EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

Chequers is brexit in name only and thus soft than soft brexit.

Well it clearly isn't. Apart from which, who are the Remainers that dismissed it? Because the Cabinet ministers that resigned over it were all pro-Leave.

 

[DarloRich]

Well then kindly educate me my friend instead of the usual claims of racism/UKIP/uneducated and just ending it there. If you're so prescient on all issues brexit then why not share your knowledge.

Put simply 160+ countries somehow survive with no FOM, CAP, CFP or paying billions in membership fees.

I have no idea what a WUM account is.

Educate yourself. I cant be bothered to argue with the mince or more accurately the gammon. You are the one who is so happy to leave and are sure it will all work out. On what do you base that? What, for instance, do you really know of the Common Agricultural Policy, or the Fisheries Policy? Do you have first hand experience of either? What do you want to replace it with? What is the problem with the ECJ? Will you be happy to be subject to the same travel rules you want to put on the forigns?

Why not try to show the intelligence on which your views are based. Explain why you think leaving is best based but try to base it on more than silly meaningless slogans and soundbites that you cant explain.

 

[EM2]

Put simply 160+ countries somehow survive with no FOM, CAP, CFP or paying billions in membership fees.

How many of those countries are not in a trade bloc of any kind, and trade only on WTO rules?

 

[dievoyagerdie]

Educate yourself. I cant be bothered to argue with the mince or more accurately the gammon. You are the one who is so happy to leave and are sure it will all work out. On what do you base that? What, for instance, do you really know of the Common Agricultural Policy, or the Fisheries Policy? Do you have first hand experience of either? What do you want to replace it with? What is the problem with the ECJ? Will you be happy to be subject to the same travel rules you want to put on the forigns?

Why not try to show the intelligence on which your views are based. Explain why you think leaving is best based but try to base it on more than silly meaningless slogans and soundbites that you cant explain.

Well you claimed I had little understanding of the matters so I'd have hoped you'd have at least pointed to the buggiest issues with each of the points raised. As it happens you didn't.

As a third country I expect to be given the same visa free access that Americans and Australians enjoy as fellow third countries. They don't need visas. They don't need to pay. We will be foreigners and thus will be subject to the same controls as current third countries when it comes to entering the EU

Why do I think leaving is best? I want full freedom, control and sovereignty. I want Westminster to be held fully responsible and not able to pass the buck. I want freedom of movement to end and want to be able to select the best talent based on our need as a country. I want the law of this land to have primacy. We have a small and diminishing say in the EU as it is and as it grows our clout will shrink (save me the cliched 'you say we have a small say in the EU yet won't have any say once we leave'). I don't believe in centralisation and control of 28 hugely different countries. I wasn't asked if I wanted to join the EU.

 

[DarloRich]

I am honest: While no fan of the EU I don't think a case to leave was made. I wanted that case to be made based on cold, hard facts. That didn't happen. I don't think there was any attempt to make a case based on information and details and facts but instead one based entirely on nebulous words, phrases and concepts that people don't really understand but which sound intelligent was used. One of those words is Sovereignty. Another is take back control. They mean nothing and when pushed they cannot be explained without more nebulous words and phrases equally meaningless.

As a third country I expect to be given the same visa free access that Americans and Australians enjoy as fellow third countries. They don't need visas. They don't need to pay. We will be foreigners and thus will be subject to the same controls as current third countries when it comes to entering the EU

I would hope that is the position too however we cannot, at this stage, expect that to happen. What should we do if it doesn't happen? There are many British people living abroad. While I have my own views on them what should we do about them? If we expect them to be treated correctly how do we end freedom of movement?

I want full freedom, control and sovereignty.

what does that mean though. Define it - as far as I am am concerned we already have that

I want Westminster to be held fully responsible and not able to pass the buck.

They are already! (at least far as my constitutional law understanding allows)

I want freedom of movement to end and want to be able to select the best talent based on our need as a country. I want the law of this land to have primacy. I don't believe in centralisation and control of 28 hugely different countries. I wasn't asked if I wanted to join the EU.

But, surely, the issue is not movement from Europe, where people broadly speaking, follow similar moral codes but on movement from other places where they do not. Leaving the EU wont impact on those people. We already have control over immigration from those areas.

 

[dosxuk]

As a third country I expect to be given the same visa free access that Americans and Australians enjoy as fellow third countries. They don't need visas. They don't need to pay. We will be foreigners and thus will be subject to the same controls as current third countries when it comes to entering the EU

Except that visa free access is underpinned by international agreements ("deals" if you'd prefer). The current arguments for a no-deal, burn-all-bridges, ignore-our-responsibilities Brexit mean that we wouldn't have such a deal with the EU, so we wouldn't get that visa free access.

What are your thoughts on the ECHR? It's not an EU body, so we (currently) aren't leaving, but I suspect that most of the brexiters are more upset at our judiciary being overruled by them rather than the ECJ.

 

[bramling]

I am honest: While no fan of the EU I don't think a case to leave was made. I wanted that case to be made based on cold, hard facts. That didn't happen. I don't think there was any attempt to make a case based on information and details and facts but instead one based entirely on nebulous words, phrases and concepts that people don't really understand but which sound intelligent was used. One of those words is Sovereignty. Another is take back control.

Putting aside the pros and cons of leaving for one moment, I don't see sovereignty as a vague concept. It's about a political system (in our case, the UK executive, UK legislature & UK judiciary) having the absolute ability to implement and enforce policies and laws, with no government being bound by a predecessor, and not subservient to any other institution. Further to this, it's about this political system being accountable to the population of a country, through elections and other forms of engagement / scrutiny.

I think it's clear the EU fundamentally conflicts with this - clearly it's then a value judgement whether an individual regards that as a good thing, something which is reluctantly tolerated, or objectionable. For what it's worth I'm in the third of those camps; how many people can honestly say they're in the first?

To put things a different way, collectively we can vote out May and her government if that's what the country wants. How can we vote out Juncker, Tusk or the EU Commission?

 

[fowler9]

No. With remainers you give an inch they take a mile and always try and reverse brexit or engineer another vote so that it goes their way.

Right, so when you ask me to prove I am not a bigot you also just want to be able to generalise about everyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[birchesgreen]

A bit nuts.

I must admit i'm only interested in the skylon. Interesting i was reading about the original festival, Churchill shut it down as he thought it was socialist propaganda.

 

[birchesgreen]

Putting aside the pros and cons of leaving for one moment, I don't see sovereignty as a vague concept. It's about a political system (in our case, the UK executive, UK legislature & UK judiciary) having the absolute ability to implement and enforce policies and laws, with no government being bound by a predecessor, and not subservient to any other institution. Further to this, it's about this political system being accountable to the population of a country, through elections and other forms of engagement / scrutiny.

No political system anywhere has genuine sovereignty, there are many extra-national influencers - NGO and business - that dictate a lot of things we do. Its why so much of politics appears so short sighted these days compared to the grand visions (NHS for example) of the past, there is a lot less we can do.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I see. So in theory we could lower standards but nobody with clout actually wants to. It's a bit like saying all trade might stop or flights could be grounded. So who will lower these standards and when will they do so and why haven't they already lowered them to only just meet EU minima?

Again the reason they haven't been dropped yet is because we don't have the ultra leave right wing crazies like Rees-Mog in power.

In terms of flights - there is the possibility they will stop if we don't have an agreement for them to continue.

Brexit means becoming a third country, free from all EU projects and getting away from ECJ primacy. In my opinion it is not brexit.

Bexit means no longer being an EU member state. That is all. That is what was voted on.

Put simply 160+ countries somehow survive with no FOM, CAP, CFP or paying billions in membership fees.

They survive fine because most of them have agreements and deals with the EU. Something we won't have in a "no deal Brexit".

As a third country I expect to be given the same visa free access that Americans and Australians enjoy as fellow third countries. They don't need visas. They don't need to pay. We will be foreigners and thus will be subject to the same controls as current third countries when it comes to entering the EU

The only countries whose citizens have visa free travel in the EU are ones that have made an agreement and deal with the EU regarding the issue. Again something we won't have in a "no deal Brexit".

Why do I think leaving is best? I want full freedom, control and sovereignty. I want Westminster to be held fully responsible and not able to pass the buck. I want freedom of movement to end and want to be able to select the best talent based on our need as a country. I want the law of this land to have primacy. We have a small and diminishing say in the EU as it is and as it grows our clout will shrink (save me the cliched 'you say we have a small say in the EU yet won't have any say once we leave'). I don't believe in centralisation and control of 28 hugely different countries. I wasn't asked if I wanted to join the EU.

You do realise that literally no government has the control you seem to want?
Every government is constrained somehow by international treaties, or non governmental bodies, or trade agreements, among other things.

And still - no plan. You said there is a plan. If one exists - what is it?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Put simply 160+ countries somehow survive with no FOM, CAP, CFP or paying billions in membership fees.

They survive by having deals with other countries and the EU. By definition a No Deal Brexit will have no deals.

 

[Clip]

How many of those countries are not in a trade bloc of any kind, and trade only on WTO rules?

Mauritania

They survive by having deals with other countries and the EU. By definition a No Deal Brexit will have no deals.

Means no deals with the EU - not that we wont have deals with any other countries - which we cant really start doing because we are still part of the EU and their rules do not allow it so whilst we would have none when we left(possibly) there is nothing stopping us from making deals after that.

 

[fowler9]

Mauritania


Means no deals with the EU - not that we wont have deals with any other countries - which we cant really start doing because we are still part of the EU and their rules do not allow it so whilst we would have none when we left(possibly) there is nothing stopping us from making deals after that.

Well these deals take years to put in place and keeping in mind the last year and a halfs negotiations with the EU have produced nothing it could be carnage for a while.

 

[bramling]

No political system anywhere has genuine sovereignty, there are many extra-national influencers - NGO and business - that dictate a lot of things we do. Its why so much of politics appears so short sighted these days compared to the grand visions (NHS for example) of the past, there is a lot less we can do.

A good reason to remove at least one of these inhibitors then.

I suspect this is one of the reasons domestic politics has degenerated into a pretty dire state - on the voter side cynicism, apathy and a perceived lack of responsiveness, and for the politicians having to deal with unelected rubbish like Juncker.

 

[bramling]

Well these deals take years to put in place and keeping in mind the last year and a halfs negotiations with the EU have produced nothing it could be carnage for a while.

I think most leave voters are reasonably comfortable with this. I certainly factored it in to my leave vote.

Messes take time to clear up, unfortunately. We backed the wrong horse for too long.

 

[fowler9]

Ye

I think most leave voters are reasonably comfortable with this. I certainly factored it in to my leave vote.

Messes take time to clear up, unfortunately. We backed the wrong horse for too long.

Yeah fair enough mate. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[birchesgreen]

A good reason to remove at least one of these inhibitors then.

I suspect this is one of the reasons domestic politics has degenerated into a pretty dire state - on the voter side cynicism, apathy and a perceived lack of responsiveness, and for the politicians having to deal with unelected rubbish like Juncker.

We'll still be influenced and (maybe only indirectly) affected by the EU even if out of it by simple fact of geography.

 

[furnessvale]

Well these deals take years to put in place and keeping in mind the last year and a halfs negotiations with the EU have produced nothing it could be carnage for a while.

They certainly do when dealing with the EU. I rather suspect that dealing with other entities will be a good deal easier. (Lots of deals to be had just in those two sentences).

 

[birchesgreen]

Maybe but NAFTA apparently took about 4 years for example so its not going to be something over the weekend.

 

[Ianno87]

We'll still be influenced and (maybe only indirectly) affected by the EU even if out of it by simple fact of geography.

Yep. If we want to sell products to the EU, still have to abide by their rules and regs, but with no say in determining them any more. Barmy.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yep. If we want to sell products to the EU, still have to abide by their rules and regs, but with no say in determining them any more. Barmy.

And thus its likely products for the home market will be the same as companies won't want the inefficiencies of producing two product lines. Same with products from foreign companies, thats why i doubt you'll be able to get the energy hungry vacuum cleaners and lightbulbs some seem to crave.

 

[bramling]

We'll still be influenced and (maybe only indirectly) affected by the EU even if out of it by simple fact of geography.

Influenced is one thing - this at least still gives Britain the chance to decide what response to take. What I find objectionable about the EU is the way we are effectively controlled, with the institutions having no real accountability to the electorate (save for the EP, which is notoriously weak). An argument can no doubt be formed to postulate that EU may well have to be this way in order to get things done, however that's probably as good a reason as any not to have an EU in the first place.

As I posted elsewhere, the leave side generally acknowledges that clearing up several decades of mess is not going to be quick or easy. IMO after backing the wrong horse for all those decades [*] somewhere along the line a hard decision needed to be taken to cut losses.

(* albeit in many cases a decision made by others, and voting for something rather different to what the EU nowadays is).

 

[muddythefish]

As I posted elsewhere, the leave side generally acknowledges that clearing up several decades of mess is not going to be quick or easy. .

What mess ? The EU has brought 40 years of sustained economic growth (with the odd blip caused by the excesses of US capitalism). For many people and businesses, the EU is working perfectly well.

In the short term Brexit has already made every UK citizen worse off. Aren't you concerned about the long term economic concsequences of turning our backs on the biggest trading bloc in the world ?

Lord Snooty said we might not see the benefits for 50 years or more - is that what you meant by not "quick or easy" ?

 

[bramling]

What mess ? The EU has brought 40 years of sustained economic growth (with the odd blip caused by the excesses of US capitalism). For many people and businesses, the EU is working perfectly well.

In the short term Brexit has already made every UK citizen worse off. Aren't you concerned about the long term economic concsequences of turning our backs on the biggest trading bloc in the world ?

Lord Snooty said we might not see the benefits for 50 years or more - is that what you meant by not "quick or easy" ?

I'm not sure all the European countries would agree with that analysis. Some pretty uninspiring unemployment figures in many EU countries for example, e.g. Greece, Spain, Italy, and even France. I wouldn't say that is "working perfectly well".

Meanwhile I certainly don't feel worse off as a result of Brexit. Less interest on my savings each month for a while, but that's all.

Yes of course I'm concerned about turning out backs on the EU trading bloc. However I'm also concerned about numerous other things, which for me have greater salience.

Meanwhile I'm already seeing benefits - EU immigration has reduced for a start, doubtlessly with more to come in that area.

 

[YorkshireBear]

They certainly do when dealing with the EU. I rather suspect that dealing with other entities will be a good deal easier. (Lots of deals to be had just in those two sentences).

Like Liam Fox suspected that a trade deal with the EU would be the easiest in History? We cannot assume this will all be easy.

We should have worked out how hard it was going to be before triggering Article 50. In my opinion that is the source of the issues now.

 

[nlogax]

Like Liam Fox suspected that a trade deal with the EU would be the easiest in History? We cannot assume this will all be easy.

We should have worked out how hard it was going to be before triggering Article 50. In my opinion that is the source of the issues now.

It's weirdly reassuring to see that some here freely admit the difficulties and long struggle that will result from leaving the EU. We'll not agree on whether it'll be worthwhile - personally I think it's three massive steps backward for the UK but hey, leaving was the result and we'll live with it. What continues to wind me up are those who still believe this process is as easy as standing on the cliff at Dover and waving two fingers in a south-easterly direction. Thankfully they seem to be ever fewer in number as the reality of the situation finally dawns on them.

 

[Clip]

Well these deals take years to put in place and keeping in mind the last year and a halfs negotiations with the EU have produced nothing it could be carnage for a while.

True but ask yourself why the negotiations havent gone well with the EU - when they turn round and say nothing we put to them is acceptable - do you really think any other country in the world would be so stubborn? Or would they want to jump into bed with the UK straight away - I mean we do export to say Japan already and we have Japanese investment in this country so why would they be so stubborn as to not set a good trade deal with us? Or anyone else for that matter?

 

[WelshBluebird]

As I posted elsewhere, the leave side generally acknowledges that clearing up several decades of mess is not going to be quick or easy

I don't believe that is as true as you would like it to be considering the number of leavers who are quoted asking what all the fuss is about and asking why can't we just leave right now without any more fuss.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It's weirdly reassuring to see that some here freely admit the difficulties and long struggle that will result from leaving the EU. We'll not agree on whether it'll be worthwhile - personally I think it's three massive steps backward for the UK but hey, leaving was the result and we'll live with it. What continues to wind me up are those who still believe this process is as easy as standing on the cliff at Dover and waving two fingers in a south-easterly direction. Thankfully they seem to be ever fewer in number as the reality of the situation finally dawns on them.

Easy for me to freely admit the difficulties as I think it will be highlighted in history for centuries to come as a big mistake. I was just trying to be more constructive than, 'Its all crap, Boris is a tosser, leavers won't take responsibility'