UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[nauseus]

39 minutes ago, tebee said:

But what you are failing to account for here is that the UK is also one of the most populous states too and the EU's spending budget will also shrink considerably when the UK leaves. 

 

There will be no contributions to UK regional projects, no contribution to UK agriculture, no contribution to science research  at UK universities, many of the EU's staff in the UK will become redundant, there will be no need to pay the salaries of the UK's MEPs and their support staff.

 

I also believe UK nationals will no longer be able to work in the EU civil service so those that don't take Belgian nationality can be let go.

 

I've seen a figure somewhere that suggests the EU will be 0.5-2 billion Euros a year worse off without the UK  - in Eu terms that's a trifling amount    - around 0.2 % of the annual budget.

This somewhere figure must be floating around in some crystal ball. About 9-10 billion has been the recent annual average and that is a net total. EU contributions back to projects and farming come out of the separate rebate - so it's our money to begin with - the farm subsidies are already with HMRC!

 

The UK has about a 90 billion annual trading deficit with the EU. If the EU want to add their tariffs to imports from the UK, then the UK will have to respond in kind. More expensive EU goods in the UK would mean a slowdown in sales of those goods and vice versa. But as UK imports are so badly balanced versus exports, this would likely mean a relative reduction of the UK's deficit with the EU and also possibly encourage new UK industries for the domestic market.

 

 

 

 

[Mattd]

12 minutes ago, tebee said:

And it may still have a trade surplus  of around 50 Billion Euros per year post no-deal brexit.

 

Trade is not going to stop, it's just things will cost more.

 

Even if German built luxury cars cost 30% more post Brexit people are still going to buy them - because all imported luxury cars will cost 30% more - Only the UK built ones will not get much more expensive, but there are not that many UK built luxury cars .

I agree, except that Germany and many other member states have just as much, if not more to lose by imposing trade tariffs.

I'd disagree on the point that all imported goods will increase by the same margin, your example was cars, but if the UK can strike a trade deal with let's say Japan, then those goods will be cheaper than from the EU post Brexit, only EU goods would increase by the same, so for the bulk of buyers of BMW's for example, can purchase a Lexus for 30% less, then they probably will.

 

The whole thing is a mess right now, that is the only fact that is concrete.

[mommysboy]

28 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I'd rather Theresa May comes clean and admits there is no Brexit deal that could be best for the British people. And her resignation has been conveyed to the Queen. 

 

Let Boris loose to strike at the heart of the Muslim community, ban Burkas in the UK, and build a new runway at Gatwick to send them back home. 

Just one small point: there would probably be a socialist government and I don't think Boris would be part of it!

[mommysboy]

25 minutes ago, tebee said:

And it may still have a trade surplus  of around 50 Billion Euros per year post no-deal brexit.

 

Trade is not going to stop, it's just things will cost more.

 

Even if German built luxury cars cost 30% more post Brexit people are still going to buy them - because all imported luxury cars will cost 30% more - Only the UK built ones will not get much more expensive, but there are not that many UK built luxury cars .

One small example which may be incorrect anyway.  We can say simply as a matter of proven economic principles that EU trade with the UK will be hit hard both ways.

 

 

[rixalex]

If the U.K. people wish to change their mind and want their government to stop implementing the Brexit, that will should be respected. Everything else would be anti-democratic. 
 
The UK decided to open the Pandora’s box of letting every Tom, Dick and Harry participate in the decision-making; you wanted democracy by referendum. So be it; at least be consistent about it. 

So you think that because of the referendum in 2016, that means that from that point forward, every time the pubic change their mind, in order to be consistent, there has to be another referendum, or else it's anti-democratic. Fine. And how do you propose it be established that people HAVE changed their mind? Have a referendum on that?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tebee]

51 minutes ago, Mattd said:

I agree, except that Germany and many other member states have just as much, if not more to lose by imposing trade tariffs.

I'd disagree on the point that all imported goods will increase by the same margin, your example was cars, but if the UK can strike a trade deal with let's say Japan, then those goods will be cheaper than from the EU post Brexit, only EU goods would increase by the same, so for the bulk of buyers of BMW's for example, can purchase a Lexus for 30% less, then they probably will.

 

The whole thing is a mess right now, that is the only fact that is concrete.

They are obliged to impose tariffs under WTO rules, if the don't have a trade agreement with us. The other way round too. 

 

We are, of course, just about to lose our nice new trade deal with   Japan when we leave the EU....

Who knows how long a new one will take ?

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

And how do you propose it be established that people HAVE changed their mind?

The same way it happened last time. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

 

Who knows how long a new one will take ?

3.5 years on average, based on how long it took the US to negotiate 20 or so trade deals. (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/how-long-does-it-take-conclude-trade-agreement-us)

[anon537687643]

All the Europhile tv keyboard propagandists out with their nonsense !!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[whatsupdoc]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

3.5 years on average, based on how long it took the US to negotiate 20 or so trade deals. (https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/how-long-does-it-take-conclude-trade-agreement-us)

There is another problem though. For the past decades all trade negotiations for the UK were done by the EU. This means that the UK simply does not have that many experienced negotiators.

Good luck with having to do many trade negotiations simultaneously.......

[rixalex]

The same way it happened last time. 

The way it happened last time was a slow and gradual process that took over 40 years before culminating in the referendum.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

The way it happened last time was a slow and gradual process that took over 40 years before culminating in the referendum.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Well I did mention 39 years a few days ago but that's close enough! ?

[mommysboy]

On 8/10/2018 at 6:42 AM, z42 said:

Completely agree. Then and now I could see merits and arguments in both sides.

However, the UK government has simply not been firm enough in its attempts to get anything like a good deal for the UK. The EU heirachy haven't given an inch despite the UK population voting on leaving, they as a bloc seem hellbent on punishing the people for voting out 

 

I personally think it's no use either way. Genie is out of the bottle. Man up and get out and be done with it.

 

Of course it'll be turbulent for a while, but surely another vote or nothing really changes is simply a non-starter

Despite probably not wanting to leave, I have to agree.  There is a time when you simply have to get on with it. Just get out.  I'm not even sure it's worth bothering to negotiate.  

 

 

[stephenterry]

Or alternatively, just get on with it and halt Article 50 before Brexit ruins the UK. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by stephenterry
addition to text.

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

If the uk govt. agreed to another referendum, do you honestly think the lying and scaremongering wouldn't happen next time round??

 

IMO it would be FAR, FAR worse ☹️!

That would remain to be seen. In light of the recent electoral commission decisions I would think it unlikely that anyone would be looking to jeopardise the result.

Parliament voted for Art 50 on, among other things,  "a lawful vote" which begs the question, what constitutes a lawful vote?

The system is about to be tested.

 

The group said the offences committed by the pro-Brexit groups mean the government’s invoking of Article 50 should be declared void, and the Brexit process reversed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-expats-eu-high-court-legal-challenge-referendum-campaign-spending-a8492641.html

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That would remain to be seen. In light of the recent electoral commission decisions I would think it unlikely that anyone would be looking to jeopardise the result.

Parliament voted for Art 50 on, among other things,  "a lawful vote" which begs the question, what constitutes a lawful vote?

The system is about to be tested.

 

The group said the offences committed by the pro-Brexit groups mean the government’s invoking of Article 50 should be declared void, and the Brexit process reversed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-expats-eu-high-court-legal-challenge-referendum-campaign-spending-a8492641.html

I sense the UK government is well aware of that option, but has chosen to ignore any breaches for political reasons - whatever they might be.

 

Ah, yes, probably because any illegal ruling would down the government and force the Tories to ditch May and hold an election.  

 

Brexit is going to be a new swear word in people's vocabulary. 

 

[sandyf]

19 hours ago, mommysboy said:

It's the trading surplus that might be sorely missed by the EU countries- some in particular.  On this point, failure to reach an agreement (effectively a trade war) will surely hit the EU hard.

It is not a question of how hard the EU is hit, as far as they are concerned, solidarity and the integrity of the single market is more important than the costs involved. It really is time that the brexiteers woke up to the reality of the situation. TM thought she could undermine the solidarity by approaching leaders direct, how did that work out.

Right from day one, the EU agreed a stance and have stuck by it, unlike the UK government still running around like headless chickens. I would think that many EU companies have already taken steps to increase trade within the huge internal market and have every opportunity to steal the current UK market share.

[sandyf]

4 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Brexit is going to be a new swear word in people's vocabulary. 

 

What do you mean "new".

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

What do you mean "new".

Doesn't it have to be ratified, first, e.g. by dictionary compilers, before becoming a new swear word ?  I would agree with you that it is probably in common use.  

[Srikcir]

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It really is time that the brexiteers woke up to the reality of the situation. 

The reality is that the UK must negotiate in concert with the EU for future free trade agreements.

"The negotiations between Turkey and the U.K. on the free trade agreement will begin once London and Brussels have made progress on the future of U.K.-EU trade .... “We have to make progress with those before we can begin the parallel U.K.-Turkey free trade agreement talks. The objective is to cause as little disruption to trade as possible and to create the conditions post-Brexit for our bilateral trade to continue growing as it is now,” - British Ambassador to Turkey Dominick Chilcott (my underline emphasis)

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-uk-to-intensify-talks-for-post-brexit-free-trade-deal-132021

[Stupooey]

8 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Doesn't it have to be ratified, first, e.g. by dictionary compilers, before becoming a new swear word ?  I would agree with you that it is probably in common use.  

I think Brexit has already been defined by the OED in its 2012 Word of the Year - omnishambles.

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The reality is that the UK must negotiate in concert with the EU for future free trade agreements.

That is not true. Art 50 is only about the withdrawal agreement, nothing to do with trade. Something that TM has refused to acknowledge since day one but it is the EU that gets the flak.

Right in the beginning it was financial, EU citizens and Ireland before any trade discussion.

[tebee]

Even the Tory Express is now saying it is a shambles and we need a second referendum -  I can't help feeling Brexit is slowly dying.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1003415/Brexit-news-latest-chequers-deal-brexit-single-market-second-referendum-Theresa-May

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

Even the Tory Express is now saying it is a shambles and we need a second referendum -  I can't help feeling Brexit is slowly dying.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1003415/Brexit-news-latest-chequers-deal-brexit-single-market-second-referendum-Theresa-May

If it is a shambles then the only logical course of action is to shelve it- that's what generally happens. It would be deemed frustrated; not do-able. It's a common concept in commerce and our personal lives, but I wouldn't expect a politician to understand that.

 

A second referendum simply is not on and not needed.  Some say it's allowed to change one's mind. Yes it is, but when it was agreed that this was a once and for all binding vote (as I think it was) then that is a moot point.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[bristolboy]

34 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

A second referendum simply is not on and not needed.  Some say it's allowed to change one's mind. Yes it is, but when it was agreed that this was a once and for all binding vote (as I think it was) then that is a moot point.

No it wasn't agreed to at all. In fact, the referendum was advisory.

[tebee]

We are a dead man walking - stumbling along blindly in the hope that something will turn up - the Germans can see that even if we can't.

 

Deutsche Welle tells its readers that "Brexit has reached a dead end". With "no alternative in sight", that leaves the UK " limping toward the day it will ultimately leave the European Union",  

 

"What now? Without a concept, Britain continues to teeter toward Brexit day.  At the moment, there is little hope that anyone will pull the emergency brake and at least postpone the unfortunate event."

 

 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-brexit-has-reached-a-dead-end/a-45084743

[mommysboy]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No it wasn't agreed to at all. In fact, the referendum was advisory.

What would be the point of a referendum then?  Yes you are right technically it was advisory.  It was later clarified that it was politically binding.

 

I suppose the proof is in the pudding: nobody went to court on the grounds that it was advisory only.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[bristolboy]

Just now, mommysboy said:

What would be the point of a referendum then?  Yes you are right technically it was advisory.  It was later clarified that it was politically binding.

Define "politically binding" and who was it who provided this clarification?

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Define "politically binding" and who was it who provided this clarification?

I don't know.  I think it was senior legal wigs in the government and it wasn't contested by anyone; proof in the pudding.  Surely a legal challenge would have been made if it was possible.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/the-culture-secretary-said-the-eu-referendum-was-binding-it-wasnt

 

Not legally binding, but Parliament inevitably agrees to be bound by the will of the people.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[rixalex]

No it wasn't agreed to at all. In fact, the referendum was advisory.

Technically speaking true. In much the same way as, technically speaking, the Queen could refuse to grant assent to a bill from Parliament. There's a reason why she doesn't.

Same goes for politicians re the referendum. Vast majority are on record as having stated, prior to the referendum, that the people would decide on the issue once and for all. Any politician who were now to come out and say, "ah yes, hold on a sec, did you not see the small print down at the bottom that states that actually we can ignore what you told us", would be committing political suicide. That's why it's only desperate remainers who are trotting out the, "only advisory', line.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app