EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[furnessvale]

Yes it was, Cameron negotiated that. Virtually the last thing he did in the EU.

You mean that very limited half promise of tapered relief that still had to be ratified by the EU?

And what chance of that reaching the statute book had we voted to remain?

 

[Howardh]

You mean that very limited half promise of tapered relief that still had to be ratified by the EU?

And what chance of that reaching the statute book had we voted to remain?

We'll never know now, will we....

 

[anme]

From BBC news

Australia eyes relaxed UK immigration under trade deal



An interesting development. For many people, immigration was the biggest reason for their decision to vote to leave the EU, and here we are with one country looking to actually make immigration to our country easier for them as part of the trade negotiations. I would be interested to hear from the leave supporters as to their thoughts on this, and whether they expect this to be a feature that we will see from many other countries as we renegotiate trade deals?

It's the same for India. Check out http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-movement-delhi-boris-johnson-a7534026.html and take note of this quote from a Indian official: "mobility issues are of importance to us; we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments."

Any leavers care to comment?

 

[furnessvale]

It's the same for India. Check out http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-movement-delhi-boris-johnson-a7534026.html and take note of this quote from a Indian official: "mobility issues are of importance to us; we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments."

Any leavers care to comment?

We can always choose not to sign, a choice not available to us in the EU.

 

[anme]

We can always choose not to sign, a choice not available to us in the EU.

That is simply wrong. Remember when Wallonia - which is a region of Belgium - almost vetoed the trade deal with Canada? I will refresh your memory: https://www.ft.com/content/a614ae5c-99f4-11e6-b8c6-568a43813464

Do you realistically think we will have any trade deals outside the EU, if we take the view that we're not prepared to accept immigration? As I have written so many times, this is not as simple as the leave campaign, and the current UK government, claim.

 

[furnessvale]

That is simply wrong. Remember when Wallonia - which is a region of Belgium - almost vetoed the trade deal with Canada? I will refresh your memory: https://www.ft.com/content/a614ae5c-99f4-11e6-b8c6-568a43813464

Do you realistically think we will have any trade deals outside the EU, if we take the view that we're not prepared to accept immigration? As I have written so many times, this is not as simple as the leave campaign, and the current UK government, claim.

Once again you remind me of good reasons to get out of the corrupt EU!

So far as India and Australia are concerned. Both are talking about improving visa arrangements for people coming to the UK to work. A far cry from the totally open door EU arrangements.

 

[anme]

Once again you remind me of good reasons to get out of the corrupt EU!

Provide some evidence of corruption regarding this trade deal.

So far as India and Australia are concerned. Both are talking about improving visa arrangements for people coming to the UK to work. A far cry from the totally open door EU arrangements.

But you're against that, right? And it's completely opposite to the direction that UK is currently moving in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/07/theresa-may-visa-offer-india-citizens-uk

BTW I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge my points above about standards and regulation when establishing trade deals, and the fact that the UK will have much less control over these outside the EU than in it. Considering the example of food and agricultural trade, this time with India, the issues will be different. There will be regulatory concerns - conditions for growing food are very different in India than the UK and may well not meet UK standards. In the other direction, the UK subsidises its farmers, and India is unlikely to accept subsidised imports from the UK that undercut its local produce.

This stuff is complicated, as I said.

 

[Howardh]

Once again you remind me of good reasons to get out of the corrupt EU!

Examples of corruption please in the Wallonia case?

 

[furnessvale]

But you're against that, right? And it's completely opposite to the direction that UK is currently moving in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/07/theresa-may-visa-offer-india-citizens-uk

BTW I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge my points above about standards and regulation when establishing trade deals, and the fact that the UK will have much less control over these outside the EU than in it. Considering the example of food and agricultural trade, this time with India, the issues will be different. There will be regulatory concerns - conditions for growing food are very different in India than the UK and may well not meet UK standards. In the other direction, the UK subsidises its farmers, and India is unlikely to accept subsidised imports from the UK that undercut its local produce.

This stuff is complicated, as I said.

I am not against immigration per se. If we need certain trades, or even unskilled labour, I fully agree that people can enter as we need them. What I am against is a totally open door where we have no control over numbers or skills.

Regarding your second point. I agree with much of what you say but not all. A trade agreement between the EU and another single country has to be framed so that the interests of 28 EU countries are not compromised. Those EU countries have vastly different expectations.

Take the simple example of wine. For all intents and purposes, the UK does not produce wine. A trade agreement between the EU and Australia will be bogged down on the issue of wine imports because so many other EU countries do produce wine. For them it would be a major issue. For the UK it could be an easy trade off against matters more important to the UK alone. The same could be said about regulations and standards where one country, the UK or Australia, could compromise on an issue, whereas the EU cannot because it has 28 countries to consider.

As you say, this stuff is complicated, but one on one negotiation is easier than one on 28.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Examples of corruption please in the Wallonia case?

There are lots of examples of corruption within the EU which I have pointed out before.

Each time I do, remainers say, it is not the EU that is corrupt but individual countries within it. Same difference to me. It's the same UK money funding it.

Wallonia may not be a case of corruption but it is certainly another case of EU fudge, which is an essential product of a 28 country amalgamation trying to be all things to all men.

 

[317 forever]

The Republic of Ireland would not want to join a new UK, while if a vote was given to Northern Ireland there's a high chance the majority would vote to join the Republic. The Irish don't even recognise Wales as a country except when sport is being played and even then some see it as a breakaway English state!

Also worth remembering that the combined population of Scotland and Wales is less than the population of the North of England.

Given that Wales joined England in voting for Brexit, this is an apt description.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The result for Wales as a whole was:

Leave 52.5% (854,572)
Remain 47.5% (772,347)

Wales and England voted in favour of the EEA in 1975 and to leave the EU in 2016, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against being in the EEA in 1975 but in favour of remaining in the EU in 2016.

So no real scope for Wales joining a breakaway UK with Scotland if the new UK is to join the EU.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The proposed boundary changes could make the next election interesting. Sometimes people don't bother voting because they know it's a safe seat but if the boundaries are redrawn it'll make the result less predictable.

Andy Burnham has said if he elected as metro mayor for the Manchester city region (for which he is the favourite) he will resign as Leigh MP. Paul Nuttall has said he won't stand as a candidate for any by-elections before the Manchester mayoral election because he wants to stand in a Leigh by-election (provided there is one.) If that happens and Nuttall doesn't do well I think it will be difficult to see UKIP winning seats in the North in a general election.

He has therefore subsequently changed his mind, as he has decided to stand for UKIP at the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election on February 23rd.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a merry-go-round you put us on in the first place by suggesting it was EU money.

The £350m will be available from April 2019 when we leave the EU. Sadly only about £200m of it will be available to the NHS as the remainder will go directly to the "good causes" within the UK currently supported by the EU (with our money).

This means we will only be able to build a new hospital every two weeks instead of one a week!

These hospitals will come in handy for the increase in numbers of people becoming ill as the health of the nation goes downhill as a result of Brexit making healthy lifestyles harder to afford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This being a railway forum, its appropriate to mention that the more I hear about the plans to leave the EU the more I am reminded of the railway privatisation in the 1990's

A conservative prime minister who came to power in a political coup. John major made it his mission to break up "deeply inefficient" British Rail. Much was made at the time about the improvements that the free market would enable, in which bosses would apparently be able to use different train services from their secretaries.

With all political parties being implicitly in favour of privatisation (despite labour nominally claiming to oppose it) the railways went through a turbulent decade until the failure of Railtrack. A lot of government legislation since has given the government Department for Transport greater control over the railways than since it was a nominally independent state owned company. Despite claims of privatisation giving passengers control over the railways as empowered customers, the reality of foreign ownership, the franchise system and government micromanagement arguably mean that railways are less responsive to the markets than before.

Should it occur, I see the departure from the European union following a similar trajectory. Decade or two of economic chaos with subsequent governments enacting legislation that increases the ties to Europe without officially again becoming part of the EU.

This reminds me of how Bus Deregulation has been a contradiction in terms. Although bus services have been commercialised and liberalised in terms of competition being allowed, so much Regulation concerning Health & Safety, Drivers' hours, tachographs etc apparently means that bus operation is more heavily regulated than before Deregulation!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are lots of examples of corruption within the EU which I have pointed out before.

Each time I do, remainers say, it is not the EU that is corrupt but individual countries within it. Same difference to me. It's the same UK money funding it.

But that's because what you're doing is a bit like - say - finding a few examples of corrupt organisations or people in the UK (of which there are doubtless thousands) and declaring that the UK is therefore corrupt (when of course, in reality, corruption in the UK exists but is not endemic and is, on the whole, something that the Government cracks down on when it's discovered). Just like the EU.

Unless you're going to suggest that we should leave the UK because the UK is corrupt - which I'm sure you're not going to suggest because it would be rather silly - you're applying double standards.

 

[furnessvale]

But that's because what you're doing is a bit like - say - finding a few examples of corrupt organisations or people in the UK (of which there are doubtless thousands) and declaring that the UK is therefore corrupt (when of course, in reality, corruption in the UK exists but is not endemic and is, on the whole, something that the Government cracks down on when it's discovered). Just like the EU.

Unless you're going to suggest that we should leave the UK because the UK is corrupt - which I'm sure you're not going to suggest because it would be rather silly - you're applying double standards.

If you accept that corruption within the UK is running at the same level as within the EU then there is nothing I can add.

 

[Howardh]

But that's because what you're doing is a bit like - say - finding a few examples of corrupt organisations or people in the UK (of which there are doubtless thousands) and declaring that the UK is therefore corrupt (when of course, in reality, corruption in the UK exists but is not endemic and is, on the whole, something that the Government cracks down on when it's discovered). Just like the EU.

Unless you're going to suggest that we should leave the UK because the UK is corrupt - which I'm sure you're not going to suggest because it would be rather silly - you're applying double standards.

Hopefully he continues to support England in the World Cup because FIFA are the cleanest of the clean.

 

[furnessvale]

Hopefully he continues to support England in the World Cup because FIFA are the cleanest of the clean.

If there is one thing worse than being one of 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass, it's standing watching 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

Now they are fantasising about 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

And they say train spotters are weird!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If there is one thing worse than being one of 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass, it's standing watching 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

Now they are fantasising about 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

And they say train spotters are weird!

I am somewhat unsure if my facts are correct, but I was in the belief that pigs bladders were used in the manufacture of the oval-shaped balls that are used in the codes of rugby.

 

[furnessvale]

I am somewhat unsure if my facts are correct, but I was in the belief that pigs bladders were used in the manufacture of the oval-shaped balls that are used in the codes of rugby.

Pigs bladders when confined in leather will adapt to any shape.

Nowadays, the big girl's blouses playing the game kick a lightweight plastic ball about, wearing something like carpet slippers instead of boots.

 

[Howardh]

If there is one thing worse than being one of 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass, it's standing watching 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

Now they are fantasising about 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

And they say train spotters are weird!

Hockey. Watch hockey.
(a) We're good at it and
(b) Samantha Quek.

(c) Ashely Jackson's not a bad looking lad either. If he'd have a shave....

 

[miami]

If there is one thing worse than being one of 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass, it's standing watching 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

Now they are fantasising about 22 idiots kicking a pigs bladder up and down a patch of grass!

And they say train spotters are weird!

Finally you start taking sense

 

[me123]

We can always choose not to sign, a choice not available to us in the EU.

Yes we can choose not to sign, but it would be foolish not to. Historically, we have close ties with India and Australia for obvious reasons. India in particular is a huge market that we really want to have access to. The EU have made trade deals with India, and it's not an easy ride. Boris and his cronies need to realise that India aren't just going to bend over at take whatever we give them - they'll be tough negotiators.

Many people won't have problems with movement of citizens - I'm certainly not bothered by migration as an issue, as long as the terms are bilateral. But clearly migration is a big issue for many people who supported leave. Can you imagine the Daily Mail's headlines at the prospect of increased immigration from outwith the EU?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not against immigration per se. If we need certain trades, or even unskilled labour, I fully agree that people can enter as we need them. What I am against is a totally open door where we have no control over numbers or skills.

Interestingly, EU migrants are far more likely to work in the country than nationals from outwith the EU (who primarily come to this country to study).

Of course, this is the primary reason for coming - it could well be the case that those who come to study stay to work, and may well therefore work in different fields and sectors to the EU migrants. But it's interesting to note that 72% of EU nationals come to work (with or without a secured job), whereas just 31% of non-EU nationals do.

I think this is an interesting little diagram, but it does give more questions than answers.

 

[anme]

I am not against immigration per se. If we need certain trades, or even unskilled labour, I fully agree that people can enter as we need them. What I am against is a totally open door where we have no control over numbers or skills.

I simply think you're wrong. Freedom of movement works two ways. It has been an amazing thing for British people - both thanks to the people who have come to the UK *and* the British people who have the opportunity to live and work elsewhere in the EU. Losing it will be a tragedy for the British, especially younger people, who will see their opportunities in life severely curtailed.

Regarding your second point. I agree with much of what you say but not all. A trade agreement between the EU and another single country has to be framed so that the interests of 28 EU countries are not compromised. Those EU countries have vastly different expectations.

Take the simple example of wine. For all intents and purposes, the UK does not produce wine. A trade agreement between the EU and Australia will be bogged down on the issue of wine imports because so many other EU countries do produce wine. For them it would be a major issue. For the UK it could be an easy trade off against matters more important to the UK alone. The same could be said about regulations and standards where one country, the UK or Australia, could compromise on an issue, whereas the EU cannot because it has 28 countries to consider.

As you say, this stuff is complicated, but one on one negotiation is easier than one on 28.

There is perhaps some truth in what you say, but it ignores that the EU is a market of around 500 million people, while the UK on its own is only about 65 million people. A trade deal with the UK is worth only about 20% as much as a trade deal with the EU - and this is diminishing as populous eastern European states are growing faster economically than the UK. So countries will be more motivated to sign a deal with the EU than with the UK.

There's also the point that trade deals are less important to members of a vast single market, within which it's already possible to do high volumes of trade. Trade deals will be much more important to an isolated UK, meaning it will be in a much worse position to negotiate them. Think about my example of genetically modified foods - while we have the rest of the EU to trade with there's little pressure for us to accept them. Isolated, on our own, we may have to. Some won't care but some will - and there will be many many other similar examples.

Anyway, if it's true, your theory that small countries do better than big ones has some interesting implications. According to you, the US would be better splitting up into its constituent states, imposing hard customs borders at state boundaries (these are necessary for independent trade deals) and each state signing trade deals with the other 50-odd states, and more trade deals with the outside world to meet each state's individual needs. Similarly, India and China - both vast and diverse countries that leavers seem keen to do deals with - should also split up. Do you advocate this, and if not, why not?

 

[EM2]

Nowadays, the big girl's blouses playing the game kick a lightweight plastic ball about, wearing something like carpet slippers instead of boots.

And yet the Laws of the Game, relating to the size, weight and pressure of the ball remain unchanged.

 

[furnessvale]

And yet the Laws of the Game, relating to the size, weight and pressure of the ball remain unchanged.

Ever tried heading a WET leather caseball, especially when you catch it on the laces?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyway, if it's true, your theory that small countries do better than big ones has some interesting implications. According to you, the US would be better splitting up into its constituent states, imposing hard customs borders at state boundaries (these are necessary for independent trade deals) and each state signing trade deals with the other 50-odd states, and more trade deals with the outside world to meet each state's individual needs. Similarly, India and China - both vast and diverse countries that leavers seem keen to do deals with - should also split up. Do you advocate this, and if not, why not?

I maintain, certainly in the case of the USA, the individual states have far more in common than the 28 individual EU countries, a common language for starters.

The unification of China is hardly a democratic process, ask the Tibetans.

India needs thinking about but I think that throwing the shackles of colonialism has helped them, providing a common purpose.

 

[Howardh]

Interesting that there is the possibility of bringing new car MOT's in line with the Eu and Northern Ireland by leaving the first MOT for four years instead of the current three.

What's this...the UK following the lead of the EU?? Where's our control?!! Wonder if anyone thinks it should remain at three years?

 

[furnessvale]

Interesting that there is the possibility of bringing new car MOT's in line with the Eu and Northern Ireland by leaving the first MOT for four years instead of the current three.

What's this...the UK following the lead of the EU?? Where's our control?!! Wonder if anyone thinks it should remain at three years?

If it makes sense, why not.

Unlike remainers who seem to be so blinkered as to see no good points about brexit, I am relaxed enough to accept that, for once, the EU had a good idea!

 

[anme]

I maintain, certainly in the case of the USA, the individual states have far more in common than the 28 individual EU countries, a common language for starters.

But according to you, to use a simple example a region growing wine (such as California) is better off negotiating its own separate trade deals to a region making cars (such as Michigan). What does a common language have to do with it? Either you think bigger is better, or smaller is better for international trade. Which is it?

BTW English is more or less a common language across most of the EU, at least at government and commercial levels.

The unification of China is hardly a democratic process, ask the Tibetans.

So you think China would be more successful economically if it split into a probably large number of separate countries?

India needs thinking about but I think that throwing the shackles of colonialism has helped them, providing a common purpose.

Surely in Europe, throwing off the shackles of centuries of war gives us a common purpose?

As a separate question - what does this forum think will happen to the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, now the UK has said it wishes to leave the single market and the customs union? How would you describe someone such as Boris Johnson who claims that leaving the EU will not affect the Irish border? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452

 

[Howardh]

As a separate question - what does this forum think will happen to the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, now the UK has said it wishes to leave the single market and the customs union? How would you describe someone such as Boris Johnson who claims that leaving the EU will not affect the Irish border? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452

That's an easy one now. If we remain in the Single Market and Customs Union, then the CTA can continue unaffected.

However, unless some *middle ground* is found, if we leave the SM and CU, then all goods from and into the EU across the Irish Border will have to be policed so goods can be checked and tariffs paid, and also personal duty-free goods checked entering the EU. It will be the end of "booze cruises" so border checks would prevent cheap booze being bought in France, shipped through the Republic and into Northern Ireland.
Also the EU wouldn't approve of one of their members having free access to the UK market when the other member's don't.
So a hard border would have to be re-introduced.

A hard border splitting Ireland physically into two should meet with the full approval of Sinn Fein and the IRA*.

If we have a hard border, can someone explain what will happento the few residents in the virtual Republic exclave of the area just to the south-west of Clones where the only road access is through Northern Ireland?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/54.1499/-7.1875

*Or maybe not. Any volunteers to ask?

 

[EM2]

Ever tried heading a WET leather caseball, especially when you catch it on the laces?

Indeed I have, and that's why manufacturers have used technology so that modern balls don't absorb water. But they still have to weigh 410- 450 grams at kickoff.
However, we are straying dangerously off topic.

 

[anme]

That's an easy one now. If we remain in the Single Market and Customs Union, then the CTA can continue unaffected.

However, unless some *middle ground* is found, if we leave the SM and CU, then all goods from and into the EU across the Irish Border will have to be policed so goods can be checked and tariffs paid, and also personal duty-free goods checked entering the EU. It will be the end of "booze cruises" so border checks would prevent cheap booze being bought in France, shipped through the Republic and into Northern Ireland.
Also the EU wouldn't approve of one of their members having free access to the UK market when the other member's don't.
So a hard border would have to be re-introduced.

A hard border splitting Ireland physically into two should meet with the full approval of Sinn Fein and the IRA*.

If we have a hard border, can someone explain what will happento the few residents in the virtual Republic exclave of the area just to the south-west of Clones where the only road access is through Northern Ireland?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/54.1499/-7.1875

*Or maybe not. Any volunteers to ask?

Even assuming the UK decides to end freedom of movement for its own and other EU citizens, the Common Travel Area can continue - as long as the UK is prepared to accept that EU citizens can freely enter Ireland and therefore could not be physically stopped from entering the UK across the border with Northern Ireland. If the UK decides to prevent EU citizens from entering the UK, such people would be in the UK illegally can could be deported if discovered, and may have problems accessing public and even commercial services. If the UK won't accept this, the Common Travel Area will have to be revised.

A hard border for goods looks inevitable if the UK continues on the course outlined by Ms May. If Ireland is in the customs union and the UK is outside of it, customs checks are simply essential. It might be possible to do these not at the border, but through random or targetted checks on vehicles and people throughout Northern Ireland (and perhaps the whole of the UK). These would probably draw complaints, however, and would inevitably be less effective than a hard border. Much will depend on the nature of future trading arrangements between the UK and the rest of the EU, and how much all sides are prepared to accept contraband goods crossing the border. Switzerland, which is outside the customs union, provides some guidance, but the UK appears to want to isolate itself much more than the Swiss, so it might not be a suitable example to follow.

Some kind of special status for Northern Ireland could perhaps be discussed, although it would inevitably change the status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK and create a closer relationship with the Republic, and might be severely difficult to agree with all parties.

 

[Howardh]

Even assuming the UK decides to end freedom of movement for its own and other EU citizens, the Common Travel Area can continue - as long as the UK is prepared to accept that EU citizens can freely enter Ireland and therefore could not be physically stopped from entering the UK across the border with Northern Ireland. If the UK decides to prevent EU citizens from entering the UK, such people would be in the UK illegally can could be deported if discovered, and may have problems accessing public and even commercial services. If the UK won't accept this, the Common Travel Area will have to be revised.

A hard border for goods looks inevitable if the UK continues on the course outlined by Ms May. If Ireland is in the customs union and the UK is outside of it, customs checks are simply essential. It might be possible to do these not at the border, but through random or targetted checks on vehicles and people throughout Northern Ireland (and perhaps the whole of the UK). These would probably draw complaints, however, and would inevitably be less effective than a hard border. Much will depend on the nature of future trading arrangements between the UK and the rest of the EU, and how much all sides are prepared to accept contraband goods crossing the border. Switzerland, which is outside the customs union, provides some guidance, but the UK appears to want to isolate itself much more than the Swiss, so it might not be a suitable example to follow.

Some kind of special status for Northern Ireland could perhaps be discussed, although it would inevitably change the status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK and create a closer relationship with the Republic, and might be severely difficult to agree with all parties.

Thanks for that, a thorough and informed reply! Just been thinking about special status for NI - could it possibly remain in the EU but still be part of the UK and we simply have border checks between Norn and the mainland? Sounds very improbable, but I suppose it's like Isle of Man/Channel Isles in reverse?!

Meanwhile, dealing with people is esay. The could be allowed across the border unmolested and any illegals caught when applying for jobs, benefits, rooms etc. In that case, we could actually remove all passport and immigration checks at our ports and airports from the EU - we simply assume everyone is legal until they are caught. It would be a nice benefit of Brexit if we could remove immigration and passport queues at airports!

 

[radamfi]

Switzerland, which is outside the customs union, provides some guidance, but the UK appears to want to isolate itself much more than the Swiss, so it might not be a suitable example to follow.

What's the latest on Switzerland? They voted to impose immigration quotas in a referendum which needs to be implemented in a certain amount of time to comply with Swiss law. The government has been trying to negotiate a solution with the EU but time is running out.