EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[furnessvale]

The fact remains, a "bad deal" (which won't be a bad deal, despite the fact the Brexiteers will try to blame all of the UK's problems over the next 20 years on the EU) is better than a no deal scenario.
"No deal" in terms of brexit literally means things like:

• No air travel between the EU and the UK.
• No security agreements or co-operation.
• Visas required for UK visitors to some EU countries (basically we'd be treated as if we are say Brazil when it comes to travel).
• Strict customs checks on all trade between the EU and the UK (exports and imports) - causing supply problems and pushing up prices.
• Etc etc

No, nobody really wants the above surely? But that is what "no deal" means. Hardly just "some initial pain". More like total and utter chaos.

And the EU is hardly making "threats". The above isn't a list of punishments or things the EU will impose on us because we have annoyed them. They are simply direct consequences of a no deal situation (because the above things require deals to maintain).

I say again, therefore we must remain locked into this corrupt and self serving organisation?

 

[EM2]

...would rather hurt themselves as well as us...

What makes you say that the EU are hurting themselves?

 

[HSTEd]

The fact remains, a "bad deal" (which won't be a bad deal, despite the fact the Brexiteers will try to blame all of the UK's problems over the next 20 years on the EU) is better than a no deal scenario.
"No deal" in terms of brexit literally means things like:

• No air travel between the EU and the UK.
• No security agreements or co-operation.
• Visas required for UK visitors to some EU countries (basically we'd be treated as if we are say Brazil when it comes to travel).
• Strict customs checks on all trade between the EU and the UK (exports and imports) - causing supply problems and pushing up prices.
• Etc etc

No, nobody really wants the above surely? But that is what "no deal" means. Hardly just "some initial pain". More like total and utter chaos.

And the EU is hardly making "threats". The above isn't a list of punishments or things the EU will impose on us because we have annoyed them. They are simply direct consequences of a no deal situation (because the above things require deals to maintain).

The visa requirements for British citizens are entirely wtihin the power of EU states, so threatening visa requirements unless we simply capitulate to their frankly ludicrous demands is making threats.
In addition, only in the most legalistic nightmare would their be no air travel between the UK and the EU - unless the EU willfully enforces the letter of the law rather than the spirit that would not happen - so this is a threat.
(Noone is going to sue over a grace period, since it is not as if the exact same equipment and procedures magically become unsafe outside the EU)

They are acting like every other nation state or state-like entity would - which is why there is not going to be a deal and there never was going to be one.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

On the topic of customs checks following a 'no deal' Brexit and the chaos it will inevitably cause, considering the complete lack of machinery in place for processing all of the issues.

Am I right in saying that we could unilaterally agree to have no customs checks on goods coming in from the EU? Given that we won't yet have diverged in any standards issues, there are no issues there. Yes, it would be one-way traffic, but at least we wouldn't get a sudden food shortage.

 

[Domh245]

Am I right in saying that we could unilaterally agree to have no customs checks on goods coming in from the EU? Given that we won't yet have diverged in any standards issues, there are no issues there. Yes, it would be one-way traffic, but at least we wouldn't get a sudden food shortage.

We could, but that would only save us for a day or two. If the EU decide to do Customs checks (as entirely within their right) then it means that the ports on the channel side start to grind to a halt - there are only a fixed amount of ferries and if they're all stuck in congestion outside European ports, they aren't bringing goods into the UK to be waved through.

 

[Senex]

I say again, therefore we must remain locked into this corrupt and self serving organisation?

In what way is the EU more corrupt and self-serving than what we see going on at Westminster these days?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I say again, therefore we must remain locked into this corrupt and self serving organisation?

Like Vote Leave you mean? Or is electoral fraud different?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I say again, therefore we must remain locked into this corrupt and self serving organisation?

You mean our UK government who doesn't want to give our now "sovereign" parliament a vote on anything to do with Brexit?

The visa requirements for British citizens are entirely wtihin the power of EU states, so threatening visa requirements unless we simply capitulate to their frankly ludicrous demands is making threats.
In addition, only in the most legalistic nightmare would their be no air travel between the UK and the EU - unless the EU willfully enforces the letter of the law rather than the spirit that would not happen - so this is a threat.
(Noone is going to sue over a grace period, since it is not as if the exact same equipment and procedures magically become unsafe outside the EU)

They are acting like every other nation state or state-like entity would - which is why there is not going to be a deal and there never was going to be one.

Once again, none of what I (or the EU) have said are threats. They are just direct consequences from a no deal scenario. There is no talk of suing or things magically becoming unsafe. That is not what this discussion is about. We are just saying that currently, those specific things (among others) are operated as they are because an agreement exists (as part of our EU membership). Once we leave the EU, those agreements no longer exist. As such we have to make new ones. A no deal scenario, is one where those agreements are no made. As such, no agreements, no ability to continue as we do not. As for a grace period - that would require, guess what, a deal!

 

[HSTEd]

Once again, none of what I (or the EU) have said are threats. They are just direct consequences from a no deal scenario.

The line between those two things is blurred at the best of times.
The EU is stating that lots of bad things will happen unless we cave in completely and sign the peice of paper they want to shove under our pen.
Lots of bad things that they could prevent from happening but won't unless said surrender occurs.

There is no talk of suing or things magically becoming unsafe. That is not what this discussion is about. We are just saying that currently, those specific things (among others) are operated as they are because an agreement exists (as part of our EU membership). Once we leave the EU, those agreements no longer exist. As such we have to make new ones. A no deal scenario, is one where those agreements are no made. As such, no agreements, no ability to continue as we do not. As for a grace period - that would require, guess what, a deal!

The EU could quite easily issue an instruction to airlines that they should consider the current arrangements to remain in place in the interim, they could quite easily ask member states not to impose visa requirements in the interim.
They chose not to do these things because their 'negotiating' strategy from the beginning has to been to refuse compromise on every matter until the UK eventually capitulates.

 

[EM2]

They chose not to do these things because their 'negotiating' strategy from the beginning has to been to refuse compromise on every matter until the UK eventually capitulates.

Why should they treat the UK any differently to any other country that is outside the EU or has arrangements with it? Why are we so special?

 

[WelshBluebird]

The line between those two things is blurred at the best of times.

Does it? Really?
Do I need to break it down even simpler?

There is currently an agreement that lets something happen.
The UK is leaving that agreement.
In a situation where no further agreement is made, that thing stops.
It sounds pretty damn simple to me.

The EU is stating that lots of bad things will happen unless we cave in completely and sign the peice of paper they want to shove under our pen.
Lots of bad things that they could prevent from happening but won't unless said surrender occurs.

Kind of sounds like you could be talking about us there too. Our governments "strategy" is clearly that we want to have our cake and eat it. The proposals they have put forward so far are ones that everything with an inch of knowledge about the whole things knows would not be acceptable to the EU. They are obviously holding off, only proposing ridiculous things (the idea we could still have an open NI border but not be in the single market is a bit nuts to say the least, and ignoring the issue by just saying "we'll solve it with technology", without actually detailing what that would look like), so that when it all fails, they can just point at the EU and shout "look its their fault" (and people like you will lap it up). You say the EU could do things to prevent "lots of bad things", but so could our government. And since we are the ones leaving, shouldn't it be on us to do things, not the EU?

The EU could quite easily issue an instruction to airlines that they should consider the current arrangements to remain in place in the interim, they could quite easily ask member states not to impose visa requirements in the interim.

But that would then be an agreement, which is not the situation we are discussing. We are talking about a no deal scenario, where the UK and the EU have not had agreements on these various things for whatever reason.
Also, extending an international agreement is a little bit more complicated that just saying "it will carry on".

They chose not to do these things because their 'negotiating' strategy from the beginning has to been to refuse compromise on every matter until the UK eventually capitulates.

Again sounds very much like our strategy too tbh.

 

[HSTEd]

Why should they treat the UK any differently to any other country that is outside the EU or has arrangements with it? Why are we so special?

I never claimed they should
But people should stop pretending the EU was ever interested in a deal other than total surrender.

 

[HSTEd]

Does it? Really?
Do I need to break it down even simpler?

There is currently an agreement that lets something happen.
The UK is leaving that agreement.
In a situation where no further agreement is made, that thing stops.
It sounds pretty damn simple to me.

The agreement is not ending for any reason other than because the letter of the law says it ends.
If the EU was in any way interested in any continuing relationship, which it isn't - they would have proposed that these minor technical matters simply continue as is for the near future.
Instead the EU is using it as a bargaining chip and threatening that they will terminate airline travel to the UK unless the UK capitulates across the board.

Kind of sounds like you could be talking about us there too. Our governments "strategy" is clearly that we want to have our cake and eat it. The proposals they have put forward so far are ones that everything with an inch of knowledge about the whole things knows would not be acceptable to the EU. They are obviously holding off, only proposing ridiculous things (the idea we could still have an open NI border but not be in the single market is a bit nuts to say the least, and ignoring the issue by just saying "we'll solve it with technology", without actually detailing what that would look like), so that when it all fails, they can just point at the EU and shout "look its their fault" (and people like you will lap it up). You say the EU could do things to prevent "lots of bad things", but so could our government. And since we are the ones leaving, shouldn't it be on us to do things, not the EU?

Whereas the EU's proposals are really so reasonable?
They have been demanding de-facto Irish reunification.

 

[furnessvale]

Like Vote Leave you mean? Or is electoral fraud different?

But that is OUR corruption which we can do something about (unlike the ability of REMAIN to spend twice as much on the campaign due to government backing).

 

[Puffing Devil]

The agreement is not ending for any reason other than because the letter of the law says it ends.
If the EU was in any way interested in any continuing relationship, which it isn't - they would have proposed that these minor technical matters simply continue as is for the near future.
Instead the EU is using it as a bargaining chip and threatening that they will terminate airline travel to the UK unless the UK capitulates across the board.

Why should the EU want a continuing relationship? The UK decided to leave a good negotiated agreement. Now we're no different to any country outside of the EU. The EU can take it's time to decide how it wants to engage. We pulled the 2-year trigger, the EU did not.

Whereas the EU's proposals are really so reasonable?
They have been demanding de-facto Irish reunification.

The EU have effectively been advocating (I see no demands!) for the status quo: a free movement of people and good over the border.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The agreement is not ending for any reason other than because the letter of the law says it ends.

Nope. The agreement is ending because the UK has decided it wants out. It is the UK ending these agreements.
If the UK wants to continue some of the things that the existing agreements allow, then we need to sign new agreements. If those new agreements are not as favorable as the existing ones, then that is purely our fault for wanting to leave the existing (favorable!) agreement.

If the EU was in any way interested in any continuing relationship, which it isn't - they would have proposed that these minor technical matters simply continue as is for the near future.
Instead the EU is using it as a bargaining chip and threatening that they will terminate airline travel to the UK unless the UK capitulates across the board.

The EU are not the ones threatening that they will terminate airline travel. The UK is by wanting to leave the agreement that lets it happen.

Whereas the EU's proposals are really so reasonable?
They have been demanding de-facto Irish reunification.

Errr no. They have been suggesting (not demanding) that we continue as we are (as Puffing Devil says above).
If we don't do that because the UK doesn't want to, then surely it is on us to come up with a suggestion that works?

 

[Puffing Devil]

But that is OUR corruption which we can do something about

You continually ignore that we have influence through the council and our MEPs to bring about change, if the will of the people was there. How many people voted in the last Euro Election? Shows a lot about the will of the people to change and engage.

(unlike the ability of REMAIN to spend twice as much on the campaign due to government backing).

I'd ask for evidence, though I know I'm wasting my time as you won't have any and will continue to post your opinion.

 

[HSTEd]

Why should the EU want a continuing relationship? The UK decided to leave a good negotiated agreement. Now we're no different to any country outside of the EU. The EU can take it's time to decide how it wants to engage. We pulled the 2-year trigger, the EU did not.

The EU might want a continuing relationship because trade is supposed to be good for both parties?
Unless we are really going to go full blown mercantalist

The EU have effectively been advocating (I see no demands!) for the status quo: a free movement of people and good over the border.

They have stated that there will be no deal, on anything, unless their demands for free movement of goods and people over the border are met, knowing that this is totally unacceptable to the British public because it is etiher requires a sea border (which is de-facto Irish reunification) or that it be Brexit in Name Only.

 

[WelshBluebird]

that it be Brexit in Name Only.

which is what many on the leave side claimed we were voting for anyway (plenty of quotes before the vote about "no one is talking about leaving the single market").

 

[furnessvale]

I'd ask for evidence, though I know I'm wasting my time as you won't have any and will continue to post your opinion.

Sorry, I keep posting things that are common knowledge to anyone who has been following Brexit.

Again I have no intention of spoonfeeding you links showing that the UK government spent nearly £10m on things such as a pro remain leaflet, civil service time (which was denied to the leave campaign) etc.

Better that you remain (get it) in your blissful ignorance of what has recently occurred.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Sorry, I keep posting things that are common knowledge to anyone who has been following Brexit.

Again I have no intention of spoonfeeding you links showing that the UK government spent nearly £10m on things such as a pro remain leaflet, civil service time (which was denied to the leave campaign) etc.

Better that you remain (get it) in your blissful ignorance of what has recently occurred.

Fair enough - I'll give all your future posts the credence they deserve - that is unsubstantiated opinion and misguided belief masquerading as fact.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The EU might want a continuing relationship because trade is supposed to be good for both parties?
Unless we are really going to go full blown mercantalist

They might. They need to weigh up the cost of that deal with other countries seeking to leave and the impact on the trading block as a whole. I don't know what that cost looks like to the EU member states, and I'm sure the UK doesn't.

They have stated that there will be no deal, on anything, unless their demands for free movement of goods and people over the border are met, knowing that this is totally unacceptable to the British public because it is etiher requires a sea border (which is de-facto Irish reunification) or that it be Brexit in Name Only.

Demand is such an emotive word and I don't see it being reported as such other than in the anti-EU press. It's a position that represents something that the EU wants.

I'm a member of the British public and would be happy with a sea border and/or the continuation of the status quo. Please don't think that 37% of the electorate who voted yes for an unknown deal 2 years ago can speak for the entire UK now.

 

[EM2]

I never claimed they should
But people should stop pretending the EU was ever interested in a deal other than total surrender.

If that's all they were interested in, they would have let us walk away two years after the A50 notification, with no deal and for us to revert to WTO rules.
It's our Government that have stated their ridiculous 'red lines', which cannot and will not work.

1. No ECJ jurisdiction
2. No free movement
3. No substantial financial contribution
4. Regulatory autonomy
5. Independent trade policy
6. No hard border in Ireland

That rules out a Norwegian/Icelandic/Leichtensteinian model
1-3 rule out a Swiss model
1-2 rule out a Ukrainian model
5 rules out a Turkish model
6 rules out a Canadian model

Which leaves...what?

 

[nlogax]

Which leaves...what?

A weird, insular little island that wants to be left in a 1950s time bubble?

 

[Puffing Devil]

A weird, insular little island where 37% of the electorate wants to be left in a 1950s time bubble and dragged the other 63% with it.

^ Fixed that for you!

 

[Senex]

A weird, insular little island where 37% of the electorate wants to be left in a 1950s time bubble and dragged the other 63% with it.

^ Fixed that for you!

Sums it up perfectly. And you could add that the dragging is being masterminded by a government with no majority that is forcing through its legislation by buying for £1bn the votes of a party that does not represent the majority opinion in the province it comes from.

 

[nlogax]

^ Fixed that for you!

Hah! There's never a Like button around when you need one..

 

[fowler9]

So the UK want hard borders except where we don't want them and we want freedom of trade and work except where we don't want it, we want it in the next year and we don't want to pay for it. Why are the EU being so belligerent given they can't live without us? Ha ha ha ha.

 

[EM2]

This article from probably the most respected US think-tank makes all the options quite clear. It seems the only way that can be even close to satisfying all parties is a Norway model:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/05/the-brexit-options-explained/

Options for the U.K. are limited. The country is in political denial over the stark choices its leaders have already made in order to reconcile otherwise irreconcilable positions. Short of reimposing a hard Irish border or reversing the Article 50 Brexit withdrawal entirely, the remaining choice is not between Norway and Canada, it is between Norway and no-deal. A majority of British voters and politicians understandably reject the no-deal option. British politicians and others should seek to normalize the Norway option, giving negotiators the chance to work towards a smooth future relationship. British and EU negotiators could then spend their collective energies developing the framework for a multi-tier EU that addresses the underlying issues that led to the UK’s ill-fated referendum in the first place.

 

[Geezertronic]

A weird, insular little island where 37% of the electorate wants to be left in a 1950s time bubble and dragged the other 63% with it.

^ Fixed that for you!

You're forgetting that only 34% of the electorate actually voted to Remain. If it was that important to the electorate then Remain would have won 63% to 37%