Even though we voted for it, a Brexit won't happen in the end. Here's why

[Skywalker69]

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

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/jun/15/eu-referendum-lies-myths-and-half-truths-video-explainer

[SheungWan]

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.

There is no single document labelled British constitution, but there is constitutional law which has been established and has evolved over a long period. The end result is that some sections of political process appear clear and others subject to disputation. In short there are grey areas which are sometimes argued over in periods of crisis. IMHO Brexit will be executed de jure but the implementation, the de facto, will be where the fighting takes place.

[mommysboy]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

[bkkcanuck8]

There is no single document labelled British constitution, but there is constitutional law which has been established and has evolved over a long period. The end result is that some sections of political process appear clear and others subject to disputation. In short there are grey areas which are sometimes argued over in periods of crisis. IMHO Brexit will be executed de jure but the implementation, the de facto, will be where the fighting takes place.

Hmmm.... just because something gets ruled unconstitutional in itself (which I doubt will happen) -- does not mean it won't happen. I just remember when Canada changed from the English system to the Metric system. It was a dictate of the Canadian law, which after 5 years of going through the court system the court ruled it to be an unconstitutional law. The ruling changed very little, Canada was already on the metric system and we never moved back.

[ilostmypassword]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

[mommysboy]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

You say benefits. But in fact there is a trade imbalance to the EU of some 40-80 billion annually in favour of the EU.

All we want to do is trade with them for heaven sake, not pay for their flaming bureaucracies. We are not obliged to look after their citizens. What other country asks you to do this? If they want us to pay for running their country, they can pay us for running ours. it's just like for like.

But what I am really saying, is that a sensible deal can't really be struck, so why bother? We are best off walking away and hoping they see sense some time. Even though there would be financial carnage both sides. You can't be held to blackmail.

Do you pay your neighbour's bills? Of course not.

Edited July 2, 2016 by mommysboy

[Skywalker69]

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/everyone-should-listen-to-james-obriens-brexit-rant--bkAVxuU6Vb

[ilostmypassword]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

You say benefits. But in fact there is a trade imbalance to the EU of some 40-80 billion annually in favour of the EU.

All we want to do is trade with them for heaven sake, not pay for their flaming bureaucracies. We are not obliged to look after their citizens. What other country asks you to do this? If they want us to pay for running their country, they can pay us for running ours. it's just like for like.

But what I am really saying, is that a sensible deal can't really be struck, so why bother? We are best off walking away and hoping they see sense some time. Even though there would be financial carnage both sides. You can't be held to blackmail.

Do you pay your neighbour's bills? Of course not.

I don't know how to make it simpler for you. Why should anyone be a member of the EU if non-members get all the privileges and incur none of the expenses? Now if you think that the EU is willing in effect, to dissolve itself in order to do business with the UK, then that may be the case.

[mommysboy]

There is no single document labelled British constitution, but there is constitutional law which has been established and has evolved over a long period. The end result is that some sections of political process appear clear and others subject to disputation. In short there are grey areas which are sometimes argued over in periods of crisis. IMHO Brexit will be executed de jure but the implementation, the de facto, will be where the fighting takes place.

Hmmm.... just because something gets ruled unconstitutional in itself (which I doubt will happen) -- does not mean it won't happen. I just remember when Canada changed from the English system to the Metric system. It was a dictate of the Canadian law, which after 5 years of going through the court system the court ruled it to be an unconstitutional law. The ruling changed very little, Canada was already on the metric system and we never moved back.

That is what will likely happen with Article 50. If someone pushes the button, it puts in to motion a big juggernaut which is unstoppable.

[ilostmypassword]

There is no single document labelled British constitution, but there is constitutional law which has been established and has evolved over a long period. The end result is that some sections of political process appear clear and others subject to disputation. In short there are grey areas which are sometimes argued over in periods of crisis. IMHO Brexit will be executed de jure but the implementation, the de facto, will be where the fighting takes place.

Hmmm.... just because something gets ruled unconstitutional in itself (which I doubt will happen) -- does not mean it won't happen. I just remember when Canada changed from the English system to the Metric system. It was a dictate of the Canadian law, which after 5 years of going through the court system the court ruled it to be an unconstitutional law. The ruling changed very little, Canada was already on the metric system and we never moved back.

That is what will likely happen with Article 50. If someone pushes the button, it puts in to motion a big juggernaut which is unstoppable.

If the EU gives the UK what you want it to, yes. But just a few posts ago here's what you wrote:

"All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense."

You were arguing that both sides would benefit from your plan. Now you're saying it will lead to the dissolution of the EU. In effect, you've conceded my point.

Now, the EU may in fact dissolve. But the more likely cause of that will be the Euro. It's done a lot of damage but the UK had the good sense not to adopt it.

[mommysboy]

I don't know how to make it simpler for you. Why should anyone be a member of the EU if non-members get all the privileges and incur none of the expenses? Now if you think that the EU is willing in effect, to dissolve itself in order to do business with the UK, then that may be the case.

We will be an independent country. possibly you are too young to remember that.

And I don't know how to make it simpler for you. When I buy a car, a coffee, or a loaf of bread I don't want to pay a membership fee, or be responsible for the other person's bill, or let their employees have access to my home. Similarly if I buy from a foreign country, I don't want to be responsible for the upkeep of their citizens or let them have free access to my country.

It's just a trade. You pay money, and you get goods. Can't you see that?

I think you've been brainwashed maybe. Stand back look at it.

But once again, there are no grounds for a deal so walk away. What else can you do? That's the main point.

Edited July 2, 2016 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

There is no single document labelled British constitution, but there is constitutional law which has been established and has evolved over a long period. The end result is that some sections of political process appear clear and others subject to disputation. In short there are grey areas which are sometimes argued over in periods of crisis. IMHO Brexit will be executed de jure but the implementation, the de facto, will be where the fighting takes place.

Hmmm.... just because something gets ruled unconstitutional in itself (which I doubt will happen) -- does not mean it won't happen. I just remember when Canada changed from the English system to the Metric system. It was a dictate of the Canadian law, which after 5 years of going through the court system the court ruled it to be an unconstitutional law. The ruling changed very little, Canada was already on the metric system and we never moved back.

That is what will likely happen with Article 50. If someone pushes the button, it puts in to motion a big juggernaut which is unstoppable.

If the EU gives the UK what you want it to, yes. But just a few posts ago here's what you wrote:

"All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense."

You were arguing that both sides would benefit from your plan. Now you're saying it will lead to the dissolution of the EU. In effect, you've conceded my point.

Now, the EU may in fact dissolve. But the more likely cause of that will be the Euro. It's done a lot of damage but the UK had the good sense not to adopt it.

Yes if we had goodwill from both parties and a desire to trade amicably there would be no problem. But we don't. EU doesn't want to participate in normal free trade. That unfortunately is clear. They will change their minds I would imagine.

It really is simple:

Yes an easy trade deal for both of us makes great sense. It would be normal. It would be great. But that takes two. UK wants it, but EU doesn't. What can you do?. Well me and MJP think it's best to walk away until they come to their senses or not.

As for me saying free trade will lead to the dissolution of the EU, can you explain where I said that?

I think we may be singing from the same hymn sheet and there may be a simple misunderstanding somewhere.

Edited July 2, 2016 by mommysboy

[MissAndry]

An inconvenient truth is that many Brexiteers saw this as a once only chance to preserve the "English way of life". It was so important to them, that any adverse affect from Brexit was worth paying.

......as long as it is others paying that price. The rest of it is just a drunken weep over a mythical way of life based on a bogus Hovis advert. Actually it is not even that, its just racism. The real subtext? No black faces.

I quite like people whose families with British passports who recently (past 100 years) came from the West Indies and Jamaica, I also get on well with people with an ethnic Indian/Pakistan/Asian background. Not all that keen on French, Belgium, Polish, German, Hungarian, Syrian and Ethiopian nationals.

It's not about race and skin colour, quite frankly I couldn't give a da_mn, it's about Nationality, culture and language.

Although I can understand your wish to tar us all with the racist brush, it's what lefty losers do.

Edited July 2, 2016 by MissAndry

[MissAndry]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

Edited July 2, 2016 by MissAndry

[Gweiloman]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

Exactly, what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

The UK already trades freely with the rest of the member states which means that the goods and services provided are compliant with EU regulations. This won't change just because the UK will no longer be part of the EU. Down the road, Brussels will of course add new rules and regulations and it's up to the UK to be abreast of these new requirements and adjust accordingly. Airbus parts currently being produced in Chester will not overnight fall foul of EU regulations and in any case, Airbus will definitely not want to pay more to the UK for the same product. If the EU tries to block this, there could be grounds for a legal case on the basis of discrimination?

An area that could be affected could be financial services due to a possible loss of passporting. However, I don't see this as a huge loss for the country, maybe just for a few flaming ferraris. Traders in the States, Hong Kong, Singapore etc are doing very well without having this EU passport.

A big disadvantage of not having free access to the single market will be the imposition of tariffs and customs duties. However, the global situation of today is very different from 40 years ago. Tariffs are not as high as they were (5 - 10% on average?) and the recent depreciation of the pound sterling has basically offset this. The BoE can regulate the currency much better without interference from the EU and can help the export market reduce the impact of tariffs and custom duties. In a perverse way, this might force the manufacturers in the EU to reduce their prices of their products to the UK if they want to continue selling at the same volumes.

I think the advantages of staying in the EU are far outweighed by the disadvantages

[mommysboy]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

Absolutely. It's simple really.

Free trade is free trade: you buy and sell goods with each other, no (or few strings attached).

The European Free Trade Deal (EFTA) is no free trade deal. It's an oxymoron (contradiction in terms). There are social welfare conditions attached and I don't think it is bilateral.

[Naam]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

i can only shake my head! any movement of goods within the EU, and that includes the UK, is free. no customs duties apply.

do you really believe that applies to goods moved from/to China, India, Australia and the US too?

[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,

Edited July 2, 2016 by Thaiwine

[SheungWan]

An inconvenient truth is that many Brexiteers saw this as a once only chance to preserve the "English way of life". It was so important to them, that any adverse affect from Brexit was worth paying.

......as long as it is others paying that price. The rest of it is just a drunken weep over a mythical way of life based on a bogus Hovis advert. Actually it is not even that, its just racism. The real subtext? No black faces.

I quite like people whose families with British passports who recently (past 100 years) came from the West Indies and Jamaica, I also get on well with people with an ethnic Indian/Pakistan/Asian background. Not all that keen on French, Belgium, Polish, German, Hungarian, Syrian and Ethiopian nationals.

It's not about race and skin colour, quite frankly I couldn't give a da_mn, it's about Nationality, culture and language.

Although I can understand your wish to tar us all with the racist brush, it's what lefty losers do.

People tar themselves and often as not through their poor attempts at humour which hides a pretty obvious nastier side. This side of things provided a rather unsavoury background prior to the vote but continues to give off an unpleasant whiff afterwards from certain quarters that clouds the continuing political process.

Edited July 2, 2016 by SheungWan

[mommysboy]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

Exactly, what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

The UK already trades freely with the rest of the member states which means that the goods and services provided are compliant with EU regulations. This won't change just because the UK will no longer be part of the EU. Down the road, Brussels will of course add new rules and regulations and it's up to the UK to be abreast of these new requirements and adjust accordingly. Airbus parts currently being produced in Chester will not overnight fall foul of EU regulations and in any case, Airbus will definitely not want to pay more to the UK for the same product. If the EU tries to block this, there could be grounds for a legal case on the basis of discrimination?

An area that could be affected could be financial services due to a possible loss of passporting. However, I don't see this as a huge loss for the country, maybe just for a few flaming ferraris. Traders in the States, Hong Kong, Singapore etc are doing very well without having this EU passport.

A big disadvantage of not having free access to the single market will be the imposition of tariffs and customs duties. However, the global situation of today is very different from 40 years ago. Tariffs are not as high as they were (5 - 10% on average?) and the recent depreciation of the pound sterling has basically offset this. The BoE can regulate the currency much better without interference from the EU and can help the export market reduce the impact of tariffs and custom duties. In a perverse way, this might force the manufacturers in the EU to reduce their prices of their products to the UK if they want to continue selling at the same volumes.

I think the advantages of staying in the EU are far outweighed by the disadvantages

I would actually prefer to remain, but that is no longer an option it seems. My main motive in wishing to remain was to avoid the rancour that is now happening. The onerous obligations were mitigated because they were bilateral and some of the contributions came back to us. It was more or less a good deal. Sadly, the electorate didn't agree. If it was me I would bin the damn referendum, it's nothing but a ton of you know what hitting an extemely big set of fans. In time, I expect the EU to collapse anyway so we should have just sat it out.

But this little spat over the last few posts is about what we do now.

If we sign up to EFTA, then it is not a good deal for UK, because EFTA itself it is not really a free trade deal. Also the problem with reverting to the WTO deal is not the tariffs, but access. As you say, there are all sorts of regulations that are applied to new products, and in some case whole sectors require a specific licence to trade at all, eg, financial passporting.

In my view it would really be a lost cause negotiating a deal at present. That requires realism and goodwill on both sides.

We are best off not invoking Article 50 until such time as we are as prepared as we can be to live with the effects of a substantial dip in Europen trade. That could be 1 year, 5, or 10. It is entirely within our rights to do what we want.

You just have to be hard headed and pragmatic when dealing with unreasonable people, while encouraging positive behaviour and a change in attitude. We live in hope.

[Naam]

Exactly, what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

The UK already trades freely with the rest of the member states which means that the goods and services provided are compliant with EU regulations. This won't change just because the UK will no longer be part of the EU. Down the road, Brussels will of course add new rules and regulations and it's up to the UK to be abreast of these new requirements and adjust accordingly. Airbus parts currently being produced in Chester will not overnight fall foul of EU regulations and in any case, Airbus will definitely not want to pay more to the UK for the same product. If the EU tries to block this, there could be grounds for a legal case on the basis of discrimination?

An area that could be affected could be financial services due to a possible loss of passporting. However, I don't see this as a huge loss for the country, maybe just for a few flaming ferraris. Traders in the States, Hong Kong, Singapore etc are doing very well without having this EU passport.

A big disadvantage of not having free access to the single market will be the imposition of tariffs and customs duties. However, the global situation of today is very different from 40 years ago. Tariffs are not as high as they were (5 - 10% on average?) and the recent depreciation of the pound sterling has basically offset this. The BoE can regulate the currency much better without interference from the EU and can help the export market reduce the impact of tariffs and custom duties. In a perverse way, this might force the manufacturers in the EU to reduce their prices of their products to the UK if they want to continue selling at the same volumes.

I think the advantages of staying in the EU are far outweighed by the disadvantages

that the BOE can't regulate any exchange rate was proved in september 1992 when a private hedge fund (Soros' Quantum Fund) forced a devaluation of Sterling.

and with GBP interest rates presently at 0.5% (and falling) the BOE has zero tools left lowering GBP to compensate for any customs duties.

[Thaiwine]

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.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Thaiwine

[ilostmypassword]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

How ignorant are you? They don't get all the benefits of free trade by any means. And it's not just tariffs.

[mommysboy]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

How ignorant are you? They don't get all the benefits of free trade by any means. And it's not just tariffs.

That is correct. They are trading under WTO, whiich is not a verys satisfactory platform for trading. But it's all there is.

[MissAndry]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

i can only shake my head! any movement of goods within the EU, and that includes the UK, is free. no customs duties apply.

do you really believe that applies to goods moved from/to China, India, Australia and the US too?

Movement of goods in the EU may be free, but the EU regulations have raised the costs of them way beyond any import tariffs for countries external to the EU.

So hardly anything is really made in the EU.

Look what I bought today,

Look where it was made,

Edited July 2, 2016 by MissAndry

[mommysboy]

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.

I guess there are no right or wrong ways of exiting. But I would say negotiating deals is down to the goodwill of Brussels. It generally takes years. We can not enforce them to pass their licences and regulations. It all comes down to the good will and common sense of both parties. I see none on the EU side.

It makes sense to do nothing for the time being. It leaves us in the best trading, and negotiating position, and buys much needed time to prepare and negotiate other arrangments. A couple of years and hopefully even Brussels will see sense and reform their cherished principles. They really must, or EU is a dead duck.

[Naam]

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!

[SheungWan]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.

Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.

Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.

All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.

Exactly, what are the advantages of staying in the EU?

The UK already trades freely with the rest of the member states which means that the goods and services provided are compliant with EU regulations. This won't change just because the UK will no longer be part of the EU. Down the road, Brussels will of course add new rules and regulations and it's up to the UK to be abreast of these new requirements and adjust accordingly. Airbus parts currently being produced in Chester will not overnight fall foul of EU regulations and in any case, Airbus will definitely not want to pay more to the UK for the same product. If the EU tries to block this, there could be grounds for a legal case on the basis of discrimination?

An area that could be affected could be financial services due to a possible loss of passporting. However, I don't see this as a huge loss for the country, maybe just for a few flaming ferraris. Traders in the States, Hong Kong, Singapore etc are doing very well without having this EU passport.

A big disadvantage of not having free access to the single market will be the imposition of tariffs and customs duties. However, the global situation of today is very different from 40 years ago. Tariffs are not as high as they were (5 - 10% on average?) and the recent depreciation of the pound sterling has basically offset this. The BoE can regulate the currency much better without interference from the EU and can help the export market reduce the impact of tariffs and custom duties. In a perverse way, this might force the manufacturers in the EU to reduce their prices of their products to the UK if they want to continue selling at the same volumes.

I think the advantages of staying in the EU are far outweighed by the disadvantages

I would actually prefer to remain, but that is no longer an option it seems. My main motive in wishing to remain was to avoid the rancour that is now happening. The onerous obligations were mitigated because they were bilateral and some of the contributions came back to us. It was more or less a good deal. Sadly, the electorate didn't agree. If it was me I would bin the damn referendum, it's nothing but a ton of you know what hitting an extemely big set of fans. In time, I expect the EU to collapse anyway so we should have just sat it out.

But this little spat over the last few posts is about what we do now.

If we sign up to EFTA, then it is not a good deal for UK, because EFTA itself it is not really a free trade deal. Also the problem with reverting to the WTO deal is not the tariffs, but access. As you say, there are all sorts of regulations that are applied to new products, and in some case whole sectors require a specific licence to trade at all, eg, financial passporting.

In my view it would really be a lost cause negotiating a deal at present. That requires realism and goodwill on both sides.

We are best off not invoking Article 50 until such time as we are as prepared as we can be to live with the effects of a substantial dip in Europen trade. That could be 1 year, 5, or 10. It is entirely within our rights to do what we want.

You just have to be hard headed and pragmatic when dealing with unreasonable people, while encouraging positive behaviour and a change in attitude. We live in hope.

I do not think refraining from signing Article 50 for any significant period is politically viable post the referendum vote. Its just not on. There is a small window of opportunity (provided by the current PM) for some informal negotiations to take place prior to the appointment of a new PM but once s/he is in place it really must be signed. It will be the Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry moment for Brexit.

[ilostmypassword]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

i can only shake my head! any movement of goods within the EU, and that includes the UK, is free. no customs duties apply.

do you really believe that applies to goods moved from/to China, India, Australia and the US too?

Movement of goods in the EU may be free, but the EU regulations have raised the costs of them way beyond any import tariffs for countries external to the EU.

I'd be interested to know what those regulations are that apply only to EU nations and not others. Got a link to share?

[Naam]

One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations?

You mean like China, India, Australia, and the USA do?

(I exclude Russia as the EU refuses to trade with them at the moment)

i can only shake my head! any movement of goods within the EU, and that includes the UK, is free. no customs duties apply.

do you really believe that applies to goods moved from/to China, India, Australia and the US too?

Movement of goods in the EU may be free, but the EU regulations have raised the costs of them way beyond any import tariffs for countries external to the EU.

Look what I bought today,

13113050_10154304889338749_689397561_o.jpg

Look where is was made,

13569995_10154304889423749_1530587629_o.jpg

you too have my blessings for your claims