Thaiwine

People keep saying we can't have all the benefits of EU membership without being a member, can someone tell me what these benefits are?

I think the free trade benefit has been seen to be not free, as we pay xxx Billion per year to be in this club,

anyone?

Edit, ok Naam I see no customs duties,

the "xxx billion" are a single digit net contribution of 8 billion pounds representing 0.3% of UK's gross domestic product.

it is your prerogative to think/claim that the benefits of an EU membership do not compensate these cost multiple times.

you have my blessing!

Like me you are right and you are wrong, I did just put xxx to show an amount paid, trying not to put an exact figure on it, I guess my bias was showing through by giving three x's

Given the UK does not decide how the money the EU spends in the UK, I should have put xx

2015

gross figure 18 billion

less rebate 5 billion

Paid to EU 13 billion

money spent by EU on UK over 4 billion,

paid net about 8.5 billion

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Edit to @mommysboy

I don't see an alternative as we cannot make trade deals with other countries now,only trade with them, so we have to get out of the EU to make trade deals, which means we have two years to do some of the work, It should not take years to do deals, it only takes years for trading blocks because they need to satisfy more members the bigger the block the longer it will take, we will be one country so it will be much easier, to wait for a crash would be worse for us as if and when that happens there will be a lot of countries vieing for deals making it harder for us.

People keep saying we can't have all the benefits of EU membership without being a member, can someone tell me what these benefits are?

I think the free trade benefit has been seen to be not free, as we pay xxx Billion per year to be in this club,

anyone?

Edit, ok Naam I see no customs duties,

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK

That assertion is patently untrue. The UK is still a member of the EU. It hasn't even invoked article 50 yet.

I was pretty sure when they talked about the courts issues they were talking about the UK courts. Execution of article 50 does not affect the status of any person in the UK, it alters their status in the EU. In the EU the excution of article 50 is part of the constitution hence it can not therefore be unconstitutional with respect to the EU constitution.

Here's what 3 legal eagles assert:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

I read the article you prob.... understand it better than me

It says our constitution is unwritten, so I take it that would mean all the legal argument about needing parlimentary permission is hypothetical, and all that could happen is for a decision to be challenged through the courts, which the govenment could prob... string out longer than two years. something else I didn't get was a mention of another path other than article 50 for exit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

I understand most of that.

If there is a legal challenge, it will likely centre on whether Parliament must legislate for enactment.

Here's the BBC article. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629 It seems to suggest enactment of Article 50 can only be done by legislation.

Again, I haven't got a clue but the big wigs are referenced.

This seems to boil down to does the PM need to ask permission to push the article 50 button.

it would be good to find out who would refuse to vote yes, so we could sack them at the next election.

I posted on another thread, that failer to endorse this referndum may well lead to Ukip geting possibily 40% (my guess as they got 10% last time) of the votes next time around that would give them more than what the current government got in the last election.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I don't think it's about the legality of the referendum itself, more how it was conducted and how it can be enacted. But I really am out of my depth completely and was hoping a legal eagle could shed some light.

Do you mean that both parties were not 100% honest

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Please watch the video first. It not all that complicated and speaks in simple terms.

So you make me suffer 30 min of remain propaganda to tell me what I already knew, common sense tells me both sides were not being 100% honest.

Legal system will take years to unravel,

There is no need to unravel we have it already, what we are unhappy with can be repealed as and when we want to.

Two years to divorce will cover citizens rights.

I have already said the same, maybe other thread.

New framework will take ten years to work out.

I don't see a problem here.

Trade relations with regards to regulation, we have regulation in force to trade with EU

See my previous post, why restrict yourself to only EU

Norway model is bad for the UK

I agree

Back to square one on world trade deals

I appreciated that already

So why did I need to watch this remain propaganda?

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

The customs to be paid are just a minor part of the access to the markets. The bigger issue is all kind of separate restrictions which the countries require. This starts from the safety of the products and goes forward to what need to be printed to the packages on which the products are sold.

Even with the WTO rules enabled, it's just a first step to get products in to the markets.

In practice manufacturers might need to have separate product lines for products in different markets. The EU's idea of single market is to fight against these separate requirements. It's to give access to products to the whole EU market.

This would also mean that for example USA and China will have to make different products for EU market and UK market if their rules are different. EU being larger market, the unit price per unit is likely be less than for the smaller UK markets.

When UK company creates an product, it will have to pass the rules of the UK legislation as well as EU rules, in case the product is sold to the EU single market. This adds production costs, thus adds the price of the product, thus it's more difficult for the product to compete in price with other similar products from EU. Not to forget that there is customs fees etc to import the products to EU market.

Please watch the video, which was posted to here earlier. I personally didn't know these things before. The talk is about what the market really presents is somewhere in the middle of the video.

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Can someone answer this question for me:

"Are individual member states in the EU allowed to enter into trade agreements with countries outside of the EU?"

Easy:

No, they are not. Trade deals are exclusively handled by the EU (the Commission, to be precise).

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

It really does not make any sense to invoke Article 50 quickly, if at all. No trade talks are possible until after Brexit according to EU Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmsstrom. So that is a certainty for WTO trade rules. Trading with EU will certainly be impacted, and vice versa. So you have to figure that both parties will need a long time to adjust.

Trade talks happen after exit so that means alot of the talking happens after so no need to delay, we can talk about what happens to citizens rights etc in the two years, I see no reason to delay implimenting article 50.

Finally, someone gets it. We have all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove they were going.... not so hasty, wait, lets negotiate to stay in and pretend we are leaving....

A link to one of these people please?

All the people who want to hang around are the bitter remainers who can't accept the results of a fair vote.

All the Brexit voters I know want out yesterday with no negotiations.

In fact, I'd be more than happy to start a war with Europe, let us go or eat these bombs.

Since Boris came out and said not so hasty in regards to executing article 50 there are only 2 posters (you and MJP) on here that have not pushed back in line with Boris that no - the UK should not be pushed into executing article 50 and they should have informal negotiations before negotiations to have a new relationship with the UK. I must have posted 20 or 30 responses where I was saying the referendum the vote was to "Leave" the UK (not to renegotiate) and there was no reason for the UK to dawdle around causing confusion in the markets and causing more economic damage by creating a situation where business could not plan for the future ... and thus until things are settled.... the economy would suffer more than necessary.

There are more than 2 people on this board that are leave supporters -- lots more. Boris is obviously not one of those... he is just an opportunist that is fine screwing around with everyone's future for his own personal gain and glory. He is the absolute worst example of a politician. Now when he realizes his political career is in shambles -- he runs for the hills like the coward he is. He spent a week hiding out, and now he is bugging out.

MJP had waffled a little bit after the total mismanagement by the leave campaign after the vote was in, but for the most part fairly consistent about the best future is out and article 50 should be executed. I think you are more of a MAD (mutually assured destruction) version of that where you don't really care - you want foreigners out and if you have to destroy all sides in the process... so be it. You are consistent though.

There is no reason to dawdle on executing article 50 if you really voted to leave, it starts a process in motion that leads to exiting and being a normal trading partner... and that is what people voted for ... well if they actually read what they were voting for.

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

Andrea Leadsom stands for PM job she nails her colours to the mast, she gives Brexit hope

I hope somebody nails her to the mast

What an evil bitch, she makes Thatcher look like mother Teresa!

She stands no chance

It sounds like she might be just the person for the job, so I'll give her a 10

Number 10

"So, what's wrong with the Chinese buying up London? ".

Personally I have nothing against the Chinese, my wife is a Chinese/Thai hiso and I think they're great people.

But a gentlemen poster was complaining earlier about what's happening on the street in the UK, in London those streets used to house Brits, then Europeans, then various nationalities in different areas, then Russians and now Chinese. Friends tell me, and this confirmed by the media, that the price of property in London is now such that many wealthy foreigners can't afford to live there, many are now scouting and buying into the larger more desirable cities of the UK. As for the native Brits, well, they've been forced to rent in an increasing number of cases, especially the young as they are priced out of the market.

It seems to me that whilst we're making the UK attractive to foreign purchasers of everything in the country, especially the housing stock (not sold to wealth creators) , we don't care about the availability and affordability of housing for our own citizens. So it seems distinctly odd, if not totally bizarre, to complain about how the high cost of Eu membership and the negative effects of UK immigration whilst at the same time we're selling the country in parts to any foreigner who wants to buy it, a process that was just accelerated by the Brexit vote.

Thypical Chang Mai post. My wife is Thai/Chinese "hi so" . Is it relevant to this discussion that YOU think she is, I repeat "HI -SO" what snobbishness, but what can we expect from a mill owners son.

So you don't do satire NB, I was going to put a silly little smiley after that phrase and and add that I was special forces then I thought no, even the most imbecilic of posters who've been on TVF for any period of time will recognise that as oft repeated Thai Visa humour subject matter, seemingly not. Ah well, never mind.

And it's odd for an Englishman not to get that type of humour, are you absolutely certain you're a Brit. NB and not something else?

Anyway, 'ave to get back t' mill t'see t'lads, a'fore you know it they'll all be on their uppers and wanting a raise, bloody peasants, who do they think they are eh!

Hilarious!

I'm in York now, following Winchester and 'arrogate before that. Still not come across a genuine Brexiteer prepared to admit as much. Even on my lunch trip to Belgravia, not one. Odd eh?

No your not going to meet any in the gentlemens clubs sipping g and t's.

Of the four freedoms, the freedom of movement of persons is the most sacred, so to say. It is the freedom that actually every European citizen can experience directly and personally. There is NO way to reach a compromise. If the UK wants access to the single market the UK will leave the freedom of movement of persons untouched. There must not be any limitation at all. In short: abandon all hope (in that regard).

If it is no free trade with out free movement of people, we will have to go for trade with tariffs, that would be sad as it would make products more expensive for both parties, as the UK imports more than we export to the EU tariffs would proberbaly mean more money to the UK than we pay to the EU, dependant on product quantaties and related tariffs,

Andrea Leadsom stands for PM job she nails her colours to the mast, she gives Brexit hope

I said he is an elected UK MEP the first paragraph says

There are 73 UK MEPs. They are elected in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Other EU member states elect MEPs from their countries. Elections take place every five years. The next elections will be in 2019.

This is the EU website,

If you need more info feel free to do your own research

He is an elected a UK MEP

Which election and can you provide dates?

Have YOU tried Google under the name of Nigel Farage?

It is very easy to do.

However I have made it even easier for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#European_Parliament

European Parliament

Farage was elected to the European Parliament in 1999 and re-elected in 2004, 2009 and 2014. In 1999 the BBC spent four months filming a documentary about his European election campaign but did not air it. Farage, then head of the UKIP's South East office, asked for a video and had friends make copies which were sold for £5 through the UKIP's magazine. Surrey Trading Standards investigated and Farage admitted the offence.^%5B22%5D Farage is presently the leader of the 24-member UKIP contingent in the European Parliament, and co-leader of the multinational Eurosceptic group, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy. Farage was ranked the fifth most influenctial MEP by Politico in 2016, who described him as, "one of the two most effective speakers in the chamber."^%5B23%5D

I did use google, but that wiki page is not properly referenced, the ref from your quoted paragraph goes to an article from 2008 ...did the journalist have time machine and go into the future?

Once again, lets have the exact elections and dates from a proper source?

Try here and click on south east region

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

Brexit

Ukip - Nigel Farage leader in Brussels chamber accused them of never having done a proper job in their lives

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/28/meps-boo-nigel-farage-insults-in-european-parliament

Nigel is right!

Not all of them - the cardiovascular surgeon was the one sat behind him doing the facepalm bit during the speech.

So you find a bit of banter, distasteful? many thought it was funny.

The point's convienently missed- there's only one achievement that matters. Only one.

History will also observe one accomplishment. In fact, any others while an MEP would be a distraction, not elaborating. Had he failed BREXIT then a stern rebuke over accomplishing zero seems fair.

But he only had one goal. All the noise offered above presumes your worldview. He and I don't share it. If the only thing he's accomplished in 17 years will be remembered with Concord, the Berlin Wall, and other high and low points of this age, I'd say I'm correct.

The only part Farage played in Brexit was the role of public celebrity as he is unelected in the UK.

He told lies about £350m a week going to the NHS then backtracked 10 minutes after the referendum result.

What exactly did he achieve again ..I'm confused?

He is an elected a UK MEP

He did not tell lies, I had this convo with another member here:http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/927483-brexit-why-british-expats-are-worried/page-11 post 259

His goal was to get a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, so he achieved his goal

Uk at least escaped this horror:

Britain dodges European Union superstate bullet

And they do not need to be involved in industry like this:

First-Person Testimonial from a Former Refugee Volunteer

I think this super state dream makes war more likly on a massive scale, as big states flex muscles saying don't mess with me I'm one of the big boys.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/29/police-hate-crime-not-surged-57-per-cent-since-brexit/

But then on the bright side I have just seen this

http://heatst.com/uk/11-countries-gearing-up-to-strike-trade-deals-with-britain/

See we don't need the EU it's only about one week

Unfortunately (I am not using the word ironically), these trade deals, if they actually materialize, may not be enough to make good for the losses. I am not an expert in economy but my understanding is that the City of London contributes decisively to the GNP. Without a deal with the EU a lot of this trade will be gone. Just a few percent less will hit the British budget hard. And many foreign banks and traders are in London because it gives them access to the whole European market, These banks and traders will have no reason to stay in the UK. Dublin or Paris or Frankfurt will suit them better (Dublin being a good candidate because of this funny little language they speak ).

Don't get me wrong. I do not hope that that will happen but I think there is good chance that it will. That being said, I always wonder why so many people on this forum wish for the EU to collapse. I understand that people feel British and want to remain independent (I do not, I regard myself as being patriotic but nevertheless I would describe myself as a European from Germany like many of my friends and colleagues would describe themselves as Europeans from France or Holland or wherever). So, that I understand but I would not want the UK to collapse or the British people to suffer. Obviously, for some people it is not enough "to win", the others also have to lose. Why is that, I wonder. My hobby-psychological diagnosis: they maybe simply a-holes.

You may well be right about job loses there obviously will be some, who knows how hard it will be? I doubt anyone can know but there will be a price for restructuring, some jobs will go some will be created the pize is an inderpendent UK, there are plenty of countries around the world where we can make bespoke trade deals for specific customer needs, I think we will be better stronger out.

I donot wish the EU ill tho I suspect it will struggle more with out the UK, the EU has many problems can it survive as it now is? I don't know same as us time will tell.

And more good news Boeing has chosen Britain for it's new European headquarters even if we leave the EU

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3497621/Boeing-s-Brexit-boost-World-s-largest-aircraft-maker-picks-Britain-home-new-European-headquarters.html

Brexit won't happen, I voted for it, the establishment don't actually want it to happen. If the UK government were serious they would have invoked article 50 last Friday, they didn't, all over!

I doubt full Brexit will happen, more likely a halfway house like the Norwegian model. Tweaks to immigration likely, including prevention of criminal gangs entering the UK and a right to deport criminals. No further political integration. Associate membership, which the UK pays for. Cooler heads will prevail, they won't be politicians bonces but business leaders.

Too much at stake on both side of the English Channel.

I am hoping for a full getout and back to WTO rules and start fresh from there, get back our fishing grounds potential 50.000 jobs there, for me no fudges we get what we want or we walk.

And more good news Boeing has chosen Britain for it's new European headquarters even if we leave the EU

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3497621/Boeing-s-Brexit-boost-World-s-largest-aircraft-maker-picks-Britain-home-new-European-headquarters.html

Brexit won't happen, I voted for it, the establishment don't actually want it to happen. If the UK government were serious they would have invoked article 50 last Friday, they didn't, all over!

I have a sneaky suspicion you maybe right but I'm not writing it off yet, the Uk politicians like their gravy train, they will need a good getout clause to get elected in the next election should they circumvent the peoples wishes.