4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

And what exactly constitutes a "reasonable" trade deal, the EU has stated from day one that it can never be better outside the union than in.

The basic problem is that is unacceptable to the brexiteers. for some strange reason they seem to think they are entitled to the same or better conditions than as a member of the EU, and then blame the EU for not trying to negotiate that kind of arrangement.

delusional

26 minutes ago, tebee said:

Hard Brexiteers don’t understand the consequences of a WTO deal Brexit

 

https://reaction.life/hard-brexiteers-dont-understand-consequences-wto-deal-brexit/

 

"there is generally a range of bilateral and multilateral treaties governing trade."

 

Not for the UK there isn't.  What is on offer from the EU is not acceptable, or wanted by most.  Yes, it is a bad situation but there we go- it takes two.

 

I think most people realise there will be terrible short term consequences, but would reject the idea that Great Britain will sink underwater.

 

Of course, soft Brexit would be ideal as it would give us all the decade thinking space that is much needed whilst upholding the integrity of the Brexit Referendum.

9 hours ago, nong38 said:

You cannot change a result that happened 2 years ago the same as you cannot change a football result, why do people think politics is different?

Are you really trying to say the UK government has never made a U turn? 

It may come as a surprise but politics is different, parliament can change what they want.

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

The Swiss, the Canadians, and now the Japanese can it seems have special deals; the UK however must agree to free movement, etc.  How does that work then?

And if the UK wants deals comparable to what the Swiss, Canadians, or the Japanese have negotiated, that's probably realizable. The problem is that the UK expect to get a lot more while ceding a lot less than what those nations negotiated.

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

And what exactly constitutes a "reasonable" trade deal, the EU has stated from day one that it can never be better outside the union than in.

The basic problem is that is unacceptable to the brexiteers. for some strange reason they seem to think they are entitled to the same or better conditions than as a member of the EU, and then blame the EU for not trying to negotiate that kind of arrangement.

Well it isn't what either hard core Remainers or Leavers envisage.  

 

Basically, a deal that involves ceding rights of sovereignty to a third party country in return for nothing other than WTO rights can not be deemed acceptable.  Who else would do this: USA?  Australia? 

 

Logically then, the best deal is the one we have at the moment and we should not leave at this juncture.  But the majority don't want this.

 

Soft Brexit would be next best, but same again- note many Remainers on this board don't want it for sur, but then go on again to bleat about the insanity of a no deal solution.

 

So the next best solution is to negotiate some form of deal with EU that is mutually beneficial to both sides. Japan is starting to do this and EU is also opening up to other countries such as Canada.  But crucially, no such deal seems to be in the offing for the UK.

 

Thus, we are left with the simple exit, which as an option rather stinks, but could be do-able if both parties can agree to an orderly disentanglement over an extended time frame.

 

 

21 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

There is no deal as such being offered- not one that anyone in their right mind would agree to. So when people mean no deal, they mean an exit without a special deal and trading under WTO tariff.  It has its appeal I must say: even better if exit day could be delayed for the sake of both parties. 

 

Exiting without an overall agreement has no appeal whatsoever. Without some sort of agreement a multitude of legislative arrangements would come to an end the day the UK leaves, when it comes to legality trade would suddenly take a back seat. 

The most obvious situation is aviation, without the current legislative arrangements in place, flights between the EU and the UK would come to a halt. Of course that is not going to happen, there would be panic temporary extension to Art 50 put in place. From that day on, any arrangement with the EU would be under panic conditions which are never conducive to a well thought out agreement.

30 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

There is no deal as such being offered- not one that anyone in their right mind would agree to. So when people mean no deal, they mean an exit without a special deal and trading under WTO tariff.  It has its appeal I must say: even better if exit day could be delayed for the sake of both parties. 

 

Given the point of Brexit is to regain sovereignty, any deal that involves ceding power to EU in return for simply trading isn't worth anything anyway.

 

If you need a dyed in the wool red to tell you this, then.....

And I always thought the EU consisted of sovereign countries anyway....

 

But serious question: what tangible benefits will your newfound sovereignty bring? Is it living in splendid isolation?

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And if the UK wants deals comparable to what the Swiss, Canadians, or the Japanese have negotiated, that's probably realizable. The problem is that the UK expect to get a lot more while ceding a lot less than what those nations negotiated.

I don't think the above countries had to agree to freedom of movement, etc in order to strike up what are simple quid pro quo deals.

 

If I sell you a car, I wouldn't expect you to bring your cousin along to live in my house.

10 hours ago, nong38 said:

The people made their decision 2 years ago. To have another vote on the leave position would have dire consequences on democracy, you keep having a vote until you get the result you want and then you stop? That's what is wrong with the EU, that's the way they operate, they don't respect or answer to the people, they are a dictatorship.If the public voted to stay in a new vote we would be treated like dog s----t, there is no way back.

If you did not understand what you were voting for in 2016 who's fault is that? Many issues to take into account, lots of information to assess, make your choice on the day, the world moves on, things change that's life. You cannot change a result that happened 2 years ago the same as you cannot change a football result, why do people think politics is different? Just accept what happened and get behind the country and make it successful, if you don't then the "rich" will become poor quicker than the "poor" will become poorer. Never in my life have I seen such bad losers, get out of the trough and back to work!

Badly informed codswallop.

 

You nicely illustrate why we have parliamentary representative democracy.

2 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

And I always thought the EU consisted of sovereign countries anyway....

 

But serious question: what tangible benefits will your newfound sovereignty bring? Is it living in splendid isolation?

They are in name only.

 

None in the short term- only grief.

 

No.

 

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Well it isn't what either hard core Remainers or Leavers envisage.  

 

Basically, a deal that involves ceding rights of sovereignty to a third party country in return for nothing other than WTO rights can not be deemed acceptable.  Who else would do this: USA?  Australia? Bongo Bongo Land might!

 

Logically then, the best deal is the one we have at the moment and we should not leave at this juncture.  But the majority don't want this.

 

Soft Brexit would be next best, but same again- note many Remainers on this board don't want it for sur, but then go on again to bleat about the insanity of a no deal solution.

 

So the next best solution is to negotiate some form of deal with EU that is mutually beneficial to both sides. Japan is starting to do this and EU is also opening up to other countries such as Canada.  But crucially, no such deal seems to be in the offing for the UK.

 

Thus, we are left with the simple exit, which as an option rather stinks, but could be do-able if both parties can agree to an orderly disentanglement over an extended time frame.

 

 

Your first statement "Whatever, but remember EU has no real intention of striking a reasonable trade deal."

And then your reply "Basically, a deal that involves ceding rights of sovereignty to a third party country in return for nothing other than WTO rights can not be deemed acceptable."

 

Maybe you can explain how sovereignty features in a "reasonable trade deal".  The option is very simple, either in the single market or out.

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Badly informed codswallop.

 

You nicely illustrate why we have parliamentary representative democracy.

You are a remainer and always have been a choice you are entitled to. The will of the people always trumps the will of Parliament in my mind as too many MP's and Lords are prepared to be elected by the people and then go against their wishes, which suits the Establishment perfectly for it they who really run the country and will find endless numbers of reasons why you cannot do what the people want. 

19 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Your first statement "Whatever, but remember EU has no real intention of striking a reasonable trade deal."

And then your reply "Basically, a deal that involves ceding rights of sovereignty to a third party country in return for nothing other than WTO rights can not be deemed acceptable."

 

Maybe you can explain how sovereignty features in a "reasonable trade deal".  The option is very simple, either in the single market or out.

A real trade deal is quid pro quo.  The EU wants unlimited freedoms to UK. The UK does not want such.

 

In order for USA, Canada, Australia to trade and enter in to bilateral agreements I do not think it was necessary for them to opt in to the single market!

 

Yes, those effectively are the options, and UK has chosen out.  Of course, there is a price to everything-a very big one for the UK.  I think it's what's called a 'life changer' and that kind of implies going from something good to something not.  

38 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And if the UK wants deals comparable to what the Swiss, Canadians, or the Japanese have negotiated, that's probably realizable. The problem is that the UK expect to get a lot more while ceding a lot less than what those nations negotiated.

Indeed the UK has already been offered a Canada type deal.

 

But it doesn't give our exporters free access to the EU market in the same Canada's deal doesn't. 

 

It would give tariff free access, but that's not the same thing, tariffs are only a small part of trade barriers these days.   

10 hours ago, nong38 said:

The people made their decision 2 years ago. To have another vote on the leave position would have dire consequences on democracy, you keep having a vote until you get the result you want and then you stop? That's what is wrong with the EU, that's the way they operate, they don't respect or answer to the people, they are a dictatorship.

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the Irish Referendum of 2008 on the Lisbon Treaty. The article quoted, taken in isolation and out of context, did indeed paint the EU in the manner you describe. The reality, though, is very different and despite it being a unique situation, it does have certain corollaries with the present position to make it relevant to the argument.

 

At the time 26 of the 27 EU countries (Croatia had not yet joined) had ratified the Treaty. The Irish Constitution required a referendum on the subject, so this was held, and by a margin of 54% to 46% they voted to reject the Treaty. Owing to the relatively small population and low turnout, this equated to the votes of about 50,000 Irish overturning the wish of 300 million odd people.

 

Not unreasonably, the EU felt they needed to address this situation, so started by commissioning a poll to discover why people had voted against ratification. The result showed that the most common reason given, by just over 20% of 'No' voters was that they didn't understand the Treaty (and before anyone queries the validity of the poll because of who commissioned it, another such survey in The Irish Times produced a similar result, with an even higher percentage). Efforts were then made to educate people and remove some of the more fanciful misunderstandings (such as that the Treaty meant compulsory conscription to a European Army, or that it would force Ireland to change its abortion law).

 

The following year another referendum was held, against the wishes of many who felt the original result should stand, and this time the voting was 67% to 33% in favour of the Treaty, a swing of just over 20% to the 'Yes' side, which would suggest that those who had not understood it now did, and were in favour of it. As a result, the Treaty of Lisbon was finally effected on 1st December 2009.

 

This episode tends to support my earlier assertion that a referendum which produces a relatively slender majority for one side or the other simply creates more problems than it solves. A vote to effectively unravel 40 years of progress and start again from scratch needs the support of a solid majority (at the very least 60:40 in my opinion) to prevent the kind of situation we are seeing today.

 

 

16 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Maybe you can explain how sovereignty features in a "reasonable trade deal".  The option is very simple, either in the single market or out.

I think that this is the crux of the whole thing, the EU does threaten sovereignty in some areas, for example there are moves for the EU to act as one in the UN and it has one voice in WTO and the legislation is out of hand, which costs a huge amount of money to comply.

The best solution for the UK is to be a part of the EEA and personally I see no reason why this shouldn't happen, apart from some reluctance from politicians.

I am pretty sure that the EU member states would vote for this option, as it allows them to trade with Britain and the reverse, nobody benefits from reducing or placing tariffs on the current trade, or by reducing the UK economy, except for the egos of some, many of which won't be around to see the harm that they will cause to both sides.

The 'Norway' model as it is being called, IMO satisfies what was voted for in 1975 and in a lot of ways in 2016, i.e. a part of a common market with free movement without the legislative nightmares.

 

Regarding stopping article 50, from what I understand the issue is, can this be done or not, nobody actually knows, as there is no legal precedent set and the article itself contains nothing to say if it can or cannot be revoked once invoked, if one of the member states challenged its revoking, then it would need a legal ruling one way or the other, which could take more time than is left?

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

...

 

Given the point of Brexit is to regain sovereignty, any deal that involves ceding power to EU in return for simply trading isn't worth anything anyway.

 

...

British industry and services need barrier free access to the single market to prosper - you can't get that unless you cede a certain amount of power to them. Otherwise what's to stop the UK trying to get a competitive advantage by lowering standards?

 

So you have a choice - a prosperous economy or complete independence.

 

Any trade deal will require you to cede a some independence - there needs to be a dispute resolution facility with power over both sides - indeed the WTO is exactly this.

4 minutes ago, Mattd said:

I think that this is the crux of the whole thing, the EU does threaten sovereignty in some areas, for example there are moves for the EU to act as one in the UN and it has one voice in WTO and the legislation is out of hand, which costs a huge amount of money to comply.

The best solution for the UK is to be a part of the EEA and personally I see no reason why this shouldn't happen, apart from some reluctance from politicians.

I am pretty sure that the EU member states would vote for this option, as it allows them to trade with Britain and the reverse, nobody benefits from reducing or placing tariffs on the current trade, or by reducing the UK economy, except for the egos of some, many of which won't be around to see the harm that they will cause to both sides.

The 'Norway' model as it is being called, IMO satisfies what was voted for in 1975 and in a lot of ways in 2016, i.e. a part of a common market with free movement without the legislative nightmares.

 

Regarding stopping article 50, from what I understand the issue is, can this be done or not, nobody actually knows, as there is no legal precedent set and the article itself contains nothing to say if it can or cannot be revoked once invoked, if one of the member states challenged its revoking, then it would need a legal ruling one way or the other, which could take more time than is left?

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.

8 minutes ago, tebee said:

British industry and services need barrier free access to the single market to prosper - you can't get that unless you cede a certain amount of power to them. Otherwise what's to stop the UK trying to get a competitive advantage by lowering standards?

 

So you have a choice - a prosperous economy or complete independence.

 

Any trade deal will require you to cede a some independence - there needs to be a dispute resolution facility with power over both sides - indeed the WTO is exactly this.

Of course there has to be regulatory alignment/equivalence, but when it comes to the UK, the EU is insisting on freedom of movement.  So there are no grounds for any kind of bespoke deal.  Quite simply, it's a waste of time.

 

The WTO does not insist on freedom of movement- land, labour, capital, etc.  Unfortunately, it is the only way to go.

 

A question specifically for tebee: would you as a staunch remainer go for the Norway model?

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.

Yes, the problem is nobody wants to back down, the politicians and negotiators on both sides have a duty to their citizens to come up with a deal that benefits both sides, yes there has to be some compromises, but egos will always get in the way of sensibilities, it is Europe's version of 'face', story of life I'm afraid.

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.

I don't think there are many remainers who would have much problem with a Norway type solution. It's true that in important respects UK sovereignty would be less, but Remainers could live with that. For them this would be the best deal they could get short of a reversal of Brexit. I doubt many Brexiters would support it, though.

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.

So we are again at square 1 , it is and stay a major problem for the U.K. to become a united negotiation team ….. how for god's sake you expect the E.U. to make agreements with such a adversary ….wat today agreed by them can by next month's maybe G.E. be totally asked to reverse …..first clean up your political house  and come then back to te table . 

A q

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't think there are many remainers who would have much problem with a Norway type solution. It's true that in important respects UK sovereignty would be less, but Remainers could live with that. For them this would be the best deal they could get short of a reversal of Brexit. I doubt many Brexiters would support it, though.

Just going round in circles.  Rather surprising, but it appears on this forum at least that Remainers might not be so sensible/reasonable as we think.

5 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Yes, the problem is nobody wants to back down, the politicians and negotiators on both sides have a duty to their citizens to come up with a deal that benefits both sides, yes there has to be some compromises, but egos will always get in the way of sensibilities, it is Europe's version of 'face', story of life I'm afraid.

Yes, in fact, let me rephrase this:

 

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.... as well as the UK government, the opposition, the EU, and Uncle Tom Cobbly, and all.

Just now, mommysboy said:

A q

Just going round in circles.  Rather surprising, but it appears on this forum at least that Remainers might not be so sensible/reasonable as we think.

U.K. problem was & Is the narrow majority  even a new vote could see the same example in narrow favor to remain ….. so unless an overwhelming majority the dividing factor stay's …. hopeless situation for the U.K. 

Just now, mommysboy said:

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.... as well as the UK government, the opposition, the EU, and Uncle Tom Cobbly, and all

Not sure that this is entirely true, I think the majority of the UK population would be happy with this and I doubt the EU would throw it out.

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Yes, in fact, let me rephrase this:

 

The problem is eminently sensible doesn't appeal to either hard core remainers or leavers.... as well as the UK government, the opposition, the EU, and Uncle Tom Cobbly, and all.

Count us out (E.U.) because we are not leaving , our organization keep working & existing , it is completely your U.K. problem chosen democratically to destroy your country (hoping I am wrong for your sake ...but …)

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

...

 

A question specifically for tebee: would you as a staunch remainer go for the Norway model?

I would settle for Norway +CU, which gives us a little more freedom and can be said to satisfy referendum result, though I don't think it  a terribly good solution, I can see the anti/pro EU argument continuing for many years after both sides wanting us to change in their prefered direction.

 

Part of me wants no deal, as am fairly certain it would be reversed soon after - but my considerate side does not want to inflict the chaos of that on my fellow man.  

Really, the problem is that neither the government or the opposition are paying any attention to the 'silent majority'. The situation is antagonised by hard core extremists on both sides.

12 hours ago, david555 said:

Of course as long you where in the E.U. that Irish problem did not exist ,.... but now it is dividing Ireland people a new..and have the guts and let them choose 

 

The "Irish problem" as you call it has been ongoing since the early 19th century which was long before the EU ever came about.

 

The EU had nothing much to do with it and still should not have.