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

[mommysboy]

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.

The markets seem to have adjusted without the Government needing to do anything, ie, the pound has lost about 10% and will likely devalue more., But I agree with what you say.

[mommysboy]

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.

You are probably right. In addition the Brexiteers will want their 'kill'.

This will not make anybody's day imo.

[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? 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.

I agree. Unless there is a big change in public opinion. Ultimately, most MPs will vote the way they think it will most likely get them re-elected.

[happy Joe]

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.

Luckily that ridicule does not kill or you'd be dead...

[mommysboy]

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!

Good post.

Yes it does seem quite a small cost, but even 0.3% is significant. I would say however, that I revise my position. It's an annoyance and a bloody cheek, but not more than that.

But there is still the rather tricky, and expensive issue of open borders/immigration. Even if it is bilateral, I imagine more foreigners take advantage of it, than Brit expats in Europe do.

And there is a big imbalance in trade in EU's favour.

If overall it did turn out to be a small amount. Then yes I would say sign up to EFTA if offered. One must be pragmatic.

Oh, and thanks for the blessing! When is the ordination of Pope Naam, by the way?

Edited July 2, 2016 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

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.

Luckily that ridicule does not kill or you'd be dead...

This is a very good thing for UK. it's only the exchange rate. It's when GDP produces a similar graph over a number of years that one has to worry. The exchange rate will likely drop further.

[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,

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!

Like me you are right and you are wrong, I did just put xxx to show an amount paid, trying not to put an exact figure on it, I guess my bias was showing through by giving three x's

Given the UK does not decide how the money the EU spends in the UK, I should have put xx

2015

gross figure 18 billion

less rebate 5 billion

Paid to EU 13 billion

money spent by EU on UK over 4 billion,

paid net about 8.5 billion

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

[Thaiwine]

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.

OMG what happened, I liked one of your posts, I need an asprin and lie down I think

[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!

Good post.

Yes it does seem quite a small cost, but even 0.3% is significant. I would say however, that I revise my position. It's an annoyance and a bloody cheek, but not more than that.

But there is still the rather tricky, and expensive issue of open borders/immigration. Even if it is bilateral, I imagine more foreigners take advantage of it, than Brit expats in Europe do.

And there is a big imbalance in trade in EU's favour.

If overall it did turn out to be a small amount. Then yes I would say sign up to EFTA if offered. One must be pragmatic.

Oh, and thanks for the blessing! When is the ordination of Pope Naam, by the way?

the four EFTA countries are Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. total population ~15 million.

EU population without UK ~445 million.

Your Honour, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury...

i rest my case

[KarenBravo]

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.

I would have thought that the BOE is sitting pretty?

They couldn't lower interest rates any lower to try and devalue the pound to make exports more competitive and drive up consumer prices to help with the balance of payments.

The fall of Sterling due to Brexit was a gift to the BOE.

[SheungWan]

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.

I agree. Unless there is a big change in public opinion. Ultimately, most MPs will vote the way they think it will most likely get them re-elected.

You can't have a referendum and then vote it down in parliament. Formally that may be possible but a no goer. There is more likelihood of a Norwegian model option of being legally out but in practice in. This will open up a new political fissure or rather continuation of the old one with slightly new outfits.

[robhufton]

My understanding is that a lot of people voted to leave based on xenophobia and racism. So the day after their "victory" they realized the Poles and the Muslims, etc. aren't going anywhere. Oops!

I saw TV programs interviewing people in Britain over the weekend. All those who voted to remain had solid logical reasons for doing so. Those who voted to leave were a mixture - old people who yearned for past days which seemed so 'perfect" - memory plays so many tricks on us all; and younger people who blames immigrants for everything and thought leaving meant immigration would cease and lots of people would go home - they were lied to over and over again or harped on about sovereignty and change - neither of which they could elaborate on.

The extreme right, racists and those who have been stirring up those emotions for some time have seized their opportunity.

A considerable number of people who voted to leave appear to have had no idea of the consequences or understanding of what they were actually voting for.

"All those voting to remain had solid logical reasons for doing so"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIjUESuwqes#t=74

[Richard W]

I would prefer to give notice to all foreign nationals without a valid VISA to leave while they can.

Any that stay would have to wear one of those yellow stars you see on the EU flag.

That seems fair.

Is that as subtly anti-European as it seems? Very few EEA nationals actually have a visa to be in the UK. Except for extended family members (not a common category amongst EEA nationals), the residence certificate and the document certifying permanent residence (DCPR) are just evidence of statuses that have been gained without UK permission, and are not visas. Residence certificates were rarely of any use to EEA nationals.

The DCPR had some potential utility, but I suspect the major non-Brexit reason for acquiring it was that it was made a prerequisite for naturalisation on the basis of having 'permanent residence' under the EEA Regulations.

Of course, there are a lot of EEA nationals here with no right to be here. A major category is non-working wives of British citizens.

[ddavidovsky]

I think what this whole discussion boils down to is that some people think that there are more important things in life than the mantra of relentless economic growth and its corollary of rampant consumerism and the trashing of the planet. These things, and the sense of insecurity that comes of having too much to lose, have spun out of control.

Certain values, other than economic ones, are important. If that means the world runs at a less frantic pace, so be it. It's an instinctive as much as a rational realisation.

As Gandhi said, there's more to life than speeding it up. Only those who want More More More Now Now Now will disagree.

[sujoop]

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.

Re: 'It should not take years to do deals'

and: 'we will be one country so it will be much easier'

Ahhh the simplistic bliss of Brexiteers...

However, in 'REALITY' there are 27 core EU countries to re-negotiate with one-by-one, not to mention the total number of individual countries covered by EU trade deals comes to 52. The multiples and complexities of which would take multi-years to renegotiate.

Still, most EU countries would not let Britain cherry-pick from the four EU freedoms of goods, services, capital and labour which come as a package. As freedom of movement is the main issue for most Brexiteers, a Norway etc solution would also not work.

Thus, over to the Brexiteers. What IS your plan please?

[MissAndry]

"All those voting to remain had solid logical reasons for doing so"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIjUESuwqes#t=74

According to all the remainers here, she should be a Brexit voter.

[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.

Re: 'It should not take years to do deals'

and: 'we will be one country so it will be much easier'

Ahhh the simplistic bliss of Brexiteers...

However, in 'REALITY' there are 27 core EU countries to re-negotiate with one-by-one, not to mention the total number of individual countries covered by EU trade deals comes to 52. The multiples and complexities of which would take multi-years to renegotiate.

Still, most EU countries would not let Britain cherry-pick from the four EU freedoms of goods, services, capital and labour which come as a package. As freedom of movement is the main issue for most Brexiteers, a Norway etc solution would also not work.

Thus, over to the Brexiteers. What IS your plan please?

My post was not aimed at trade negotiations with the EU but at other countries so yes it would be easier to do, If no deal on freedom of movement with the EU then no deal, we go with wto rules, that will not take years to work out.

[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.

Re: 'It should not take years to do deals'

and: 'we will be one country so it will be much easier'

Ahhh the simplistic bliss of Brexiteers...

However, in 'REALITY' there are 27 core EU countries to re-negotiate with one-by-one, not to mention the total number of individual countries covered by EU trade deals comes to 52. The multiples and complexities of which would take multi-years to renegotiate.

Still, most EU countries would not let Britain cherry-pick from the four EU freedoms of goods, services, capital and labour which come as a package. As freedom of movement is the main issue for most Brexiteers, a Norway etc solution would also not work.

Thus, over to the Brexiteers. What IS your plan please?

Read through the postings.

But the brexiters in Westminster are planning to leave, and negotiate a free trade deal eith EU at the same time. That's the plan anyway!

Edited July 2, 2016 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

One thing EU overlooks is the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration in some towns and cities. One thing Brexiters overlook is that immigration is needed in order to drive a modern economy.

Edited July 2, 2016 by mommysboy

[SheungWan]

I think what this whole discussion boils down to is that some people think that there are more important things in life than the mantra of relentless economic growth and its corollary of rampant consumerism and the trashing of the planet. These things, and the sense of insecurity that comes of having too much to lose, have spun out of control.

Certain values, other than economic ones, are important. If that means the world runs at a less frantic pace, so be it. It's an instinctive as much as a rational realisation.

As Gandhi said, there's more to life than speeding it up. Only those who want More More More Now Now Now will disagree.

Give me a break. Go sit on a mountain.

[SheungWan]

One thing EU overlooks is the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration in some towns and cities. One thing Brexiters overlook is that immigration is needed in order to drive a modern economy.

Buses...?

Showing your age.

[adammike]

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.

I agree. Unless there is a big change in public opinion. Ultimately, most MPs will vote the way they think it will most likely get them re-elected.

You can't have a referendum and then vote it down in parliament. Formally that may be possible but a no goer. There is more likelihood of a Norwegian model option of being legally out but in practice in. This will open up a new political fissure or rather continuation of the old one with slightly new outfits.

Sure they can if enough MPs get told by there local party

vote stay/leave or else, that's what they will do maybe.

If just over 600,000 people had put there x in the other

box it would have been a different outcome, hardly the will of the nation even the 1300,000 or so majority is hardly a mandate to bring such changes to UK.As Farange said if the result is 52% against 48% to stay that would

be unfinished business,and it is.

[Thaiwine]

One thing EU overlooks is the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration in some towns and cities. One thing Brexiters overlook is that immigration is needed in order to drive a modern economy.

Going from memory

Last year the figure was about 330.000 just under half from the EU, that would leave about 170,000 from other countries, about half of those were students, so we still had about 85,000 others.

I think this level is reasonable.

[SoiBiker]

One thing EU overlooks is the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration in some towns and cities. One thing Brexiters overlook is that immigration is needed in order to drive a modern economy.

Buses...?

Showing your age.

Noooooooooo, I never drove buses...........

I did have a girlfriend though that was just like a.......Sorry off topic...

The 'bumbling comedy duffer' act has somewhat lost it's shine now that your generation have voted the country into chaos over some misguided attempt to recapture something that was never really there in the first place.

Enjoy your reduced pension whilst those younger than you begin the task of cleaning up your mess. I hope you're not too upset when you realise it won't lead to all the immigrants going home and the country returning to a black & white paradise of warm beer, cricket matches on the village green, and Morris Minors.

[mommysboy]

The 'bumbling comedy duffer' act has somewhat lost it's shine now that your generation have voted the country into chaos over some misguided attempt to recapture something that was never really there in the first place.

Enjoy your reduced pension whilst those younger than you begin the task of cleaning up your mess. I hope you're not too upset when you realise it won't lead to all the immigrants going home and the country returning to a black & white paradise of warm beer, cricket matches on the village green, and Morris Minors.

Quite apart from the slim majority, and national divides, the stark contrast between the old and young vote really bothered me. And still does. Not only because youngsters are going to live the consequences for the next two decades, but because oldies are going to be reviled. And this on top of the meltdown in 2008. I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't scupper a SAGA cruise ship.

Young people need to get out on the streets, and protest. Public opinion could do a lot to force MPs to exercise their own preferences.

The first big lesson for youngsters though: try getting down to the polling booths next time there is an important vote.

[MissAndry]

The 'bumbling comedy duffer' act has somewhat lost it's shine now that your generation have voted the country into chaos over some misguided attempt to recapture something that was never really there in the first place.

Enjoy your reduced pension whilst those younger than you begin the task of cleaning up your mess. I hope you're not too upset when you realise it won't lead to all the immigrants going home and the country returning to a black & white paradise of warm beer, cricket matches on the village green, and Morris Minors.

Quite apart from the slim majority, and national divides, the stark contrast between the old and young vote really bothered me. And still does. Not only because youngsters are going to live the consequences for the next two decades, but because oldies are going to be reviled. And this on top of the meltdown in 2008. I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't scupper a SAGA cruise ship.

Young people need to get out on the streets, and protest. Public opinion could do a lot to force MPs to exercise their own preferences.

The first big lesson for youngsters though: try getting down to the polling booths next time there is an important vote.

Hmmmmmm, I know quite a lot of English 'young people', some of whom I created myself.

Every one of them voted out, unlike me who was too old and lazy to be bothered to vote.

Funny how all these lefties claim how only, old, poorly educated, stupid people voted out.

It's a bit of spin that will just increase and entrench the leaver vote IMHO.

As for (potentially) reducing my pension, glad to pay 10% (if I'm still outside the UK in a years time), it would have been worth 25% to get rid of our Germans Overloards.

Edited July 2, 2016 by MissAndry

[SoiBiker]

Filter bubble, innit? I don't know anyone who voted leave. You must hail from some bleak provincial place full of bigots, I guess.

[Naam]

I would have thought that the BOE is sitting pretty?

They couldn't lower interest rates any lower to try and devalue the pound to make exports more competitive and drive up consumer prices to help with the balance of payments.

The fall of Sterling due to Brexit was a gift to the BOE.

the Bank of England is not in the business to devalue the Pound in order to promote British export business. like most, if not all, central banks the BoE's priority is to maintain the country's as well as the currency's financial stability.

any unplanned depreciation or appreciation of the Pound caused by internal or external factors is neither a gift nor in the interest of the BoE.

[MissAndry]

Filter bubble, innit? I don't know anyone who voted leave. You must hail from some bleak provincial place full of bigots, I guess.

Queensway, just across the Bayswater road from Kensington Gardens.

Mind you, I don't speak to the foreigners in the area.

But you live in Thailand, don't you, how many English Londoners do you speak to on a regular basis?

Edited July 2, 2016 by MissAndry

[Naam]

One thing EU overlooks is the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration in some towns and cities. One thing Brexiters overlook is that immigration is needed in order to drive a modern economy.