Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42884610

This is becoming a bit of a farce (if it wasn't one already).

The Government has created an internal study on the economic impact of Brexit, and leaks have revealed that, in every likely scenario, the UK will be worse off compared to staying in the EU.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonar...the-uk-will-be?utm_term=.ovPwQMYXB#.eax4pO5NB

A comprehensive UK-EU trade agreement - 5% slower growth over the next 15 years
No deal scenario - 8% slower growth over the next 15 years
Continued single market access - 2% slower growth over the next 15 years

Yes, even staying in the single market, sans EU membership, will leave us worse off as well. And yes, this is 15 years of slower growth, taking us all the way up to 2033.

Now it appears as though Whitehall is doing its best to hide this study from MPs and peers. But in the face of a Commons defeat on the issue, they are reluctantly allowing MPs to view the study in a "confidential reading room" if requested.

The reason for keeping it under wraps? Because apparently, the study "could damage negotiations with the EU".

I think someone should tell Number 10 that the EU probably knows this already. Then again, this may be less about the news itself, and more about the Government's reluctance to say it out loud.

Politicians like the media. Some git will leak stuff to the media to make themselves look good to a reporter. The media will release that information.
The harm it does to negotiations? Not their problem.

It does work both ways, the media elsewhere may release leaked information that benefits us.

I do wonder what is known in these documents that was not known prior to the brexit vote.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42896996

This should be interesting.

The EU expects a transition deal to include all of the responsibilities for all of the benefits, including free movement of people and the right to reside permanently.

The UK, on the other hand, expects those entering the UK during the transition period to not have the right to stay.

I do understand the EU's point of view. They have never budged from the requirement of the four freedoms in exchange for the benefits of EU membership.

If the UK gets what it wants, then it would mean that, for two years, the UK will receive the full benefit of the single market and customs union, and be allowed to negotiate its own trade agreements, without being bound to the four freedoms.

Meanwhile, the remaining EU-27 would receive the exact same benefits, but be fully bound to the four freedoms in a comparatively much stricter way.

Will the EU-27 consider that fair, particularly when it's the UK wanting to leave? Probably not.

Some might say that the EU is being too harsh, but when you think about it, the EU would be doing the UK a big favour by undermining its commitment to the four freedoms, and irking existing members, to give us what we want. They'd cross a red line they've vowed never to cross.

The EU is also stuck in a tricky position, as what it certainly doesn't want to do is set an unfavourable precedent. Any other members that consider leaving in future would have a very strong argument that they're entitled to the same treatment as the UK.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I still find it odd that the UK media seem to ignore the situation of Brits in the EU

https://bishopineurope.wordpress.com/ gives some idea.

 

[Mr D]

So anyone learning to fly ready for that cliff edge yet?

 

[Cobby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42884610

This is becoming a bit of a farce (if it wasn't one already).

The Government has created an internal study on the economic impact of Brexit, and leaks have revealed that, in every likely scenario, the UK will be worse off compared to staying in the EU.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonar...the-uk-will-be?utm_term=.ovPwQMYXB#.eax4pO5NB

A comprehensive UK-EU trade agreement - 5% slower growth over the next 15 years
No deal scenario - 8% slower growth over the next 15 years
Continued single market access - 2% slower growth over the next 15 years

Yes, even staying in the single market, sans EU membership, will leave us worse off as well. And yes, this is 15 years of slower growth, taking us all the way up to 2033.

Now it appears as though Whitehall is doing its best to hide this study from MPs and peers. But in the face of a Commons defeat on the issue, they are reluctantly allowing MPs to view the study in a "confidential reading room" if requested.

The reason for keeping it under wraps? Because apparently, the study "could damage negotiations with the EU".

I think someone should tell Number 10 that the EU probably knows this already. Then again, this may be less about the news itself, and more about the Government's reluctance to say it out loud.

What's concerning is that May has attempted to sidestep it by saying the report is "preliminary" and that "it isn't signed off by ministers".

Last time I checked ministers should be writing policy and making decisions based on the evidence, not approving the evidence that fits their policies and decisions...

 

[Cobby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42896996

This should be interesting.

The EU expects a transition deal to include all of the responsibilities for all of the benefits, including free movement of people and the right to reside permanently.

The UK, on the other hand, expects those entering the UK during the transition period to not have the right to stay.

I do understand the EU's point of view. They have never budged from the requirement of the four freedoms in exchange for the benefits of EU membership.

They haven't budged. They've been clear about it since the beginning. So have we; we knew what the rules for transition would be, but agreed to have that on the table anyway. *Now* we start making a fuss.

It's pageantry for the press.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...u-migrants-vegetable-picking-jobs-in-cornwall

It does make you wonder exactly what the plan is with all this.

 

[KM-Tiger]

t does make you wonder exactly what the plan is with all this.

I believe there was a system before we joined the EU, to issue visas to temporary agricultural workers, so I guess we could revert to that.

But as we were discussing back in the thread about our future relationship to EU agencies, there is a marked lack of information from the govt. Even an outline of intentions would be better than nothing.

Perhaps the civil servants who have been busy with Project Fear MkII could be redeployed to do something useful?

 

[Mr D]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...u-migrants-vegetable-picking-jobs-in-cornwall

It does make you wonder exactly what the plan is with all this.

Which way did Cornwall vote again? 56.5% to leave.
The locals want the jobs done by the outsiders at the same rate of pay?

 

[Mr D]

I believe there was a system before we joined the EU, to issue visas to temporary agricultural workers, so I guess we could revert to that.

But as we were discussing back in the thread about our future relationship to EU agencies, there is a marked lack of information from the govt. Even an outline of intentions would be better than nothing.

Perhaps the civil servants who have been busy with Project Fear MkII could be redeployed to do something useful?

Trouble is getting agreement on an outline of intentions.

By what the media have reported and what particular cabinet members have said over the past 18 months it sounds like even the cabinet cannot agree, never mind the party or parliament.

And it looks like similar problems if Labour win an election in next couple of years too.
Perhaps SNP should take over, loony ideas but at least a nice sounding fantasy.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I believe there was a system before we joined the EU, to issue visas to temporary agricultural workers, so I guess we could revert to that.

There was a system while we were part of the EU, too. It wasn't that long ago.

It was the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme. It allowed people from Bulgaria and Romania to apply for 6 month agricultural work visas before controls on the EU2 were lifted in 2014.

This is, in hindsight, an interesting piece on the topic from the Minister of Immigration at the time:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speec...-and-the-food-processing-sectors-based-scheme

As mentioned, SAWS was open to non-EEA nationals until 2007, when it was restricted to EU2 nationals and then eventually phased out as the EEA labour market expanded.

One has to wonder how they will tackle it the second time around. Will it be EEA or global?

I'm not convinced though, to be honest. Temporary visas fall into the same issue as non-single market trade. It creates friction. It makes people have to jump through hoops. It makes them feel less welcome.

Imagine being a seasonal agricultural worker where you have to fill out forms to request permission, and you know that if you overstay by even a week, you risk getting into trouble and potentially being refused such visas in future.

It makes the idea of working here less appealing, and that's a big problem when we're already struggling to attract seasonal workers due to the devaluation of the pound.

Adding bureaucracy like this might not seem like a big deal, but it does make a difference. Look at the latest immigration figures. Everyone thought that there would be a mad rush of immigrants to get into the UK before the "door" closes.

What's happened? Immigration has dropped massively, even though people still have the right to remain indefinitely if they wish. EU emigration has also increased considerably.

These people aren't desperate. If they no longer feel welcome in the UK, they'll just stop coming. No amount of waving around temporary visas like they're golden tickets is going to change that.

 

[Mr D]

We also told people that they could apply for UK citizenship and stay permanently. Then told them to fill in a big form and provide evidence measured in inches.
We've been making people feel unwelcome for quite some time.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

It does make you wonder exactly what the plan is with all this.

PLAN? You think there is a plan?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ot-manpower-recruitment-numbers-a8194701.html

 

[Cobby]

I believe there was a system before we joined the EU, to issue visas to temporary agricultural workers, so I guess we could revert to that.

So many things like this are simply hand-waved away by Leave voters; "we used to do it like this, why not again", completely oblivious to the fact that it is not 40 years ago anymore and the world works differently now. The reason Brexit (in its current form) is proving so difficult is that it is simply being treated by the Government Brexiteers as an attempt to snap off 40 years of British progress; we can't go back to how it was, but they simply can't see that. Or worse they can, but want to do it anyway because it won't really harm them.

Perhaps the civil servants who have been busy with Project Fear MkII could be redeployed to do something useful?

Let's not head down this Daily Mail propoganda route. As many of the previous predictions did actually come to fruition and that almost every single economic assessment of Brexit is that it will be Bad™, all you're doing is echoing the vile utterances of the completely disconnected elites like Rees-Mogg.

Berating the civil service just because their expertise outweighs yours and comes to an alternative conclusion, especially when they have no public voice or way to defend themselves against the Brextemists with the public platform and BBC appearances, well, it's not really cricket.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Perhaps the civil servants who have been busy with Project Fear MkII could be redeployed to do something useful?

I find it ironic that the Civil Servants in Whitehall are being accused of pro EU bias when the evidence of 40 years is the opposite. (I have even discussed this with a high up civil servant friend who explained it as down to envy. If one of their number is talented enough to get a higher paid job for the EU the colleagues left behind in London are naturally jealous.)

 

[KM-Tiger]

I find it ironic that the Civil Servants in Whitehall are being accused of pro EU bias

I think it's more dubious economic predictions than pro EU bias. If there is pro EU bias, I think it comes from wanting to put actually leaving the EU onto the "too hard" pile.

Predicting 15 years ahead is just silly IMHO. It would be like predicting the 2007/8 crisis in 1992/3, when come to think of it we had other issues like crashing out of the ERM.

 

[Mr D]

I think it's more dubious economic predictions than pro EU bias. If there is pro EU bias, I think it comes from wanting to put actually leaving the EU onto the "too hard" pile.

Predicting 15 years ahead is just silly IMHO. It would be like predicting the 2007/8 crisis in 1992/3, when come to think of it we had other issues like crashing out of the ERM.

Civil servants are not just required to do their job, they must also cope with political appointees who make policy. If things are being slanted its because higher up want it that way. If things are pessimistic is that not simply being honest? Any idiot can come up with high figures that show in every year in every way things are getting better and better. But would not be realistic.

 

[Cobby]

I think it's more dubious economic predictions than pro EU bias. If there is pro EU bias, I think it comes from wanting to put actually leaving the EU onto the "too hard" pile.

Predicting 15 years ahead is just silly IMHO. It would be like predicting the 2007/8 crisis in 1992/3, when come to think of it we had other issues like crashing out of the ERM.

Not being able to predict an outlying extraordinary event does not detract from good guidance on the general effect and direction of economic activity.

Also worth noting that leaving the EU, in the manner our current government are pursuing, despite the predictions of Brexit campaigners that it would be "the easiest thing in the world", is extremely hard. To achieve it in this manner in such a short space of time and without severe negative economic effects is, well, it's probably impossible.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42977967

If these forecasts are correct, most of the areas with the biggest leave votes will suffer most. They also happen to be some of the poorest regions.

I think this highlights the crux of the issue for a lot of voters out there. More prosperous regions wanted to maintain the status quo, while poorer regions wanted change.

Unfortunately, this kind of change is not one that's going to make the economic situation in those regions any better. They rely on EU development funds more than most, and they have larger manufacturing sectors that are more vulnerable to trade friction.

Could things end up better in the long run? Maybe. But the seriously worrying aspect is a lot of these poorer regions cannot afford to absorb this damage in the hope that fortunes will reverse. They have it bad enough as it is.

I actually hope that these forecasts are wrong. I really do. Double digit slowdowns in places like the North East and West Midlands would be an absolute disaster. Not to mention Northern Ireland where they actually voted to remain.

 

[Mr D]

Yes, makes you wonder why the places that relied on the EU most were most willing to leave.
Perhaps they had other reasons than the support they were getting.

 

[Newchodge]

Yes, makes you wonder why the places that relied on the EU most were most willing to leave.
Perhaps they had other reasons than the support they were getting.

Or perhaps many of the voters were unsophisticated and believed what they wanted to believe, even if it was the rubbish spewed out by the Leave liars. Incidentally I live in the north east and the ill-informed rubbish I heard spouted by the local people in the pub would have made you weep.

 

[Mr D]

Or perhaps many of the voters were unsophisticated and believed what they wanted to believe, even if it was the rubbish spewed out by the Leave liars. Incidentally I live in the north east and the ill-informed rubbish I heard spouted by the local people in the pub would have made you weep.

People always believe what they want to believe. Quite hard to force change - lots of issues have people with beliefs one side or the other of the issue. Abortion, capital punishment, government in power, poll tax (for those who recall that) and invading other countries etc.
Does not make the people wrong, can make them hard to understand and can think they are idiots even but not wrong.
Brexit referendum forced some things out in the open and didn't seem to make Britain a better place that year.

Not helped by multiple political parties who don't seem to know what they want from Brexit. Including the one with most votes.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I actually hope that these forecasts are wrong. I really do. Double digit slowdowns in places like the North East and West Midlands would be an absolute disaster. Not to mention Northern Ireland where they actually voted to remain.

In leaving the EU we do move into uncharted territory so there is a good chance the forecasts are wrong, or they may be right, or partially right.

But having left then our govt would have funds available (which otherwise would have gone to the EU) to use for regional development.

It's another area where it would be good to have a statement of intent from the govt.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

But having left then our govt would have funds available (which otherwise would have gone to the EU) to use for regional development.

And pigs might fly! The UK governments over the years have blocked regional aid on many occasions.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

But having left then our govt would have funds available (which otherwise would have gone to the EU) to use for regional development.

I can't see that happening to be honest.

We are in the thick of austerity even in our current economic situation. If economic growth slows, it's going to cancel out the money saved from not paying into the EU (and then some).

The UK is set to borrow around £50 billion this year. We pay just under £9 billion per year to the EU, so even we saved 100% of that money by spending nothing, we'd have to borrow just over £40 billion instead.

And if these economic forecasts turn out to be correct, that will increase the annual deficit substantially and undo much of the deficit-cutting work over the last five years.

 

[MBE2017]

The UK is set to borrow around £50 billion this year. We pay just under £9 billion per year to the EU, so even we saved 100% of that money by spending nothing, we'd have to borrow just over £40 billion instead.

Conversely, we were set to borrow the same amount whilst in the EU, plus the extra £9 billion to the EU according to your post. The amount to the EU was also set to increase substantially in the future. The UK has been living beyond it’s means for decades, so I not sure what point you were trying to make,

All these forecasts tend to be way off the reality, many take no notice of any upsides, such as increased inward investment, new exports gained etc. The only thing the so called experts have proved over and over again is how wrong they always are.

Once we are out of the EU they will want to keep trading with the UK, I am beginning to think a hard Brexit would be better to get to the end goal if even with a couple of years pain, the EU would feel the pain just as much. All the rest, the leaks,the reports, the EU deciding to make things as hard as possible etc is a preamble, only the end deal matters in reality.

As the time gets nearer you will have Spain facing a huge reduction in tourists, the German car makers seeing exports slump etc with a poor end deal, so many EU countries will start to press for a better deal for all. Self interest will come to the fore, the EU is struggling with the idea of British democracy, still hoping the vote will be overturned, our Gov needs to show it will not, and reject unreasonable terms, such as punitive fines etc being imposed with no right of appeal or legality out of hand.

 

[The Byre]

The German car industry has not been slow in coming forward to lobby anyone and everyone about the importance of the UK market. The same is true for other companies, such as Miele, Bosch, Hoch-Tief, Siemens, BMW and all the other big exporters to the UK.

However, manufacturing in Germany (and German companies here) is not what most people imagine it to be. The largest cost of most products, esp. cars, is not the marginal cost of manufacture, but the origination costs - design, R&D, building the factories, prototyping, test marketing, stuff like that. The first car off the line will have set you back about $1 billion, if it is a totally new model.

Most of the big German manufacturers already have screwdriver shops in the UK and primary manufacture is done in places like Spain, Roumania, Hungary, Poland and Czechia. Bolting the car, washing machine or crane together in the UK in the case of a hard Brexit, would only attract the much smaller tariffs for parts.

The real danger is not manufacturing, but food and banking. The UK financial services industry is huge - the 2nd largest in the World and the largest exporter of financial services such as derivatives trading, primary insurance, currency trading. Germany would love to get a bite of that and is unlikely to want to see a free trade agreement that covers services.

The second danger is food. We export 50% more in value than we import. But our exports are high margin stuff like whiskey, scallops, lobster, lamb - so very sensitive to any delays or tariffs.

However, we import the basics, such as meat, veg and tatties. Nearly 70% of the basic food you eat comes either from or via the EU. Cabbages from Belgium, potatoes from Egypt (via Italy) pork from Poland, Germany and Denmark, fruit from Spain and Holland - and so on.

And remember, that although the various manufacturers and food exporters are calling for UK trade to continue as before, the Number One priority for the EU and its member states is the unity and cohesiveness of the European Union. That come first, above all other considerations.

So for those calling for a hard Brexit, just how hard a Brexit do you want?

 

[Mr D]

In leaving the EU we do move into uncharted territory so there is a good chance the forecasts are wrong, or they may be right, or partially right.

But having left then our govt would have funds available (which otherwise would have gone to the EU) to use for regional development.

It's another area where it would be good to have a statement of intent from the govt.

Spending the money we would have been spending elsewhere.
Between the NHS, nationalisation, divorce bill, help for women, help for men, education, housing, defence, benefits, pensions and so on I can imagine the money could be spent many times over by this or another government.
And until we leave we still pay the EU.

 

[Mr D]

Conversely, we were set to borrow the same amount whilst in the EU, plus the extra £9 billion to the EU according to your post. The amount to the EU was also set to increase substantially in the future. The UK has been living beyond it’s means for decades, so I not sure what point you were trying to make,

All these forecasts tend to be way off the reality, many take no notice of any upsides, such as increased inward investment, new exports gained etc. The only thing the so called experts have proved over and over again is how wrong they always are.

Once we are out of the EU they will want to keep trading with the UK, I am beginning to think a hard Brexit would be better to get to the end goal if even with a couple of years pain, the EU would feel the pain just as much. All the rest, the leaks,the reports, the EU deciding to make things as hard as possible etc is a preamble, only the end deal matters in reality.

As the time gets nearer you will have Spain facing a huge reduction in tourists, the German car makers seeing exports slump etc with a poor end deal, so many EU countries will start to press for a better deal for all. Self interest will come to the fore, the EU is struggling with the idea of British democracy, still hoping the vote will be overturned, our Gov needs to show it will not, and reject unreasonable terms, such as punitive fines etc being imposed with no right of appeal or legality out of hand.

Increased inward investment? By companies looking to do what?
While we are in the EU then investment in Britain makes sense, leaving the EU then investment in the EU makes sense for those looking to access EU market.

New exports gained may, if we are lucky, offset exports lost due to border / price / VAT.

EU as a whole may want to keep trading with the UK, individual companies may choose otherwise.
Buy from a british company or buy from a company without customs delays that may be cheaper that's within the EU.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Conversely, we were set to borrow the same amount whilst in the EU, plus the extra £9 billion to the EU according to your post. The amount to the EU was also set to increase substantially in the future. The UK has been living beyond it’s means for decades, so I not sure what point you were trying to make,

The point is the deficit is the difference between the UK's income and expenses.

No longer paying the EU membership fee will reduce expenses, but slower economic growth over the next 15 years (if those forecasts are accurate) will reduce government income compared to what it would have been.

It's therefore plausible that the country's finances will end up a lot worse off even with that £9bn annual saving.

All these forecasts tend to be way off the reality, many take no notice of any upsides, such as increased inward investment, new exports gained etc. The only thing the so called experts have proved over and over again is how wrong they always are.

Where do you expect the inward investment and new exports to arise from when we're resetting all our trade agreements to zero, and it takes an average of 5-10 years to negotiate, sign and implement new deals?

We are losing the single market, over 60 EU-brokered trade agreements and hundreds of secondary agreements. We have 15 years to build them back up to square one when trade agreements take 5-10 years each - not even counting the phased implementation that's typical of FTAs.

It logically doesn't add up.

As the time gets nearer you will have Spain facing a huge reduction in tourists, the German car makers seeing exports slump etc with a poor end deal, so many EU countries will start to press for a better deal for all. Self interest will come to the fore, the EU is struggling with the idea of British democracy, still hoping the vote will be overturned, our Gov needs to show it will not, and reject unreasonable terms, such as punitive fines etc being imposed with no right of appeal or legality out of hand.

You know that the EU-27 have unanimously agreed every EU position in these negotiations so far, right?

There's no one above the members dictating the terms. The EU's attitude and demands are coming directly from the likes of Germany and Spain. Barnier is just the messenger. The representative of the 27 countries of the EU.

For those who keep advocating no deal: have you ever wondered why the UK Government isn't doing exactly that if it's nowhere near as much of a problem as some claim?

People on the street suggest walking away as it won't be so bad and the EU will suffer more. Meanwhile, the UK Government and Whitehall - far better versed in the inner workings of the relationship - are taking a much more cautious approach.

Why? Apparently it won't be so bad, and it would certainly please a lot of leave voters. So why aren't they doing it?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

the EU is struggling with the idea of British democracy,

I too am struggling with the idea of British democracy as it seems are most of the MPs in Westminster. Can you explain why Parliament is now seen as the legitimate battle ground of a handful of right wing wreckers with more interest in their version of the Tory party than the interests of the British people?

 

[Mr D]

I too am struggling with the idea of British democracy as it seems are most of the MPs in Westminster. Can you explain why Parliament is now seen as the legitimate battle ground of a handful of right wing wreckers with more interest in their version of the Tory party than the interests of the British people?

Pretty much described parliament for the past several centuries if you remove the word tory.
Why expect this parliament to be different from the previous dozens?

The whole reason people band together in parties is because they broadly agree with the idea of the party. And within that party you will find a range of people some who push one aspect or another, a particular ideology or another, even a disagreement on a major issue from what some others in the party has.
Get 2 people in a party the odds are they won't agree to the same degree on every issue. The bigger parties have dozens of MPs, hundreds of staff and thousands of supporters.
Who will not all agree with each other.

 

[MBE2017]

I too am struggling with the idea of British democracy as it seems are most of the MPs in Westminster. Can you explain why Parliament is now seen as the legitimate battle ground of a handful of right wing wreckers with more interest in their version of the Tory party than the interests of the British people?

I never mentioned parliament, the EU cannot fathom the idea that the people chose to leave the EU, more still that the Gov will not re run the vote until the decision is reversed.

I agree many MP’s from ALL parties are putting their own interests ahead of the country, it is not just the right wing. Many should hang their heads in shame, we should be working together as a country, yet many choose to use it to cause trouble.

 

[Mr D]

I never mentioned parliament, the EU cannot fathom the idea that the people chose to leave the EU, more still that the Gov will not re run the vote until the decision is reversed.

I agree many MP’s from ALL parties are putting their own interests ahead of the country, it is not just the right wing. Many should hang their heads in shame, we should be working together as a country, yet many choose to use it to cause trouble.

What we need is a government of national unity.
What we have, for some strange reason, is effectively a hung parliament where no single group can generate a majority for any one vote. And most parties can have disagreements within their MPs regarding anything to do with Brexit.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ll-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says

What's surprising is this seems to suggest that the UK is already prepared to sign legally binding text that keeps Northern Ireland under EU law after the transition date, but with a clause that annuls the arrangement IF they happen to find a solution in the mean time.

It seems they aren't kicking the can as far down the road as I expected. Perhaps a partial acceptance of fate.

At the end of the day though, this is the choice of the UK Government. No, it's not even the choice of the people, as no one voted to leave the single market and customs union as well.

As a country, we have a very unique situation in terms of the Island of Ireland. That situation simply doesn't work if we decide to leave the customs union. Solutions for all three are incompatible in a number of ways. It's an unfortunate fact of the matter.

What I find most frustrating is the strong Eurosceptic pressure that seems to bring lots of complaints without any answers. I respect the right for everyone to bring their opinions to the table, but few seem to have any alternative solutions other than walking away on the assumption that the EU will come grovelling back.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...da-car-manufacturing-deal-trade-a8201286.html

More realistic but unhappy news.

 

[KM-Tiger]

No, it's not even the choice of the people, as no one voted to leave the single market and customs union as well.

Agreed that question wasn't on the ballot paper, but it was made clear, by David Cameron and many others, that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market and customs union.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Agreed that question wasn't on the ballot paper, but it was made clear, by David Cameron and many others, that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market and customs union.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...arage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

It was the leavers who said we would stay in the single market.

 

[Newchodge]

Agreed that question wasn't on the ballot paper, but it was made clear, by David Cameron and many others, that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market and customs union.

Actually it wasn't. It was made very clear by the Leave campaign that it didn't mean leaving the single market and the customs union. They kept going on about the Norway system. Many in the Reamin campaign said it would mean leaving, but the Leave campaign labelled that Project Fear.

 

[Mr D]

Agreed that question wasn't on the ballot paper, but it was made clear, by David Cameron and many others, that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market and customs union.

Never figured out why some think leaving the EU meant not leaving the EU.