EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[HSTEd]

I didn't suggest a unilateral change - I suggested we should be working through our MEPs in the EU Parliament.

MEPs: "We want to change this"
EU Commision: "No"

Any change to the treaties can only be gained by giving something more away, the EU never compromise

Your initial comment was about the current status of the railways, not the 2020 plans.

Enforced seperation of operators and railway infrastructure exists today, the fact that both bodies in France just happen to have the letters "SNCF" in the name doesn't change that.
They are forbidden to cooperate in any way beyond which the infrastructure operator will cooperate with any and all other undertakings that wish to operate trains.

Again it's not this monster EU that is driving the change, it is agreed through the parliament. We have representatives in parliament and a vote, sometimes we don't get what we want - much like the government in this country. In the case of the railways and enforced competition, I can't see our current government objecting to that, so rather than blame the monster that is the EU, we should look closer to home and see what, if any, objections were lodged.

If a left wing party wins a general election in the UK outside the EU, we can change it.
Whilst we remain in the EU we will never be able to change it, it would be impossible to build such a consensus and the EU bureaucracy would go to great lengths to prevent it.

They want national railways annihilated.

 

[Puffing Devil]

MEPs: "We want to change this"
EU Commision: "No"

Any change to the treaties can only be gained by giving something more away, the EU never compromise

Who is this "EU"?

Policy is set by the European Council, resulting in laws drafted by the commission and then approved by the Council and the European Parliament. There is no monster "EU", there is a coalition of countries and political parties.

If there was a desire for change it could be brought about by the European Council. The Commision does not drive policy.

Enforced seperation of operators and railway infrastructure exists today, the fact that both bodies in France just happen to have the letters "SNCF" in the name doesn't change that.
They are forbidden to cooperate in any way beyond which the infrastructure operator will cooperate with any and all other undertakings that wish to operate trains.

They want national railways annihilated.

This is the position of the UK Government, who perhaps help set the policy in Council? Who do you mean by "they"?

If a left wing party wins a general election in the UK outside the EU, we can change it.
Whilst we remain in the EU we will never be able to change it, it would be impossible to build such a consensus and the EU bureaucracy would go to great lengths to prevent it.

Are you seriously suggesting that a government in the UK will have any influence over the workings of an institution that we chose to leave unless there is a direct benefit to that institution? It's like a flouncing off member of this forum proposing a number of changes before they would consider returning. How much traction is that likely to get?

 

[HSTEd]

Who is this "EU"?

Policy is set by the European Council, resulting in laws drafted by the commission and then approved by the Council and the European Parliament. There is no monster "EU", there is a coalition of countries and political parties.

If there was a desire for change it could be brought about by the European Council. The Commision does not drive policy.

And when the commission refuses to draft legislation changing the status quo?
Without legislative initiative it is entirely pointless to try and change policy by going through the European Parliament.

This is the position of the UK Government, who perhaps help set the policy in Council? Who do you mean by "they"?

The Federalist bloc, led by the likes of Martin Schultz, who wish to build a United States of Europe. And the EU-employed bureaucracy that wish to weaken the power of the national governments in their own favour.

Are you seriously suggesting that a government in the UK will have any influence over the workings of an institution that we chose to leave unless there is a direct benefit to that institution? It's like a flouncing off member of this forum proposing a number of changes before they would consider returning. How much traction is that likely to get?

Why would we be influencing the workings of the EU?

Outside the EU the Railway directives have no effect on us.

 

[whhistle]

Or maybe because there's a lot of reasons why they can't. Like kids still in school, or relatives that need care, just for example.

But the choice is still there.
Kids in school, relatives that need care may be a higher priority, but then don't moan if you won't act.
I didn't like that Asda stopped selling smart price stuffing. Because of that single act, I saw advantages of other supermarkets and switched. I didn't like there was no cheap stuffing, so I acted and switched.

It's possible, if you adopt the same arrangements that other third parties have. The UK don't want to, they want special arrangements.

We live in a new world, not one that should operate in the same way all the time.
Perhaps the old way of doing things should be left in the past.
Plus, I don't recall any other country leaving the EU recently, and thus this can't be treated like other third party states.

Until the Government of the day decide that they don't want it any more, and repeal those laws.

You say that like you expect it to happen.
Here's an idea - what if it doesn't?
That's the main thrust behind people who voted remain. They're afraid the UK Government will make our country really awful. That isn't going to happen. Things will change, yes, but if you think it could go worse, you must also remember it could go better too.

Why would the UK Government adopt regulations of an organisation that it is not a member of?
The Euro is de facto accepted in many places, including on Swiss Federal Railways.

If the regulation will benefit us, why not?
FYI: The Euro us also accepted on UK Railways. Not too sure what point you were trying to make.

I'm sure that the only reason that we didn't adopt the Euro is because there would have been uproar from the middle classes.

Wasn't it because we thought the pound would be stronger? Or we wanted to control our own currency? Turns out (by the looks of Greece and Ireland), it was a good choice.

However, as you picked apart only[/] my post, it might have been better served as a private message.

You do realise that we chose to privatise the railways, the EU didn't force us!
The Austrians, Czech, French, Hungarians etc all have state owned railways

Yes, I do.
But now we are like that, we have to open competition out to everyone and can't give any special points to British companies for being British.

 

[Puffing Devil]

And when the commission refuses to draft legislation changing the status quo?
Without legislative initiative it is entirely pointless to try and change policy by going through the European Parliament.

If the commission refused to do the will of the council, there would be a constitutional crisis in the EU Government.

The Federalist bloc, led by the likes of Martin Schultz, who wish to build a United States of Europe. And the EU-employed bureaucracy that wish to weaken the power of the national governments in their own favour.

Just as there is a federalist bloc, there is also an opposition. It's a very sweeping statement to say that the EU bureaucracy (Commission, or more?) wish to weaken national governments. DO you have evidence to show this is happening, or is it a view?

Why would we be influencing the workings of the EU?

Outside the EU the Railway directives have no effect on us.

Apologies, I thought you were speaking about the EU as a whole, not just railways.

 

[SteveP29]

What benefit, for example, will denying Britain access to the Schengen Information System database give to the other, both EU and non-EU members, who use it? None.

How many non EU countries do you know of that have access to Schengen information?

they could have avoided this whole scenario had they been more flexible to us as a pre-referendum member in the first place

Aren't we the only country to have the opt out of the Euro?
Are we not given generous flexibility not to be forced to be a member of the Schengen Zone?

Both sides need to accept and shut up or move to an EU country if they're that bothered. But not many British people will move, because it's actually not that bad but they're too proud to admit that fact.

That's not it at all, as others have said, they have family in schools etc, they have jobs that they really like or are paid handsomely for.
For some, they simply can'tr afford to move, some just can't move at all.
Why should people leave their homeland because somebody says that you have to if you don't agree with the way it's run?

 

[HSTEd]

Aren't we the only country to have the opt out of the Euro?

No, Denmark and Sweden de facto

 

[SteveP29]

citizens attempt to "smuggle" cheap cigarettes over.

Mate of mine got done for that when we were there, 200 L&B for £6.50.
Stu: Thank you, I'll have 4,200 of them
Border Guard: Open up the back please.
Assorted sets of golf clubs and shoes etc, with carrier bags full of cigarrettes.
Border Guard: Let me take a look at the rest of the vehicle (hire car stripped down and nothing else found), please go into the office and wait.
Salvatore Schillachi lookalike: You want to take these now, (showing us a calculator) you pay this much €
Us: No thank you, bye

And something we may need to sign up for if we decide to come back into the fold.

I dare say we'd get none of the concessions we currently enjoy if we were to rejoin at some point.

[QUOTE="whhistle, post: 3531183, member: 8512"]I didn't like there was no cheap stuffing, so I acted and switched[/QUOTE]

Seriously?

 

[mmh]

How many non EU countries do you know of that have access to Schengen information?

The usual answer to questions like that is "Norway and Switzerland", apparently Iceland and Liechtenstein do too.

Aren't we the only country to have the opt out of the Euro?

Denmark do too. Everyone else is supposed to join it, but of the countries that haven't Sweden and Poland are very unlikely to ever adopt it.

Are we not given generous flexibility not to be forced to be a member of the Schengen Zone?

We're not the only member not in Schengen - Ireland and Cyrus aren't either.

 

[Howardh]

We're not the only member not in Schengen - Ireland and Cyrus aren't either.

If we CAN maintain an open/no border with Ireland then that, in effect, prevents them from joining the Schengen Zone should they wish, as we would then effectively be in the Zone too (free flow of EU>RoI>UK therefore free flow EU>UK by default) which is the opposite of the Brexit vote.
So years down the line, as if there weren't enough issues already, that's another one.

 

[EM2]

I didn't like there was no cheap stuffing, so I acted and switched.

Because you had choice available to you. If Asda was the only supermarket that you could easily get to, how much inconvenience would you put yourself to, in order to get cheap stuffing? Get a taxi? A train? Two buses? Move house?

...this can't be treated like other third party states.

Why not? A third party is a third party, whether an ex-member or not.

You say that like you expect it to happen.

Because numerous pro-Brexit entrepreneurs (like Sir James Dyson) and politicians (like Dr Liam Fox) have already said that they think workplace regulations are too stringent and should be relaxed.
https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/12/james-dyson-wants-to-make-it-easier-to-hire-and-fire-people-7073226/

Billionaire businessman James Dyson has sparked outrage after he said it should be easier to hire and fire people. The Brexit-supporting vacuum inventor also called for the government to scrap corporation tax, saying profits shouldn’t be taxed.
He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr: ‘Since I don’t know what orders I’m going to get next month or next year, and the manufacturing industry is very volatile, not being able to flex your work force is another big reason why you wouldn’t start a manufacturing business or expand a manufacturing business.’ In response Marr said: ‘Easier to hire and fire in effect is what you’re saying?’, to which he replied: ‘Easier to hire and fire’.
When the journalist posed a question about corporation tax, Dyson said: ‘Well I think corporation tax should be eliminated. Sorry, this video isn't available any more. ‘A tax on profits is the wrong way to tax people. ‘Corporation tax is a very odd thing because there’s ways of getting around paying it. ‘You shouldn’t really be taxing peoples’ profits, you should allow profits to be reinvested. ‘And also if you remove corporation tax you encourage a lot of industry to come to Britain.

Here's an idea - what if it doesn't?
That's the main thrust behind people who voted remain. They're afraid the UK Government will make our country really awful. That isn't going to happen. Things will change, yes, but if you think it could go worse, you must also remember it could go better too.

Experience strongly suggests to me that the only thing Conservative governments care about is Conservatives.

However, as you picked apart only[/] my post, it might have been better served as a private message.

I pick apart plenty of posts. Why you think your public posting should be discussed in private, I have no idea.

 

[EM2]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ew-cabinet-backlash-brexit-third-way-accused/
Theresa May faces Cabinet backlash over Brexit 'third way' and 'treating ministers like idiots'

Theresa May is facing a furious backlash from her Cabinet over her new "magic" third way on Britain's post-Brexit customs arrangements amid accusations that she is treating her ministers like "idiots".

Downing Street announced this morning that after months of bitter infighting the Prime Minister will seek agreement on a new customs proposal when her Cabinet meets on Friday at Chequers.

The Telegraph understands that Cabinet ministers including David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, knew nothing about the existence of the new proposal until it was briefed to the press over the weekend.

Eurosceptic ministers are understood to be "deeply cynical" about the new plan amid concerns that the Prime Minister...

The rest of the article is paywalled.

 

[muddythefish]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ew-cabinet-backlash-brexit-third-way-accused/
Theresa May faces Cabinet backlash over Brexit 'third way' and 'treating ministers like idiots'

The rest of the article is paywalled.

No need to read it ....... the cabinet are arguing among themselves and all their proposals, rightly, will be rejected by the EU as cake eating.

BINO is coming.

 

[Domh245]

No need to read it ....... the cabinet are arguing among themselves and all their proposals, rightly, will be rejected by the EU as cake eating.

BINO is coming.

I wouldn't put it past them to go for the alternative - crash out on no deal. I hope for Brexit In Name Only, but if I've learnt anything from half-watching what the government have been doing since 2016, it's that they'll always manage to limbo under your worst expectations

 

[Howardh]

I wouldn't put it past them to go for the alternative - crash out on no deal.

They can't. Reason = not one item of infrastructure is in place for March 2019, there are no plans as far as I know, no extra officials, nothing, zilch. Even if we carried on during the transition zone, unless something gets built (and a lorry holding area in Kent would be (a) massive and expensive (b) subject to planning approvals so (c) unlikely to happen for years even after approval due to appeals etc) we won't be ready then either. Although I'm sure the good people of Kent (who voted leave) will be more than happy to have these on their doorsteps, what, lorries revving up all night, shunters, and all those nice young ladies making sure the drivers are comfortable at night. Lovely.
Oh, sorry, we intend to regularly block the M20 and M2 if things are tight..so that's OK then.
And the EU know this, even the Dutch are ready for a no-deal Brexit and are staffing up now (and planning routes to Ireland avoiding the UK).
Who is the country leaving???

 

[mmh]

A remarkable amount of froth there, first time I've heard prostitution as a reason to stay in the EU.

I thought when Britain leaves there'll be no trade using the channel ports anyway, so they'll be nice and quiet and Kent's motorways will be empty?

 

[HSTEd]

They can't. Reason = not one item of infrastructure is in place for March 2019, there are no plans as far as I know, no extra officials, nothing, zilch.

Then what are all these civil service hiring sprees I keep hearing of?

Even if we carried on during the transition zone, unless something gets built (and a lorry holding area in Kent would be (a) massive and expensive

Compared to the size of the trade flowing through the ports, the cost of a lorry park is pretty negligible.

(b) subject to planning approvals so (c) unlikely to happen for years even after approval due to appeals etc) we won't be ready then either.

Parliamentary Supremacy makes planning approvals irrelevant.
And in case of national emergency appeals can be dismissed as impractical.

 

[whhistle]

Because you had choice available to you. If Asda was the only supermarket that you could easily get to, how much inconvenience would you put yourself to, in order to get cheap stuffing? Get a taxi? A train? Two buses? Move house?

But we had a choice available to us...
There was always going to be one group of "winners" and one "losers", but you can't ignore the will of the people as a collective.

Why not? A third party is a third party, whether an ex-member or not.

Because this isn't usual is it. You can't treat 3rd parties the same when one has never been in the EU, and one is leaving.

Because numerous pro-Brexit entrepreneurs (like Sir James Dyson) and politicians (like Dr Liam Fox) have already said that they think workplace regulations are too stringent and should be relaxed.

Two business people.
Yes, there are more, but they're hardly going to make up the rules.
I pity you. You seem to think it's all going to be doom and gloom if we leave the EU, and the EU somehow has been protecting our country from... what? Itself?

If you're that worried, why aren't you making plans to move out now? Oh... because deep down, you know it won't be as bad as you think. Remember, for the first 5 years, nothing will particularly change, nothing major anyway.

I also suspect, even if things carried on or improved, you're the sort of person who won't see that. You'll only see the bad, and how bad it is. But not bad enough to move to a country that has "better" prospects under the EU wing of power.

Moan and groan if you wish. Stress yourself into ill health if you want. But accept the result.

Experience strongly suggests to me that the only thing Conservative governments care about is Conservatives.

ALL politicians only care about getting a title of Lord/Baroness at the end of their career.

I pick apart plenty of posts. Why you think your public posting should be discussed in private, I have no idea.

Because it could be construed as bullying.
It looks like you have a personal thing against one person?
Maybe even because you think they voted different to you, then they're not right in the head.
Take your pick.
Won't be answering any of your replies though. You haven't said anything to convince me to agree with you.


------------------


There's so much bitterness with people who appear to have voted to stay, I still don't understand it.

Unless you have cold hard facts, you can't say what will happen one way or the other. There's no experience you can base any thoughts on, because this hasn't happened to our country before, or any other country.

I don't really care what happens at the moment. There's no stopping us leaving, so I'll just carry on working and paying my mortgage as usual.

If in 10 years time we're all working for 50p an hour, 12 hours a day and there's no bread on the supermarket shelves, then perhaps I'll think different; however, let's face it, that isn't going to happen.

But I don't see the point in protesting against something that there's no stopping.

 

[EM2]

But we had a choice available to us...
There was always going to be one group of "winners" and one "losers", but you can't ignore the will of the people as a collective.

You're moving the goalposts. Your 'stuffing' analogy was about the choice of leaving the UK to live elsewhere, not the choice that was asked in the referendum.

Because this isn't usual is it. You can't treat 3rd parties the same when one has never been in the EU, and one is leaving.

You don't explain why you can't. A third party is a third party.

Two business people.
Yes, there are more, but they're hardly going to make up the rules.
I pity you. You seem to think it's all going to be doom and gloom if we leave the EU, and the EU somehow has been protecting our country from... what? Itself?

Pretty much it has been protecting us from ourselves, and also from the threat of conflict on the continent of Europe.
I have absolutely no doubt that without the regulation of the EU, UK governments will at some point simply have a bonfire of rights and regulations. You only have to look at all the talk of 'too much red tape'.

If you're that worried, why aren't you making plans to move out now? Oh... because deep down, you know it won't be as bad as you think. Remember, for the first 5 years, nothing will particularly change, nothing major anyway.

Because I have a job that I like, I have an elderly spouse that needs a lot of care, I don't speak other languages that well, and, to be frank, why should I have to move because 37% of the electorate has decided they want to cut themselves off?

I also suspect, even if things carried on or improved, you're the sort of person who won't see that. You'll only see the bad, and how bad it is. But not bad enough to move to a country that has "better" prospects under the EU wing of power.

If they do, great. I'll ask you a question I've asked every Leaver:
As soon as Brexit is complete, after the transition period, and we are a strong, independent nation, what will you, as an individual, be able to do that you cannot do today?

Moan and groan if you wish. Stress yourself into ill health if you want. But accept the result.

I always have accepted it.

Because it could be construed as bullying.
It looks like you have a personal thing against one person?

If you feel that you are being bullied, I suggest that you report the relevant posts to the moderating team. However, I have had numerous debates with numerous posters (AlterEgo and Bromley Boy, to name just two) on numerous subjects, and none have accused me of bullying.

Maybe even because you think they voted different to you, then they're not right in the head.
Take your pick.
Won't be answering any of your replies though. You haven't said anything to convince me to agree with you.

That is of course entirely your prerogative.

Unless you have cold hard facts, you can't say what will happen one way or the other. There's no experience you can base any thoughts on, because this hasn't happened to our country before, or any other country.

No-one has cold hard facts. Not even the Government.

I don't really care what happens at the moment. There's no stopping us leaving, so I'll just carry on working and paying my mortgage as usual.

But it could be stopped. It won't happen, but it could.

 

[furnessvale]

Pretty much it has been protecting us from ourselves, and also from the threat of conflict on the continent of Europe.
I have absolutely no doubt that without the regulation of the EU, UK governments will at some point simply have a bonfire of rights and regulations. You only have to look at all the talk of 'too much red tape'.



If they do, great. I'll ask you a question I've asked every Leaver:
As soon as Brexit is complete, after the transition period, and we are a strong, independent nation, what will you, as an individual, be able to do that you cannot do today?

Para 1. The only saving grace of a possible stopping of Brexit is the thought that an incoming Corbyn government will be stopped from its worst excesses by an increasingly right leaning EU.

Para 2. Assuming EU forced regulations are removed, as a canalboat owner I will be able to fill my tank with red diesel (at its correct non road user price).

If I were a port owner I would be able to run my port as the efficient operation it is today, complete with its content workforce, as opposed to the unnecessary regulated model the EU is imposing.

I have not looked in detail at the other 43,000 EU regulations now in force but I am sure there will be more examples.

 

[EM2]

Para 2. Assuming EU forced regulations are removed, as a canalboat owner I will be able to fill my tank with red diesel (at its correct non road user price).

Point taken, although I don't understand why a pleasure craft should get reduced fuel duty on a product that is to be used in working vehicles.

If I were a port owner I would be able to run my port as the efficient operation it is today, complete with its content workforce, as opposed to the unnecessary regulated model the EU is imposing.

Do you have any links to the EU regulations in relation to port operations?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Do you have any links to the EU regulations in relation to port operations?

@furnessvale I'd really like to see something that describes the impact of the EU regulations that you cite. Or are you again pushing your own opinion without any evidence?

On the matter of the "content" workforce, I'm wondering how many of those are EU citizens and will be heading home soon?

 

[EM2]

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-asks-treasury-for-brexit-analysis-11424409

The Treasury and Bank of England have been asked to draw up analysis of the impact of any Brexit deal struck with the UK.

The Commons Treasury select committee said it had also requested research from the Financial Conduct Authority on the potential impact of the withdrawal agreement and future framework.

Treasury committee chairwoman Nicky Morgan said MPs should be "properly informed" before the promised parliamentary vote on the deal.

In a letter to chancellor Philip Hammond, Mrs Morgan requested work on the economic impact of any Brexit deal, both short and long-term.

The long-term analysis would consider both the proposed deal and a "no deal" scenario, with each compared against a "status quo" of staying in the EU, she wrote.

The requested short-term work would also include an assessment of the risks that "systems, infrastructure or personnel required to facilitate cross-border trade flows are not in place" - either in the UK or EU.

It would also examine, Mrs Morgan requested, the danger of the political process for negotiation and ratification over-running beyond the end of the implementation period in December 2020.

In her letter to Bank governor Mark Carney, Mrs Morgan suggested parliament's decisions would have "implications for the Bank's pursuit of monetary and financial stability".

Mrs Morgan said: "Parliament's vote on the withdrawal agreement and future relationship can only be meaningful if it is properly informed.

"The chancellor has promised the committee that he will place the 'maximum amount of analysis in the public domain' on the economic and fiscal consequences of implementing the withdrawal agreement and future relationship, once it has been negotiated.

"I have written to him to set out the committee's expectations for what that analysis should contain.

"I also expect the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority to explain how parliament's decision will affect their ability to meet their objectives, including financial stability and consumer protection.

"In the months ahead, the committee will press for robust and high-quality analysis on the consequences of Brexit for the economy and the public finances, so that parliament's decisions can be based on the best possible evidence."

Now I'm no expert, but it seems to me that maybe they should have thought about this before now.

 

[Puffing Devil]

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-asks-treasury-for-brexit-analysis-11424409
Now I'm no expert, but it seems to me that maybe they should have thought about this before now.

The complete ineptitude of our government never ceases to amaze me. Surely this should have been done when the vote was called and continually updated as negotiations progressed.

Oh no, sorry..... That would have required the use of experts.

 

[Mag_seven]

Surely this should have been done when the vote was called and continually updated as negotiations progressed.

What and deflect attention from "Blue Passports" and "Taking Back Control" - don't be silly.

 

[furnessvale]

Point taken, although I don't understand why a pleasure craft should get reduced fuel duty on a product that is to be used in working vehicles.

Do you have any links to the EU regulations in relation to port operations?

Taking the second point first. Googling "ports directive" will produce many links demonstrating how the design of this directive favours the nationalised model preferred by Europe, as opposed to the private model favoured by the UK.

Red diesel is available to ALL* private users of diesel, provided it is not used on a road repairable at public expense.

*The sole exception to this regulation is a private pleasure craft, which must pay white diesel price, although for practical purposes red can be present in the tank. This regulation was imposed by the EU. If all other private users had to use/pay white prices, I would have less of a gripe, but they don't.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes, amazing that remainers cannot accept the fact that, especially on security matters, that is actually the case.

And yet it is still the Brexiteers who are saying "no deal is better" ignoring the fact that "no deal" also includes no agreements on things like security (and air travel, and Visa free travel etc etc).

 

[Puffing Devil]

If I were a port owner I would be able to run my port as the efficient operation it is today, complete with its content workforce, as opposed to the unnecessary regulated model the EU is imposing.

Taking the second point first. Googling "ports directive" will produce many links demonstrating how the design of this directive favours the nationalised model preferred by Europe, as opposed to the private model favoured by the UK.

I've run a quick search and the following popped up:

1) How the EU is about to sink Britain's successful ports - CapX A political opinion piece from a right leaning website, edited by a right-wing anti-eu campaigner. Written before the vote.

2-4) Links to EU sites to run the new regulations

5) The EU Port Services Regulation: there's certain to be uncertainty ... From a trade site in 2017. Takes an anti-brexit stance.

6) European Parliament greenlights EU ports regulation - container-mag ... trade site, reports on the vote with no comment

6) UK ports operators hope to escape new EU rules | Financial Times 2016 - Paywalled.

7) Post-Brexit exclusion from EU ports plan could help British terminals - Returers - 2016. Comments that the privately owned British Ports may be better off outside the EU

From what I've seen there are comments both for and against the move, without any detailed analysis. None of it is current, with the exception of the anti-Brexit 2017 article. It comes down to which side of unnecessary regulations are and why, perhaps, some people think that they are necessary. Had we not sold off ABP along the with railways we may not even be having this discussion.

 

[furnessvale]

And yet it is still the Brexiteers who are saying "no deal is better" ignoring the fact that "no deal" also includes no agreements on things like security (and air travel, and Visa free travel etc etc).

So we had better stay with this corrupt self serving organisation because they will not give a reasonable deal and would rather hurt themselves as well as us, to punish us and deter other potential escapees?

No thanks, I for one wouldn't bow down to such threats and I hope my government doesn't either. I'll take the initial pain thank you.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So we had better stay with this corrupt self serving organisation because they will not give a reasonable deal and would rather hurt themselves as well as us, to punish us and deter other potential escapees?

No thanks, I for one wouldn't bow down to such threats and I hope my government doesn't either. I'll take the initial pain thank you.

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).