1 hour ago, Mattd said:

The issue is that this just cannot possibly work unless the vote was a yes, which makes it an expensive non event.

The UK and EU finally agree on a deal and then the UK people say no, then what happens?

Yes, theoretically the UK has until 2020 to change its mind about Brexit, if that did happen, then imagine the fallout long term, as this would put the EU in an impregnable position, meaning that the UK would get reamed financially for years and years, what can we do, threaten to leave again?

Ain't no winners.

Transition period is not a given yet …..is part of the negotiations …...Barnier made that clear before already …. U.K. seems to take a transition period as granted already (?!)...which is NOT .

I think the carton boxes better get ordered by the U.K.  E.P. workers

7 minutes ago, david555 said:

Transition period is not a given yet …..is part of the negotiations …...Barnier made that clear before already …. U.K. seems to take a transition period as granted already (?!)...which is NOT .

I think the carton boxes better get ordered by the U.K.  E.P. workers

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-updates-uk-eu-single-market-customs-union-leave-a8300811.html

20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not at all.

 

I'm pretty sure those supporting brexit have not said that there can NEVER be another referendum on the issue, just that the the recent referendum result should be implemented (as per the govt. leaflet sent to every household prior to the vote).

 

Once genuine brexit has happened, of course remainers will have the same opportunity to campaign to re-join the eu - as leavers had previously campaigning to leave the eu.

We’ll have to disagree on that. 

 

I see no reason why there cannot be a vote on a final brexit exit deal. 

 

I also see no reason why don’t leave can’t be an option. 

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I also see no reason why don’t leave can’t be an option

As I've said it is an option, no doubt about that, but is it a good option, IMO the EU would screw the UK big style if the decision to remain did happen, why, coz they can and there would be virtually nothing the UK can do to stop it.

Brexit has to happen, let both sides suffer the pain and then perhaps come in again under better terms when the EU also realises how much pain they are experiencing, which they will.

Just now, Mattd said:

As I've said it is an option, no doubt about that, but is it a good option, IMO the EU would screw the UK big style if the decision to remain did happen, why, coz they can and there would be virtually nothing the UK can do to stop it.

Brexit has to happen, let both sides suffer the pain and then perhaps come in again under better terms when the EU also realises how much pain they are experiencing, which they will.

Guess we will have to disagree on brexit having to happen. 

 

I don’t feel that is the case and those campaigning against it have every right to do so. 

23 minutes ago, Mattd said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-updates-uk-eu-single-market-customs-union-leave-a8300811.html

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-warns-brexit-transition-period-at-risk/

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by david555

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Except the scariest thing this time around would be not possible nightmarish futures but the past actual and nightmarish performance of the Conservative government.

So you mean another referendum would be one on how government should negotiate with the EU after a vote to leave it  after a referendum then?

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Guess we will have to disagree on brexit having to happen. 

 

I don’t feel that is the case and those campaigning against it have every right to do so. 

Of course they and you have that right, absolutely.

 

If you research the figures, then there are only four of the Twenty Nine member states of the EU that contribute over 60% of the total EU budget, Germany, France, UK and Italy, in that order, in 2016 UK share was 13.65%, yes the EU budget will fall after the UK's exit, but not by the same percentage, therefore the others contribution will rise percentage wise, that is fact, plus 24 of the member states export more to the UK than the UK exports to them in money terms, so penalise the UK for trading and the UK will do the same, a lose lose situation that nobody wants or needs.

The EU will hurt from the UK's departure and perhaps that pain has to be inflicted on both sides for this to be fully appreciated by those in power.

6 minutes ago, david555 said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-warns-brexit-transition-period-at-risk/

 

 

This was stated 3 months prior to him saying the opposite?

10 minutes ago, Mattd said:

This was stated 3 months prior to him saying the opposite?

must understand that all depends on evolving the negotiations ….. not forgetting that the 27 states has to vote on it …..

was there not a certain lady who said that" nothing is agreed until all is agreed ..? "   remember the herself calling difficult lady....? 

 

PS: did she not made a U-turn also about the SIGNED backstop solution about N-Irland & Irland….

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by david555

7 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Of course they and you have that right, absolutely.

 

If you research the figures, then there are only four of the Twenty Nine member states of the EU that contribute over 60% of the total EU budget, Germany, France, UK and Italy, in that order, in 2016 UK share was 13.65%, yes the EU budget will fall after the UK's exit, but not by the same percentage, therefore the others contribution will rise percentage wise, that is fact, plus 24 of the member states export more to the UK than the UK exports to them in money terms, so penalise the UK for trading and the UK will do the same, a lose lose situation that nobody wants or needs.

The EU will hurt from the UK's departure and perhaps that pain has to be inflicted on both sides for this to be fully appreciated by those in power.

Unlike the leaders of the Brexiters, the EU foresees no rosy ultimate future with the departure of the UK. They've always been upfront about that.

And it's good to keep in mind that whilst the UK may be among the top four in contributions to the EU, it's the per capita payment that shows the real burden on UK citizens. And according to what I found via the following link, the UK ranked 9th out of 11 in that regard.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century

And whilst the UK's net contribution seems large, in relation to the budgets of just France and Germany, it doesn't amount to all that much.

 

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by bristolboy

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

More evasion. No specifics.

It's a bit hard to be specific when no one has any idea what is happening yet. Even the government. Especially the  government come to think about it. 

Just now, tebee said:

It's a bit hard to be specific when no one has any idea what is happening yet. Even the government. Especially the  government come to think about it. 

Well, it's certainly difficult to be specific about the particular economic consequences of Brexit if not the overall economic effect. But in this case it's about certain parties being restricted in their offering of services. No matter how  complicated their services may be, that is irrelevant to the effect it will have on their bottom line. Which won't be favorable. Of course, if somehow the UK manages to negotiate passporting rights for their financial services firms, then there will be virtually no bad effect. But that seems extremely unlikely and entirely irrelevant to the question of said services' complexity.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Well, it's certainly difficult to be specific about the particular economic consequences of Brexit if not the overall economic effect. But in this case it's about certain parties being restricted in their offering of services. No matter how  complicated their services may be, that is irrelevant to the effect it will have on their bottom line. Which won't be favorable. Of course, if somehow the UK manages to negotiate passporting rights for their financial services firms, then there will be virtually no bad effect. But that seems extremely unlikely and entirely irrelevant to the question of said services' complexity.

One can get lost in complexity to the point of absolute abstraction.  What we can reasonably say is that UK will be worse off due to trade restrictions.  But, it is also true to say that other countries seem to be able to trade with the EU in a way that is presumably suitable to both parties.  

 

(As everyone knows I think leaving is a mistake, but lets not get in to doomsday scenarios.  The truth is Hard Brexit would likely hit economic growth quite substantially in the short term and I just don't think this is the right time to be facing such a situation.)

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Unlike the leaders of the Brexiters, the EU foresees no rosy ultimate future with the departure of the UK. They've always been upfront about that.

And it's good to keep in mind that whilst the UK may be among the top four in contributions to the EU, it's the per capita payment that shows the real burden on UK citizens. And according to what I found via the following link, the UK ranked 9th out of 11 in that regard.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century

And whilst the UK's net contribution seems large, in relation to the budgets of just France and Germany, it doesn't amount to all that much.

 

The UK's net contribution to the EU in 2017 was the lowest for a while at 8,909 Billion pounds (actual cost to the tax payer), the gross contribution was 18.625 Billion, the rebate was 5,633 Billion and the public purse got 4,804 Billion pounds back.

Yes there will be implications to the trade on both sides that has to be taken in to account as well, but that is from both sides, the plain fact is that the EU will be around 9 - 10 Billion pounds worse off per year without the UK, that shortfall has to be made up somehow and the remaining member states understand this.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Of course they and you have that right, absolutely.

 

If you research the figures, then there are only four of the Twenty Nine member states of the EU that contribute over 60% of the total EU budget, Germany, France, UK and Italy, in that order, in 2016 UK share was 13.65%, yes the EU budget will fall after the UK's exit, but not by the same percentage, therefore the others contribution will rise percentage wise, that is fact, plus 24 of the member states export more to the UK than the UK exports to them in money terms, so penalise the UK for trading and the UK will do the same, a lose lose situation that nobody wants or needs.

The EU will hurt from the UK's departure and perhaps that pain has to be inflicted on both sides for this to be fully appreciated by those in power.

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.

13 minutes ago, Mattd said:

The UK's net contribution to the EU in 2017 was the lowest for a while at 8,909 Billion pounds (actual cost to the tax payer), the gross contribution was 18.625 Billion, the rebate was 5,633 Billion and the public purse got 4,804 Billion pounds back.

Yes there will be implications to the trade on both sides that has to be taken in to account as well, but that is from both sides, the plain fact is that the EU will be around 9 - 10 Billion pounds worse off per year without the UK, that shortfall has to be made up somehow and the remaining member states understand this.

 

 

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.

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by mommysboy

9 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. 

The UK contributes as per population, as do the rest, however the EU budget will only shrink by about 5 Billion pounds, compared with the UK's net contribution of close to 10 Billion pounds, so they will be around 5 Billion pounds worse off without the UK.

The EU must have positive contributions to survive, countries like Poland who are massively negative need that to survive.

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

One can get lost in complexity to the point of absolute abstraction.  What we can reasonably say is that UK will be worse off due to trade restrictions.  But, it is also true to say that other countries seem to be able to trade with the EU in a way that is presumably suitable to both parties.  

 

(As everyone knows I think leaving is a mistake, but lets not get in to doomsday scenarios.  The truth is Hard Brexit would likely hit economic growth quite substantially in the short term and I just don't think this is the right time to be facing such a situation.)

I believe any Brexit would hit economic growth, whatever the final deal - if there is one. Best for everyone on here to read Sir Ivan Roger's account (several pages back) of the options available to the UK and the impact of those, including the impossibility of regaining full sovereignty, before suggesting that the UK public should vote on the final outcome. 

 

Why? 

 

Read Sir IR's account of the complexities involved, which I doubt anyone here on this forum (let alone the populace)  would be able to come to any view other than 'whichever way you look at it, it's too damn complicated' to be able to cast a meaningful vote.

 

Which, IMO, is a pointless exercise, albeit demonstrating to Theresa May's government that an option would be to halt Article 50 UK's withdrawal before the exit date - after which, Brexit is unavoidable whatever the outcome. 

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's the trading surplus that might be sorely missed by the EU countries- some in particular.

Totally agree, like I said before, Germany has a trade surplus with the UK of around 50 Billion Euros per year.

5 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Totally agree, like I said before, Germany has a trade surplus with the UK of around 50 Billion Euros per year.

That is now. But what would happen after Brexit when the UK becomes a third country, and Germany would be unable to trade on the same terms without negotiating a new trade agreement? As it has been demonstrated, the UK government is incapable of negotiating anything except 'we want it this way, including leaving the existing Customs Union', which won't be acceptable to any country in the EU without a NEW Customs Union in place - that could take several years to implement, it's that complicated.

 

Read Sir Ivan Roger's account on Customs Union before reaching the conclusion that nothing would change,  particularly the disruption of the supply of motor parts to and from the UK and EU.

 

 

8 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I believe any Brexit would hit economic growth, whatever the final deal - if there is one. Best for everyone on here to read Sir Ivan Roger's account (several pages back) of the options available to the UK and the impact of those, including the impossibility of regaining full sovereignty, before suggesting that the UK public should vote on the final outcome. 

 

Why? 

 

Read Sir IR's account of the complexities involved, which I doubt anyone here on this forum (let alone the populace)  would be able to come to any view other than 'whichever way you look at it, it's too damn complicated' to be able to cast a meaningful vote.

 

Which, IMO, is a pointless exercise, albeit demonstrating to Theresa May's government that an option would be to halt Article 50 UK's withdrawal before the exit date - after which, Brexit is unavoidable whatever the outcome. 

 

 

 

 

Yes of course it would.  There is a price to pay for the freedom we want.  But the people decided.  Also any deal with the EU will curtail those freedoms.  I guess EU and UK are mutually incompatible for the time being.

 

It seems even clearer to me that there are 2 courses of action: cancel Brexit, or Hard Brexit. 

13 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

That is now. But what would happen after Brexit when the UK becomes a third country, and Germany would be unable to trade on the same terms without negotiating a new trade agreement? As it has been demonstrated, the UK government is incapable of negotiating anything except 'we want it this way, including leaving the existing Customs Union', which won't be acceptable to any country in the EU without a NEW Customs Union in place - that could take several years to implement, it's that complicated.

 

Read Sir Ivan Roger's account on Customs Union before reaching the conclusion that nothing would change,  particularly the disruption of the supply of motor parts to and from the UK and EU.

 

 

You are missing basic points: like what people want, and it takes two to negotiate. 

 

Yes, there is going to be massive disruption. 

 

A quick bit of logic will tell you that what the EU calls a free trade deal is no free trade deal at all.

 

A: Buys something

B: Is paid.

 

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by mommysboy

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Yes of course it would.  There is a price to pay for the freedom we want.  But the people decided.  Also any deal with the EU will curtail those freedoms.  I guess EU and UK are mutually incompatible for the time being.

 

It seems even clearer to me that there are 2 courses of action: cancel Brexit, or Hard Brexit. 

I suppose if the people were lemmings, it would be perfectly okay (for the UK government)  to let them jump off a cliff. In that way they'd certainly attain the freedom they voted for until they hit the rocks.

 

Cancel 'Cliff Jumping' would be the sane advice, the alternative of hitting it hard on the rocks below, somehow doesn't make sense to a rational person.

 

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

You are missing basic points: like what people want, and it takes two to negotiate. 

 

Yes, there is going to be massive disruption. 

see my above post on your first.

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I'm pretty sure those supporting brexit have not said that there can NEVER be another referendum on the issue, just that the the recent referendum result should be implemented (as per the govt. leaflet sent to every household prior to the vote).

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. 

13 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I suppose if the people were lemmings, it would be perfectly okay (for the UK government)  to let them jump off a cliff. In that way they'd certainly attain the freedom they voted for until they hit the rocks.

 

Cancel 'Cliff Jumping' would be the sane advice, the alternative of hitting it hard on the rocks below, somehow doesn't make sense to a rational person.

 

Quite so. These are the only real choices.

 

But unfortunately, if the nation decides the cliff is the best option, not a lot one can do. My regard for democracy has gone.  

 

There is an upside though: I mean the 'lemmings' analogy is a bit dramatic. There would be much disruption and fall out in the short term though.

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by mommysboy

10 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

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. 

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. 

Edited August 15, 20188 yr by stephenterry
addition to text.

41 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Totally agree, like I said before, Germany has a trade surplus with the UK of around 50 Billion Euros per year.

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 .

4 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 understand that some EU manufacturing firms (e.g. motor industry) are not now ordering any British spare parts in the event of a total collapse of the supply chain at Dover in the event of Brexit. The 'stop' could be temporary or go on for as long as it takes for the UK to join a NEW Customs Union with the EU.