EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

Joining the EEA of EFTA is the same as remaining in the EU. This is not upholding the referendum results. It is called remaining in the EU in everything but name. In fact i would rather remain in the EU then remain in some sort of EEA or EFTA deal (and i am very anti EU and pro brexit).

Remaining in the EEA or EFTA and having an Iceland / Liechtenstein / Norway / Switzerland style brexit deal would be a disaster.
This is the worst possible option available. This would be the worst possible option for both the leavers and the remainders because nobody would be happy. These four countries are in the EU in everything but name. They are in reality EU members.

But they aren't actually members are they? Seems like the perfect solution to me, no longer members which is what leavers want, but all the advantages of remaining.

What we need is a full proper hard no deal brexit where we leave the EU and leave everything associated with it. This means leaving the customs zone and leaving the trade zone and everything like this. This is what we voted for.

Did we? It wasn't on my ballot paper, I know that.

 

[VauxhallandI]

It is undeniable that there is more than one way to leave so why do we keep hearing the rubbish about "but that doesn't mean leave to me".

It's time to stop bleating this and accept the obvious that Leave wasn't a binary option.

The sooner you do that the sooner you can fudge something up together and get on with this pathetic exercise.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Whatever happens though it will only inconvenience a small percentage of people. Like i said only a small percentage of our population has actually used their right to live and work and study in other EU/EFTA/EEA countries. Yes many people go on holiday but that's normally only a few times a year or occasionally so i am sure that they can manage to get a visa or do whatever is required. So yes some people will be inconvenienced but it us only a very small percentage of our population that will be. I imagine that a lot of the thousands of pro EU and anti brexit people complaining probably rarely even leave the UK.

I imagine the only way that we could retain full freedom of movement and the right to live and work and study in any other EU/EFTA/EEA country after brexit is if we entered in to an agreement that allowed all citizens of EU/EFTA/EEA countries to continue to have freedom of movement and have the right to live and work and study in the UK. I can't see any other way it could work.

The number one most important thing is upholding democracy and carrying out the choice of the people to leave the EU. This is far more important than whether or not we will need to get a visa to travel. This is what we voted for and therefore it must happen. Failing to carry out brexit and leave the EU would be a complete betrayal of the people and an extremely undemocratic thing to do.

Lots of imagination in there for someone who's so sure. I asked you before - how many people make up this small percentage that you seem to think work, live or study in the EU? You need more than imagination when screwing over peoples ability to travel.

 

[dosxuk]

But remaining in the EEA or EFTA just like Iceland / Liechtenstein / Norway / Switzerland is completely unacceptable and would be a huge betrayal to all of us who voted to leave as we would basically be remaining in the EU in everything but name (and we would even be in a worse position then both fully remaining in the EU and fully leaving the EU). This option should not be allowed to happen.

So why were many of the leave arguments in the referendum based on us not leaving the common market, EFTA, EEA and so on? Why were prominent brexiteers like Gove, Johnson and Farage clearly stating that our access to the common market was not at threat, and anyone suggesting otherwise was part of project fear?

I put it to you that there's no way leave would have won the referendum has they stood on a no-deal / abandon all links with the EU ticket.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Joining the EEA of EFTA is the same as remaining in the EU. This is not upholding the referendum results. It is called remaining in the EU in everything but name. In fact i would rather remain in the EU then remain in some sort of EEA or EFTA deal (and i am very anti EU and pro brexit)

[...]

But remaining in the EEA or EFTA just like Iceland / Liechtenstein / Norway / Switzerland is completely unacceptable and would be a huge betrayal to all of us who voted to leave as we would basically be remaining in the EU in everything but name (and we would even be in a worse position then both fully remaining in the EU and fully leaving the EU). This option should not be allowed to happen.

Hard Brexit was never an option discussed during the campaign:

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market

Only a madman would actually leave the Market

Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initially attractive for some business people

Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK

 

[Howardh]

Whatever happens though it will only inconvenience a small percentage of people. .

Having a laugh??
Tourists; how many flights are currently in the air between the EU and UK, or trains, or ferries?
Workers; how many UK full-time workers and students are currently working in the EU??
Retired; how many are fully or part-time resident in the EU?
If the answer's a thousand or so it really is only a tiny percentage. Think you could add several noughts on to that.
It's this total blindfolded fingers-in-ears "I'm all right Jack" attitude from Brexit that has meant me and and 16m others can't take Brexit on board! Just remember before the referendum the Irish/UK border was either no or an insignificant problem. Yeah...got that right, huh??
However I AM glad that you accept that we could keep freedom of movement as EFTA/EEA member but the contradiction is that to do so we would be as close to the EU as Norway/Switzerland etc. Why not just stay, pay our membership fees and accept the many plusses of membership and put up with the small number of inconveniences such as, er, our bananas not being bendy/straight enough or something.

 

[headshot119]

Having a laugh??
Tourists; how many flights are currently in the air between the EU and UK, or trains, or ferries?

I cast my mind back to Manchester airport last time I flew. Predominantly EU destinations out of the terminal I flew from. It must range into thousands of people a day, and that's just from one airport. Why people think it's going to be small number of people affected is beyond me.

Workers; how many UK full-time workers and students are currently working in the EU??
Retired; how many are fully or part-time resident in the EU?
If the answer's a thousand or so it really is only a tiny percentage. Think you could add several noughts on to that.
It's this total blindfolded fingers-in-ears "I'm all right Jack" attitude from Brexit that has meant me and and 16m others can't take Brexit on board! Just remember before the referendum the Irish/UK border was either no or an insignificant problem. Yeah...got that right, huh??
However I AM glad that you accept that we could keep freedom of movement as EFTA/EEA member but the contradiction is that to do so we would be as close to the EU as Norway/Switzerland etc. Why not just stay, pay our membership fees and accept the many plusses of membership and put up with the small number of inconveniences such as, er, our bananas not being bendy/straight enough or something.

 

[cactustwirly]

Joining the EEA of EFTA is the same as remaining in the EU. This is not upholding the referendum results. It is called remaining in the EU in everything but name. In fact i would rather remain in the EU then remain in some sort of EEA or EFTA deal (and i am very anti EU and pro brexit).

Remaining in the EEA or EFTA and having an Iceland / Liechtenstein / Norway / Switzerland style brexit deal would be a disaster. This is the worst possible option available. This would be the worst possible option for both the leavers and the remainders because nobody would be happy. These four countries are in the EU in everything but name. They are in reality EU members. They are part of the EEA and EFTA and Schengen and have to follow almost all EU laws and rules and regulations. The only major difference is that they do not get a place in EU parliament meaning that they have to follow laws and rules and regulations that they don't get to vote on or have any say on at all. So in fact these countries are far worse off. If we did this in the UK then the leavers would be unhappy because we wouldn't actually be leaving and the remainers would be unhappy because we would basically be remaining but we would no longer have any say in the policies. I hate the EU and am a big supporter of brexit but even i would prefer to remain then enter in to a Iceland / Liechtenstein / Norway / Switzerland style deal. What we need is a full proper hard no deal brexit where we leave the EU and leave everything associated with it. This means leaving the customs zone and leaving the trade zone and everything like this. This is what we voted for.

I would accept a deal where we would retain full freedom of movement and the right to live and work and study in any other EU/EFTA/EEA country after brexit and in return we entered in to an agreement that allowed all citizens of EU/EFTA/EEA countries to continue to have freedom of movement and have the right to live and work and study in the UK. This would be fine as long as this was it and we left everything else and didn't keep anything else that the EU or EFTA or EEA offers or any of their other policies or laws or rules or regulations.

But remaining in the EEA or EFTA just like Iceland / Liechtenstein / Norway / Switzerland is completely unacceptable and would be a huge betrayal to all of us who voted to leave as we would basically be remaining in the EU in everything but name (and we would even be in a worse position then both fully remaining in the EU and fully leaving the EU). This option should not be allowed to happen.

But we can't have a full no deal Brexit, without huge economic and social damge, especially in Northern Ireland, so there has to be a compromise!

 

[Puffing Devil]

@user1234 I've put a little flesh on your small percentage of people.

The Office of National Statistics Internation Passenger Survey for 2017 (latest published, available here) contains the following:

There were 72.8 million visits overseas by UK residents in 2017 including 6.8 million business visits​

Neither number is a "small percentage"

 

[mmh]

Tourists etc will be limited to 90 days in 180 regardless of whether it's a visa or ETIAS. Can a Brexit voter please tell me if I arrive at 1pm and leave at 11am the following day, does that count as none, one or two days out of the allocation?

Quite obviously that is a two day visit. Not sure what on earth Brexit has to do with how the calendar works.

 

[cjp]

Which we would have introduced ourselves to preserve our own fish stocks, much as Iceland did to preserve their own fishing grounds.



The UK’s net budgetary contribution is a small net cost relative to the benefits: Have a look at the consider, measured and calculated view of the CBI: http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-a...t-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

So you are agreeing that we do pay in more money than we get back. Good.

The CBI's report is slanted and based on opinion rather than fact with which I have no problem so long as you recognise this. Their one fact which is the per capita spend is both selective and self serving as well as being irrelevant to their earlier points.

 

[hooverboy]

Question - Have you seen the queues at passport control for Non-EU Citizens? They are huge. I don't want to be part of that. Neither do I want to pay the £200 it has cost me to get Global Entry clearance for the USA, though that may well happen. Thanks Brexit.

I travel frequently both within and outside EU.
once you get used to it ,it's not really a big deal.

 

[hooverboy]

Currently the EU lets citizens of many non EU countries visit visa free (within the Schengen area) for a three months (90 days) period within every six months (180 days) period without needing any visa or permit or esta style visa or anything like that. They can just turn up at the border and enter. This includes citizens of, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Georgia, United Arab Emirates, most of the Central America and South America countries, etc etc etc. So it is quite likely that the EU may put the UK in to this same category and apply this same policy to us.

correct.
it also works the other way round for countries like japan etc.
hence I detest the scaremongering...it's really not a problem.There will not be no-fly zones around the country or anything like that!

 

[EM2]

So you are agreeing that we do pay in more money than we get back. Good.

You can't have a system where everyone gets out more than they pay in. It won't work.

 

[dosxuk]

So you are agreeing that we do pay in more money than we get back. Good.

I pay more to my local council than I get back in cash. Should I be upset about this or happy that it means that shared services, like the fire brigade, libraries and waste collection, get paid for?

How much money would it cost for the UK to have equivalent set ups for all the departments and organisations, like EuroControl for air traffic control or the European Patent Office, which we currently get access to through our membership fees? If we don't have an exact figure on that, how do we know we're not breaking even?

 

[cjp]

I pay more to my local council than I get back in cash. Should I be upset about this or happy that it means that shared services, like the fire brigade, libraries and waste collection, get paid for?

How much money would it cost for the UK to have equivalent set ups for all the departments and organisations, like EuroControl for air traffic control or the European Patent Office, which we currently get access to through our membership fees? If we don't have an exact figure on that, how do we know we're not breaking even?

I agree with what you have written.
It is simply what we have now is not working. Change ie leaving may be for the worse but maybe it will be for the better I certainly hope so but with our politicians mindsets I fear it will be a missed opportunity

 

[Howardh]

Quite obviously that is a two day visit. Not sure what on earth Brexit has to do with how the calendar works.

Er, on the grounds that there will be statutory limits on how many days we can travel there? Like, you voted for it??

 

[Howardh]

correct.
it also works the other way round for countries like japan etc.
hence I detest the scaremongering...it's really not a problem.

We HAVE told you that all that ends on January 1 2021. The rest of the world inc. UK will require at least an ETIAS and some full-on visas. And it IS a problem, especially for those frequent travellers, would-be workers and those with properties abroad.
Example, how could you state your first-night's stay on the visa application if you are on a day trip?

 

[Esker-pades]

So you are agreeing that we do pay in more money than we get back. Good.

The CBI's report is slanted and based on opinion rather than fact with which I have no problem so long as you recognise this. Their one fact which is the per capita spend is both selective and self serving as well as being irrelevant to their earlier points.

Which part of the report is not factually accurate?

 

[dgl]

I suppose that when you add up all that it would cost to duplicate the services that the EU provides for it's members then it is possible for the whole of the group to get back slightly more than they pay in, not only in the cost of hiring staff but also working to one set of standards means not having to repeatedly test products for different standards (assuming you can't always test for everything required for all standards at once).

 

[furnessvale]

You can't have a system where everyone gets out more than they pay in. It won't work.

Naturally. The question is why does a country with such a massive net trade deficit with all the others become one of the largest payers INTO the pot?

 

[cactustwirly]

I pay more to my local council than I get back in cash. Should I be upset about this or happy that it means that shared services, like the fire brigade, libraries and waste collection, get paid for?

How much money would it cost for the UK to have equivalent set ups for all the departments and organisations, like EuroControl for air traffic control or the European Patent Office, which we currently get access to through our membership fees? If we don't have an exact figure on that, how do we know we're not breaking even?

And the European Medicines Agency, which until recently was based in London.
It saves the Pharmecuetical companies and our goverment money, because separate approvals for medicines in each country are no longer required.

 

[Mvann]

Naturally. The question is why does a country with such a massive net trade deficit with all the others become one of the largest payers INTO the pot?

Because we earn more money exporting outside the EU and maybe also because of what we import from outside the EU as the import tariffs go to the EU.

 

[furnessvale]

Because we earn more money exporting outside the EU and maybe also because of what we import from outside the EU as the import tariffs go to the EU.

Is that money on top of our GDP calculated contributions to the EU?

 

[dosxuk]

Naturally. The question is why does a country with such a massive net trade deficit with all the others become one of the largest payers INTO the pot?

Because the amount countries pay is based on the amount of money the country generates, not the amount of trade they do with other members.

We have a service driven economy, we don't make many actual product and we don't have the climate, natural resources or manpower to produce our demand for goods domestically, which makes it basically impossible for us to have a surplus in trade in goods. We do have a trade surplus in services with the EU.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

• The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£67 billion with the EU in 2017. A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£95 billion on trade in goods.
• The UK had a trade surplus of £41 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £83 billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of -£42 billion on trade in goods.

 

[Mvann]

Is that money on top of our GDP calculated contributions to the EU?

It would be on top of that calculation.

 

[Mvann]

Any way I think I've now worked out how to solve the brexit problem without leaving and getting the changes at the EU commission that are required. You need to give Junkers and tusk nightmares. We need to threaten to stay in the EU and point out in clear details what that could mean in the European elections in the current European political landscape.

 

[furnessvale]

It would be on top of that calculation.

So that is another £3.4bn to add to the net figure we send to the EU every year.

 

[Mvann]

So that is another £3.4bn to add to the net figure we send to the EU every year.

Apparently, 20% of import tarrifs are kept by the country to cover collection costs and the EU gets the rest

 

[mmh]

Er, on the grounds that there will be statutory limits on how many days we can travel there? Like, you voted for it??

I didn't vote for it. I don't care. If a country or group of countries wants to put a restriction on a visa type that's their concern. If you want to stay more than 90 days then apply to be allowed to. You'll either be told yes or no.

Your argument seems to be over whether you'll be allowed to be in a country on 90 or 91 days on a 90 day visa. I really, really don't care about such a meaningless made up "problem".