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

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Many other posters, regardless of which side of the debate they position themselves, know that a united 27 has never been the case, and never will be.

Looks they never got the memo.

 

The leaders are also understood to have agreed to stand behind Mr Barnier, reaffirming their “full confidence” in him as their representative in talks. A source said they would convene a summit only “if and when” Mr Barnier recommended it was time to do so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-summit-latest-eu-leaders-november-deal-vote-theresa-may-a8589326.html

[tebee]

16 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Once again? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

I'm using the Thai Visa app on my mobile, and everyone's font appears exactly the same on my screen.

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

You have a noticeably smaller font size on a pc  - I notice some other people using the app have too, so I guess it must be a setting there.

 

 

[My Thai Life]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Looks they never got the memo.

No memo needed. If you are interested in a quick sketch of the differing positions taken in the 27, here it is.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/17/do-eus-27-countries-stand-brexit-deal/

[rixalex]

I'm calling for a worldwide open door policy on immigration
 
Let the free market decide !
 
You font is just the normal forum font, just one size smaller ?

You are the first remainer I have heard calling for a complete open door policy for every nation's citizens to go to the UK. In fact i think aside from members of the Green party, you might be the only person I have heard make that argument.

I admire the consistency in what you are arguing for. It's a consistency that, as I say, I haven't found in other remainers, who, on the one hand, denigrate leavers for not being seen to welcome immigrants, but who themselves, are happy enough for certain immigrants to be given open door access, but do not call for that access to be offered to all the other nations.

For me, if you believe in open door immigration and think that having that belief underscores how open minded and multicultural you are, and conversely, how bigoted and racist all those who oppose open door immigration must be, well then don't think you can just open the door to a select few countries and that's it, you have done your part and can claim the moral high ground.

I would have a lot more respect for remainers if they all adopted your position. As I say, at least it's consistent.

Totally unworkable of course.

What we need in my opinion isn't an open door, just a fair door that judges the person standing at it on what skills they have, regardless of where they happen to have been born and where they come from. That shouldn't come into the equation whatsoever.

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

[sandyf]

I fail to understand why leavers feel that human nature will be any different post brexit to what it was thirty odd years ago. If someone can claim,for example, that a TV set is a box of electronic components and think they can get away with it, they will.

Make no mistake, the level of checks carried out on goods crossing UK/EU borders will be determined by human nature.

In the early 80s I was exporting capital equipment worldwide and customers had the SGS inspectors come check the goods prior to packing, a real pain in the neck. There are those that claim that the post brexit bureaucracy will be of little significance to UK manufacturers. A common point of view, if you do not understand the problem it doesn't exist.

Although the focus has been on the Irish border, it should be borne in mind the checks will be applicable at all UK/EU borders post brexit and will be serious challenge to UK businesses.

[sandyf]

20 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

No memo needed. If you are interested in a quick sketch of the differing positions taken in the 27, here it is.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/17/do-eus-27-countries-stand-brexit-deal/

Entirely up to you what you want to believe.

Putting up a link that cannot be read is not particularly constructive but then little is.

[rixalex]

You have a noticeably smaller font size on a pc  - I notice some other people using the app have too, so I guess it must be a setting there.
 
 

Thanks for the info. Certainly nothing I'm doing intentionally. Must be an idiosyncracy of the mobile app I guess.

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

[vinny41]

7 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

I am not sure we are anymore enlightened on either the risks of staying in or leaving it appears the establishment didn't like the vote so have tried to frustrate the process of leaving. The government before voting day issued a booklet of properganda to aid the remain cause (12 million pounds of pro remain dribble) it clearly stated we would have what remainers term as hard Brexit, but is infact simply Brexit. The Government clearly told us the risks and that we would leave all institutions of the EU, so we voted for a hard Brexit in fact. Now just because the EU wouldn't compromise on their principals (I don't blame them) we should simply leave on WTO rules sign our own trade deals save what will be 15 billion pounds in contributions and receive due to EU imports a profit of 7-9 billion pounds on the tariffs the EU would have to pay us. Therefore we would profit by 20-25 billion a year. When we leave we also avoid the liabilities the EU builds up on our behalf such as the suposed 28 billion divorce bill. And the fact the EU budget is now set vastly above its income.

 

As to what I think your point is, the Brexit referendum was the largest democratic exercise in British history, if we had anouther referendum, (I don't mind if we do as think it will be very close again either way as don't see much option change in the real world) supose remain won, would we then in two years more time have anouther so we go best of three? MPs pretty much all voted for the referendum, and subsequenly for article 50 and there is likely to be serious unrest if we don't leave.

 

Additionally, the EU are funding (and we're before Brexit) in Slovakia over 125 million euros to build a Jaguar factory, that's not very fair to encourage a British manufacturer to shift production from the UK. They did the same with Ford who moved transit production from the UK to a EU funded factory in Turkey.

 

I do respect your remainers view, but there are serious risks in continuing with the EU project, which doesn't get a fair hearing.

Most UK companies tried to influence in what direction their workers voted prior to the referendum the issue for many workers is when these companies were asked to provide a commitment that they would remain in the UK for a long term period the same answer always came back "We currently have no plans to relocate our operations" which means nothing as next week or 1 year later that statement might change.

Would Ford relocated its Transit  production back to the UK if remain won. Unlikely

[Orac]

6 minutes ago, rixalex said:

 

 

Thanks for the info. Certainly nothing I'm doing intentionally. Must be an idiosyncracy of the mobile app I guess.

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

 

 

I have problems with fonts sometimes swapping between mobile and webview as they change - can't put attachments in on mobile for some reason.

[tebee]

22 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You are the first remainer I have heard calling for a complete open door policy for every nation's citizens to go to the UK. In fact i think aside from members of the Green party, you might be the only person I have heard make that argument.

I admire the consistency in what you are arguing for. It's a consistency that, as I say, I haven't found in other remainers, who, on the one hand, denigrate leavers for not being seen to welcome immigrants, but who themselves, are happy enough for certain immigrants to be given open door access, but do not call for that access to be offered to all the other nations.

For me, if you believe in open door immigration and think that having that belief underscores how open minded and multicultural you are, and conversely, how bigoted and racist all those who oppose open door immigration must be, well then don't think you can just open the door to a select few countries and that's it, you have done your part and can claim the moral high ground.

I would have a lot more respect for remainers if they all adopted your position. As I say, at least it's consistent.

Totally unworkable of course.

What we need in my opinion isn't an open door, just a fair door that judges the person standing at it on what skills they have, regardless of where they happen to have been born and where they come from. That shouldn't come into the equation whatsoever.

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

I'm calling for open immergration for every county in the world not just the UK - why should the accident of where we happen to be born determine where were are allowed to live?

 

Although I'm left of center politically I also take a fairly libertarian view - I believe the free market is a better  limiter of things than the government.

 

It's also interesting to note that immigration controls are a relatively recent innovation, It's only just over 100 years since the UK started even imposing any.  

[Orac]

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Most UK companies tried to influence in what direction their workers voted prior to the referendum the issue for many workers is when these companies were asked to provide a commitment that they would remain in the UK for a long term period the same answer always came back "We currently have no plans to relocate our operations" which means nothing as next week or 1 year later that statement might change.

Would Ford relocated its Transit  production back to the UK if remain won. Unlikely

 

Not sure the Ford money was that influential on the transit move - they were already making them in Turkey, it was a low interest loan from the EIB rather than a direct handout which they paid back for 180m and they also received 450m for UK around the same time. 

[Chopperboy]

38 minutes ago, rixalex said:

For me, if you believe in open door immigration and think that having that belief underscores how open minded and multicultural you are, and conversely, how bigoted and racist all those who oppose open door immigration must be, well then don't think you can just open the door to a select few countries and that's it, you have done your part and can claim the moral high ground.
 

Immigration is a Shadow Government policy to break down National Identity to help usher in the One World Government. Guilt tripping the gullible white folks is just part of the propaganda to help achieve it.

[My Thai Life]

26 minutes ago, tebee said:

Although I'm left of center politically I also take a fairly libertarian view - I believe the free market is a better  limiter of things than the government.

 

It's also interesting to note that immigration controls are a relatively recent innovation, It's only just over 100 years since the UK started even imposing any.  

> If you prefer free markets, how can you want to stay in the EU, a protectionist cartel with extremely high subsidies for certain sectors. It's the opposite of a free market.

 

> Immigration controls are fairly recent, as you say. Actually passports aren't that much older. But back in those halcyon days populations were very much smaller, mass rapid international transportation hadn't been invented, and very very few people had the wherewithal to travel internationally, or even nationally.

 

I've always found that having relevant education and experience provides unlimited travel and work opportunities; a world-wide free travel zone in effect.

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

In the early 80s I was exporting capital equipment worldwide and customers had the SGS inspectors come check the goods prior to packing, a real pain in the neck.

Back in the early 80s computer systems were only in limited domains, and extremely limited in application. The PC and internet had not been invented. Inter-organisational computer networks were not in use commercially, or only in an extremely limited form. Technologies such as RFIDs hadn't been developed commercially. These technologies are now in use in a variety of border situations, and new applications emerge with regularity.

 

Your point about human nature is a valid one. But it hasn't disappeared with the EU, witness the emissions scams pepertrated by some of the German car makers for example.

[tebee]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

I can understand that sentiment, but just ditching it isn't legally possible. I've posted a few times before on not being able to revoke A50, so I won't waste your time by doing it again.

 

 

 

It's still under consideration by the courts - case number: C-621/18 is with the ECJ now. The ECJ will shortly determine whether or not the UK can unilaterally withdraw art.50 notification.

[tebee]

Telegraph suggesting EEA as a solution.

 

https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/edition_RBiUQ_2018-10-17/data/561221/index.html?share=1&WT.mc_id=tmgapp_inar_share&utm_source=tmgapp&utm_medium=inar&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=tmgapp_inar_share&Expires=1542150000&Signature=WS5J4bs5aHAJMvaLzkQck0eCf-7Z2bhxZxbmF4ie1DCht5wUTsep8e8eyZlsPQf6XpV6PSGUtPNGav-xlOjoznajt2Nk2k3SRYmrg3pUAWNDg~vJr7j1YdzJZbStYDs1HrW82W4bG8AO3qkb6WRoIyRhTxZ0ed4tz315nJ~8~QcWtu6XnLr-qUCb920K-R8jadwiRJofB9hiXxjt9WuWOjSVQXMX8sIPDb8AmRvyE91xT~11LjBoUuyNS8a6aykJdSAuzwQbX0awDz0I8tEkDKrgrb1z66jfFTXQX2JWkiHCvuUHDdxhB6J0cWkyDQuPndDxWdZzqHVhstPGz5iTvg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLCEPDGCTPVKXNOA

[My Thai Life]

Just now, tebee said:

It's still under consideration by the courts - case number: C-621/18 is with the ECJ now. The ECJ will shortly determine whether or not the UK can unilaterally withdraw art.50 notification.

Yes I've already posted that Tebee (minus the case number), together with Lord Kerr's belief that unilateral withdrawal is possible (he drafted it), and other legal opinion that it isn't. But that's only part of the issue isn't it. There's also:

 

> would the EU accept our withdrawal

> at what cost would they accept it 

> would it get through the UK's decision-making process and legal challenges.

 

It's not theoretically impossible, but in practical terms it may as well be.

[Grouse]

15 hours ago, tebee said:

My excuse is I'm one quarter Italian by blood ...

I can tell from your shoes!

[Grouse]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Wrong..  5...soon to be 4.

16 out of 30. Not Italy

[tebee]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I can tell from your shoes!

Damn - I thought I'd washed off all the blood from the last hit.... 

[Grouse]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Screwdrivers, Finnish drunks are arely that refined! 

Not far off: knives and vodka and ice!

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

I can understand that sentiment, but just ditching it isn't legally possible. I've posted a few times before on not being able to revoke A50, so I won't waste your time by doing it again.

 

The hysteria is coming from the remain side, for obvious and understandable reasons, but morally we can't just cancel Brexit because some remainers are getting hysterical (we can't legally cancel Brexit anyway).

 

The article I linked to yesterday re EEA and EFTA is probably the best I've seen on this topic, and the research paper that is linked to from that article is well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand the issue in some detail. The writer is basically recommending EFTA as an option, and explaining why EEA/Norway won't work. He's an academic with a specialism in this area, without any particular bias.

 

https://brexitcentral.com/britain-consider-efta-stay-clear-eea/

 

Really, any type of Brexit could work.  But the prerequisite was doing it quickly, and efficiently, and with as long a transition period as possible. I wouldn't agree that all the hysteria is coming from the Remain camp only, as demonstrated by resistance to the mere possibility of notionally extending the transition period.

 

The deal above may be ideal in the political sense.  But will the Government listen?...No.

[Grouse]

14 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Are you saying that there was no resentment among Britons of immigrants from other EU nations?  And that this wasn't a big factor in the Brexit vote? That freedom of movement wasn't a problem for lots of UK citizens?

And how does pointing that out make me a racist?

I think a few Brexiteers had a valid point concerning RAPID inflows of workers from Eastern Europe. I have some sympathy with that due to the rate of change if not the actual numbers. Boston is a good example. 

 

Many more had a false false impression of floods of "Muslims" (Middle East or North Africa roots). This was wrong (headed, morally and factually). There is no chance of Turkey joining. We are not in Schengen. Leaving the EU will result in an increased proportion of non EU migrants.

What we SHOULD be doing is controlling our borders and keeping proper records. We should apply EU rules effectively - no job after 3 months and you're out and not allowed backfor 12 months. Enforce minimum wages via NI records. 

 

Finally, I think the EU WILL tighten free movement of labour and that will be welcomed by most EU states 

 

Brexit was hijacked by Dickensian money grabbing bastards. Many Brexiteers were pursuaded by appealing to their deep seated xenophobic feelings in a disadvantaged life situation.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

Yes I've already posted that Tebee (minus the case number), together with Lord Kerr's belief that unilateral withdrawal is possible (he drafted it), and other legal opinion that it isn't. But that's only part of the issue isn't it. There's also:

 

> would the EU accept our withdrawal

> at what cost would they accept it 

> would it get through the UK's decision-making process and legal challenges.

 

It's not theoretically impossible, but in practical terms it may as well be.

But if the court case is decided in favor of art 50 being unilaterally revocable, the first 2 won't apply.

 

Whether the government will do an about face is another matter  however.

[tebee]

Interesting - 

Donald Tusk, the European council president, also said that EU leaders would wave through any request by the UK for an extension of the 21-month transition period.

 

They would do so in the hope that it will offer reassurance that the backstop solution, in which Northern Ireland remains in the customs union and single market as the rest of the UK withdraws, never comes to pass.

“If the UK decided that an extension of the transition period would be helpful to reach a deal, I am sure that the leaders would be ready to consider it positively,” Tusk said.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

EU paranoia to the fore again, only EU protectionism is of any significance.

The fact that UK is proposing a post brexit trade deal with the US makes US protectionism off topic in brexit decision thread!!!!!

Paranoia to the fore my armpit! EU protectionism is of small significance w.r.t the leave vote. Any US protectionism has nothing to do with it. Topic is re UK-EU negotiations. 

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, tebee said:

Interesting - 

Donald Tusk, the European council president, also said that EU leaders would wave through any request by the UK for an extension of the 21-month transition period.

 

They would do so in the hope that it will offer reassurance that the backstop solution, in which Northern Ireland remains in the customs union and single market as the rest of the UK withdraws, never comes to pass.

“If the UK decided that an extension of the transition period would be helpful to reach a deal, I am sure that the leaders would be ready to consider it positively,” Tusk said.

Oh, and we'd also get a lot more money for our new budget which doesn't balance right now. Tusk meant.

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

But if the court case is decided in favor of art 50 being unilaterally revocable, the first 2 won't apply.

 

Whether the government will do an about face is another matter  however.

I think you're right about the first point. But the 2nd point (what price would the EU extract for accepting the UK's cancelling A50), senior German figures have already stated that we would lose a number of our current benefits, for example the rebate. 

 

About the "about face". It seems to me certain that the gov't wouldn't. They have no mandate for doing so.

 

If there were a GE with A50 cancellation on Labour's manifesto, and Labour won, and this all happened within the timeframe, then it's a possibility; and there is a theoretical possibility as I said earlier, but in practical terms, no. All imho of course.

 

The end-game as I see it at present is all about the parliamentary arithmetic, and there's no consensus on this. If Labour vote everything down, we could end up in a "no deal"; if May can get some Labour support then we could end up with an approval of what she's cooking up in the light of an alternative "no deal"; there's also the possibility that we'll move to the FTA Barnier-Tusk-Johnson-Mogg model and it gets passed in the light of the alternative "no deal". EFTA and EEA seem to have dropped by the wayside.

 

"No deal" would seem to get us to the end point of freedom to control our own trade policy most quickly. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by My Thai Life

[tebee]

http://newsthump.com/2018/10/18/brexit-transition-period-to-be-extended-until-all-leave-voters-have-died/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

I think you're right about the first point. But the 2nd point (what price would the EU extract for accepting the UK's cancelling A50), senior German figures have already stated that we would lose a number of our current benefits, for example the rebate. 

 

About the "about face". It seems to me certain that the gov't wouldn't. They have no mandate for doing so.

 

If there were a GE with A50 cancellation on Labour's manifesto, and Labour won, and this all happened within the timeframe, then it's a possibility; and there is a theoretical possibility as I said earlier, but in practical terms, no. All imho of course.

 

The end-game as I see it at present is all about the parliamentary arithmetic, and there's no consensus on this. If Labour vote everything down, we could end up in a "no deal"; if May can get some Labour support then we could end up with an approval of what she's cooking up in the light of an alternative "no deal"; there's also the possibility that we'll move to the FTA Barnier-Tusk-Johnson-Mogg model and it gets passed in the light of the alternative "no deal". EFTA and EEA seem to have dropped by the wayside.

 

"No deal" would seem to get us to the end point of freedom to control our own trade policy most quickly. 

There will be a deal. This makes me thinks so: 'In a recent meeting with Jeremy Corbyn, Barnier told the Labour leader that nothing signed today on the future trade deal would tie his hands should there be a general election during a transition

period.

 

'https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/18/juncker-extension-brexit-transition-period-probably-will-happen

 

My guess is there will be a bit of theatre in the Commons, but really there is a done deal. between UK/EU, Con/Lab.