data from the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development shows a surge in training plans amongst members: a quarter have expandedprovision, and two-thirds plan to over the next three years. The switch could raise wages, improve the whole culture of investing in people in the UK, and solve our long-standing productivity problem.

http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/brexit/18246.article

 

[the dza]

Or that non-EU immigration was higher than that from the EU, and that the EU numbers included students who tend to leave after their course?

Ardent remainers do themselves no favours with this disingenuous argument. You cannot simply come here from a non-EU country, sign up with an employment agency and compete for minimum wage jobs. To come here as a non-EU migrant, you need to either meet criteria for your employment visa (which has minimum levels of income as part of the criteria) or you are coming here as the dependent of a British national, who in turn has to meet criteria for income, housing etc. Currently, non-EU migrants have no recourse to public funds (benefits) for 5 years after arrival. That's not to mention language tests, "life in the uk" tests etc.

Equating someone coming here from India as a doctor to someone coming here from Poland who might get work as a cleaner or in a warehouse is a poor argument when it comes to comparing EU/Non-EU migration and that is, in effect, what you are doing when you talk of the absolute numbers with no context.

Also, where is the fairness in British citizens having to jump through hoops and meet criteria re. wages, housing etc. just to live in their own country with a spouse who happens to be a non-EU migrant, when EU migrants with no connection to this country at all can freely come here and crack on with life, even if all they will do is minimum wage work? If you are poor and British, you can get phucked if you fall in love with someone from outside of the EU -- that's the current system. If you are poor and from the EU, hey, no problem.

It is taking people for fools to compare the two types of immigration as if they are the same. If you are from a poor part of England on low wages and you voted leave with immigration at the forefront of your thinking, then it wasn't Indian doctors that you were thinking of, but the large amount of unskilled workers that come from EU countries, often competing for the same jobs as you. (note, when I say 'you' I am talking generally, not to you personally).