Brexit negotiations

[quikshop]

FUNNY? The potential destruction of our businesses and communities is FUNNY? That opinion may be wrong, maybe misguided but FUNNY? I despair

Lol your post translates into PAAAANNNIIICCCCCC!!!!!!

Destruction of our businesses, really??

Vodafone ceases trading because of Brexit? Oh wait they're an international behemoth who are buying up vast swathes of European network real estate.
The corner shop ceases trading because of Brexit? No impact whatsoever because the European suppliers to their wholesalers do not want to lose trade.
The high street store ceases trading because of Brexit? No, it will cease trading because they're yesteryear's business model, but you remainers just can't help yourselves.

The only impact the vast majority of people will see is a modest surcharge on travelling to Costa Del Brit for their summer escape. The devaluation of the Pound will more than offset the WTO tariffs.

Calm down, it'll all be fine

 

[Cobby]

Lol your post translates into PAAAANNNIIICCCCCC!!!!!!

Destruction of our businesses, really??

Vodafone ceases trading because of Brexit? Oh wait they're an international behemoth who are buying up vast swathes of European network real estate.
The corner shop ceases trading because of Brexit? No impact whatsoever because the European suppliers to their wholesalers do not want to lose trade.
The high street store ceases trading because of Brexit? No, it will cease trading because they're yesteryear's business model, but you remainers just can't help yourselves

You're right, we Remainers just can't help ourselves when it comes to listening to available evidence.

Brexit has already put dozens of businesses to the wall.
Multinationals have cut investment in the UK and with that investment goes jobs.
Other institutions such as pharmaceutical producers are leaving. Regulatory institutions are leaving. Manufacturing institutions are leaving. That's a lot of jobs and lost earning potential that doesn't end up ploughed back into the economy.

The high-street stores are still adapting to competition from online, but that alone won't be enough to bury them, but Brexit as well? That might.

As for corner shops, do you genuinely believe the "European Suppliers" get some magical ticket to bypass the trading barriers!? Prices will rise and that gets passed on to consumers.

Right now Brexit is costing us far more than our EU membership payments would be and with no positive outcome in sight (even with May's partial deal).

The devaluation of the Pound will more than offset the WTO tariffs.

Some WTO Import tariffs can be high; the maximum on Dairy is 218%. How does a weak pound
offset that when the consumer comes to pay for it?

 

[Jasondb]

Sovereignty -
- the ability to send back EU murderers after their sentence to their country of birth.
- the ability to insist on the larger boundary to protect British fishing waters, currently a host of EU countries would block that - formerly 150,000 British jobs were in fishing.

I can't understand why we are not just agreeing to meet EU laws applying to our exports to the EU, instead we are still signed up to the whole package.

 

[Newchodge]

Sovereignty -
- the ability to send back EU murderers after their sentence to their country of birth.
- the ability to insist on the larger boundary to protect British fishing waters, currently a host of EU countries would block that - formerly 150,000 British jobs were in fishing.

I can't understand why we are not just agreeing to meet EU laws applying to our exports to the EU, instead we are still signed up to the whole package.

You don't really understand any of it, do you?

 

[Mr D]

Sovereignty -
- the ability to send back EU murderers after their sentence to their country of birth.
- the ability to insist on the larger boundary to protect British fishing waters, currently a host of EU countries would block that - formerly 150,000 British jobs were in fishing.

I can't understand why we are not just agreeing to meet EU laws applying to our exports to the EU, instead we are still signed up to the whole package.

Yes, send them criminals back. Even if the criminals concerned do not speak the language or know the customs. Some of those criminals came to the UK when they were babies.
That policy by the way works pretty well, we've had considerable numbers of overseas criminals deported to the UK from around the world (its not just a policy for Europe) after serving time. Much to the relief of those countries doing it.

Larger boundary to protect British fishing waters - are we prepared to go to war over that? Boarding fishing boats or firing into the sea near them then escorting them away may be options. Just not very good options.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Larger boundary to protect British fishing waters - are we prepared to go to war over that? Boarding fishing boats or firing into the sea near them then escorting them away may be options. Just not very good options.

No war needed.

On leaving the EU then under international law our fishing waters become ours again. Doubtless EU countries will want access, and that might be sensible given we no longer have a fishing fleet big enough.

So we should charge money for that?

 

[Cobby]

Sovereignty -
- the ability to send back EU murderers after their sentence to their country of birth.
- the ability to insist on the larger boundary to protect British fishing waters, currently a host of EU countries would block that - formerly 150,000 British jobs were in fishing

Okay, well, let's do a little dive into this.

Are these your primary concerns? Which cases are you talking about specifically? From whom do you wish to 'protect' British fishing waters?

I can't understand why we are not just agreeing to meet EU laws applying to our exports to the EU, instead we are still signed up to the whole package.

Well, this isn't the place for 40 years of history, and social and political evolution to be laid out before you. It's an incredibly complex topic. Suffice it to say, "because we benefit hugely from being members."

 

[Jasondb]

Yes, send them criminals back. Even if the criminals concerned do not speak the language or know the customs. Some of those criminals came to the UK when they were babies.

Larger boundary to protect British fishing waters - are we prepared to go to war over that? Boarding fishing boats or firing into the sea near them then escorting them away may be options. Just not very good options.

On crime I'm pretty sure the foreign babies category is virtually insignificant.
I would like both entry and exit visa like the Southern Hemisphere do.

On boats I think we might need more patrol boats ready to fine or seize assets.

Okay, well, let's do a little dive into this.

Are these your primary concerns? Which cases are you talking about specifically? From whom do you wish to 'protect' British fishing waters?

No, paramount is sovereignty yet these are good examples and one is where we have an asset that could create more jobs and taxpayers.

Well, this isn't the place for 40 years of history, and social and political evolution to be laid out before you. It's an incredibly complex topic. Suffice it to say, "because we benefit hugely from being members."

Some business interests certainly do benefit yet many people do not. Good businesses can adapt under headings of market or strategic risk,

 

[Mr D]

On crime I'm pretty sure the foreign babies category is virtually insignificant.
I would like both entry and exit visa like the Southern Hemisphere do.

On boats I think we might need more patrol boats ready to fine or seize assets.



Some business interests certainly do benefit yet many people do not. Good businesses can adapt under headings of market or strategic risk,

Well good news then is that its not just an EU issue. Quite a number of countries do it.
How do you feel about British citizens who have committed murder, rape, talking in the theatre etc being deported back to UK after sentence completed?
Even after leaving the EU.

Patrol boats, not sure they fine anyone. Perhaps you refer to particular officers? Can do it from an aircraft carrier too.
We have some nice destroyers, quick little ships. Well, compared to some fishing boats.

 

[Cobby]

Some business interests certainly do benefit yet many people do not. Good businesses can adapt under headings of market or strategic risk,

Everybody benefits, some a lot more than others, admittedly. Overall our EU membership has been hugely beneficial for us, economically, socially and environmentally speaking.


What about this bit...?

Okay, well, let's do a little dive into this.

Are these your primary concerns? Which cases are you talking about specifically? From whom do you wish to 'protect' British fishing waters?

 

[Cobby]

Two things worth remarking upon recently.

The first is that the draft Withdrawal Agreement is to almost nobody's liking. There is a good chance that when it gets voted upon, it'll fail. That leaves the government with two options, No Deal and No Brexit.

No Deal is untenable and most MPs understand this so they will be struggling to find an alternative. No Deal is much worse than the bad deal of the WA, but will they chose that over No Brexit, a route that can be taken via a People's Vote?

To this end it feels like the right-wing are starting to ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric yet again, just in case we end up with a PV. May kicked things off with her pretty disgusting comment on EU citizens being "queue jumpers", Tim Montgomerie also offering up that EU citizens exercising their rights to FoM are "vile".
Then the BBC (increasingly supportive of Brexit and the right-wing) chip in, with articles like this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46223217 - a "Family & Education" news article, and this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46282158 - an article originally headlined "Asylum Seekers in Vermin-infested housing". Both headlined in the style of The Daily Mail.


The second thing is the news that Theresa May's cabinet are looking to encouraging a market crash should the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement fails (here) so that MPs will be panicked into voting for it second time around. I know we live in a time where nazis have resurfaced and everything is becoming more extreme, but that it simply outrageous.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The second thing is the news that Theresa May's cabinet are looking to encouraging a market crash should the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement fails (here) so that MPs will be panicked into voting for it second time around.

I read something along these lines yesterday too. I think a second Commons vote on the deal is very much on the cards. Accept it being rejected once, watch the markets and sterling take a nose dive, and then ask the Commons to vote again so MPs may be spooked into accepting it the second time around.

Ironic, really. The government is vehemently against a second say for the public, but they're already lining one up for MPs.

All I do know is that May's deal has a very slim chance of passing through Parliament, but letting the UK fall out of the EU without a deal has an equally slim chance as well.

I do think that no deal has now become the least likely of the three options. Tory Brexiteers resisting the deal may just push a bit too far and then result in no Brexit altogether. It could be a strange partisan mix of MPs avoiding no deal, and the Brexiteers indirectly aiding their cause by wanting no deal too much.

PS: If anyone is wondering how the Brexiteer MPs can't see this coming, bear in mind that they're currently pushing for a no confidence vote that is highly likely to see May remain in power and immune from any such attacks for a year. And even if May was ousted, the chance of Tory MPs voting in a new PM that is committed to leaving without a deal is even less likely. So yeah, not very smart.

 

[Cobby]

I read something along these lines yesterday too. I think a second Commons vote on the deal is very much on the cards. Accept it being rejected once, watch the markets and sterling take a nose dive, and then ask the Commons to vote again so MPs may be spooked into accepting it the second time around.

Do you think the market reaction will be dampened by the advanced knowledge of this?

PS: If anyone is wondering how the Brexiteer MPs can't see this coming, bear in mind that they're currently pushing for a no confidence vote that is highly likely to see May remain in power and immune from any such attacks for a year. And even if May was ousted, the chance of Tory MPs voting in a new PM that is committed to leaving without a deal is even less likely. So yeah, not very smart.

I was under the impression they had already failed to reach the 48 letters required, so there won't even be a vote.

 

[Newchodge]

PS: If anyone is wondering how the Brexiteer MPs can't see this coming, bear in mind that they're currently pushing for a no confidence vote that is highly likely to see May remain in power and immune from any such attacks for a year. And even if May was ousted, the chance of Tory MPs voting in a new PM that is committed to leaving without a deal is even less likely. So yeah, not very smart.

I wasn't wondering that on the grounds that this particular group of MPs has already, over the last 2 years, demonstrated that they are as thick as it is possible to be.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Do you think the market reaction will be dampened by the advanced knowledge of this?

Slightly, but that's all.

Market movements are largely based on people trying to figure out what everyone else is going to do. If everyone thinks everyone else is going to sell off in the event of the deal being rejected, they'll try to sell off before they do, and ultimately end up causing the market turmoil they tried to avoid.

But even in cases where investors are thinking further ahead, this could bring the opportunity to sell at the peak and then re-buy lower, so it could be a profit move just as much as a damage limitation one. There will be plenty of shorts as well, I'm sure.

Once again though, much like the referendum campaign itself, we're leaving behind logic to focus more on emotion. May is trying to do anything she can to scare MPs into accepting the deal out of fear of what happens if they don't.

Take this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-referendum-theresa-may-latest-a8644141.html

The Independent claims that Rudd has "undermined the PM". In reality, this is specifically engineered to scare the no-deal Brexiteers into accepting the deal.

This is not surprising. The bluff of "no deal is better than a bad deal" was only for the purpose of EU negotiations. Now that deal is signed, they've shifted to hinting about the possibility of a second referendum where the Brexiteer MPs could lose their Brexit altogether.

It's a risky, but probably wise, political gamble. The route to the deal being approved is difficult however it's taken, but the best chance is probably to get all her Tory MPs on side and then rely on a minority of Labour rebels.

I was under the impression they had already failed to reach the 48 letters required, so there won't even be a vote.

It seems so. The mere fact they tried though is baffling. Is it likely to put a "no deal" PM in power? No. Does it increase the chances of Corbyn becoming PM? Yes. I have no idea what they're trying to achieve.

 

[Mr D]

Scott, for every sell there is a buy. Or else the sell doesn't happen.

 

[Jasondb]

Well good news then is that its not just an EU issue. Quite a number of countries do it.
How do you feel about British citizens who have committed murder, rape, talking in the theatre etc being deported back to UK after sentence completed?
Even after leaving the EU.
.

Not sure what you mean by talking in the theatre unless a humorous remark going over my head....
Otherwise yes, if British criminals abroad have served their sentence and are then being deported back to old Blighty I would salute those countries for in all probability they were already on the run from British justice.

 

[Mr D]

Not sure what you mean by talking in the theatre unless a humorous remark going over my head....
Otherwise yes, if British criminals abroad have served their sentence and are then being deported back to old Blighty I would salute those countries for in all probability they were already on the run from British justice.

I was giving examples of appalling crimes against other people.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I was giving examples of appalling crimes against other people.

There are worse crimes than talking in the theatre.

How about eating a kebab in the theatre?

Or Theresa May's surrender document?

 

[Mr D]

There are worse crimes than talking in the theatre.

How about eating a kebab in the theatre?

Or Theresa May's surrender document?

I've not come across the eating a kebab in the theatre.
Not seen the PMs surrender document, has she filed it with the appropriate MP? Was under the impression she was waiting on the 48 letters being sent.

 

[Justin Smith]

Parliament is made up of politicians.
You may not have been bothered by Europe, how many votes did UKIP get at its peak a few years back?
That's an indication that Europe meant something to sufficient voters that they decided to vote that party no?

Oh and by the way did you vote in the EU referendum Blair promised?

Before Cameron got started on his failed gamble to reunite the Tory party most people in this country weren`t that bothered about Europe one way or the other, the proof :

 

[Mr D]

Before Cameron got started on his failed gamble to reunite the Tory party most people in this country weren`t that bothered about Europe one way or the other, the proof :

So back in Spring 2015 when the general election was taking place the number was what? 10%?
A referendum was promised. 2015 general election result - 3.9 million votes for UKIP, a party for whom the EU was a major issue. And 3.9 million voters - is that not far from 10% of the registered voters (44 million)? Its just under 9%.
When it took place in 2016 there were what? 30% plus making EU one of the most important isssues?

And yet the turnout on the referendum was bigger than any general election. And a majority of those who voted chose to vote to leave. Hey look that wasn't far from a third of the registered voters!
Perhaps the number who thought about the EU was higher than the number to whom it was a number one priority.

Regardless of polls, the actual vote on the EU indicates a LOT of people cared enough about the issue to cast their vote. 72.2% of the registered voters chose to vote, that's over 33.5 million voters. Bit bigger than a poll eh?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Or Theresa May's surrender document?

I'm not a huge fan of this deal but I don't get this level of hostility.

This is about doing Brexit in a way that has the best chance of mitigating the damage while satisfying the issue of the Irish border.

What exactly did people expect? What did they see coming when we had to deal with a hard customs border between the UK and the EU where we can't create a hard border? Why is it such a surprise that politicians want to spend a few more years preparing for Brexit if it can prevent many Brexit-related issues instead of rushing out as quickly as possible?

If it was so easy to do it the "other" way, why wouldn't May just do that? Why wouldn't MPs back her to do it as well? It delivers on the referendum result, satisfies the majority of the Tory base, and generally makes her life a lot easier.

Even Rees-Mogg et al don't just want a plain "no deal" Brexit. Their push for that is with the stipulation of mass deregulation and import tariff elimination. Ask them if they'd still think no deal is so great if they knew they were unable to get both of those things. These are the "opportunities" they speak of, and their predictions hinge on both of them happening.

It's clear now that "no deal" has been a bluff all along. It's too damaging, and MPs know it. May talked it up during the EU negotiations to bend the EU's hand, and now she's got a deal, suddenly they barely mention it any more. Heck, her cabinet is even starting to hint at the possibility of no Brexit to try to get the hardline Brexiteers to play ball.

If we do end up leaving without a deal, it will be entirely by accident.

 

[Mr D]

I'm not a huge fan of this deal but I don't get this level of hostility.

This is about doing Brexit in a way that has the best chance of mitigating the damage while satisfying the issue of the Irish border.

What exactly did people expect? What did they see coming when we had to deal with a hard customs border between the UK and the EU where we can't create a hard border? Why is it such a surprise that politicians want to spend a few more years preparing for Brexit if it can prevent many Brexit-related issues instead of rushing out as quickly as possible?

If it was so easy to do it the "other" way, why wouldn't May just do that? Why wouldn't MPs back her to do it as well? It delivers on the referendum result, satisfies the majority of the Tory base, and generally makes her life a lot easier.

Even Rees-Mogg et al don't just want a plain "no deal" Brexit. Their push for that is with the stipulation of mass deregulation and import tariff elimination. Ask them if they'd still think no deal is so great if they knew they were unable to get both of those things. These are the "opportunities" they speak of, and their predictions hinge on both of them happening.

It's clear now that "no deal" has been a bluff all along. It's too damaging, and MPs know it. May talked it up during the EU negotiations to bend the EU's hand, and now she's got a deal, suddenly they barely mention it any more. Heck, her cabinet is even starting to hint at the possibility of no Brexit to try to get the hardline Brexiteers to play ball.

If we do end up leaving without a deal, it will be entirely by accident.

Yes we have spent all this time demanding she make a deal, she does a deal and gets slammed for making a deal!

It may be a bad deal, time will tell. Its something to move on - as you say no deal is an option, one we may still end up with.
MPs choosing ideology or simply voting against the deal because this party leader is pushing it.

Guys, read the documents - don't think of who is pushing it, think of the agreements. Can they be improved? Probably, for a price, and pretty certain that any improvement will also have other changes made that we won't like. You open an agreement to changes then don't be surprised when changes making it worse for us are also made.
The other side is never going to give us a better deal than a member state gets.

We can stick our noses in the air and walk away from any deal, leaving a mess for some later parliament to try and sort out and some government to negotiate. At quite likely a higher cost.

 

[KM-Tiger]

It may be a bad deal

There is no 'may' about it (haha!).

It's the most appalling piece of treason, written like we had just lost a war. The victorious power will have the right to regulate us, and we have no say in that. And our country may be partitioned if it suits the EU. There is no legal way to end this nighmare unless the EU agrees. Oh and significant reparations to pay.

The EU will not have our best interests at heart. We will be treated as a colony that can be exploited, ie milked of cash, and forbidden to do anything that might make our economic situation better.

As a committed leaver, I find myself in the curious position of actually preferring remain to this dreadful Withdrawal Agreement. If it was a binary choice I'd definitely vote remain. At least we would continue to have some sort of say, and there would be a legal means of ending the nightmare at a later date.

Meanwhile in the Eurozone, the politburo is preparing to 'discipline' the democratically-elected govt of Italy for daring to draw up a budget that could well help Italy get back on its feet. Hats off to the Italians for telling the politburo where to go.

 

[Mr D]

There is no 'may' about it (haha!).

It's the most appalling piece of treason, written like we had just lost a war. The victorious power will have the right to regulate us, and we have no say in that. And our country may be partitioned if it suits the EU. There is no legal way to end this nighmare unless the EU agrees. Oh and significant reparations to pay.

The EU will not have our best interests at heart. We will be treated as a colony that can be exploited, ie milked of cash, and forbidden to do anything that might make our economic situation better.

As a committed leaver, I find myself in the curious position of actually preferring remain to this dreadful Withdrawal Agreement. If it was a binary choice I'd definitely vote remain. At least we would continue to have some sort of say, and there would be a legal means of ending the nightmare at a later date.

Meanwhile in the Eurozone, the politburo is preparing to 'discipline' the democratically-elected govt of Italy for daring to draw up a budget that could well help Italy get back on its feet. Hats off to the Italians for telling the politburo where to go.

I bow to your knowledge of the deal, I am only about page 140 so far with just 8 pages of notes. Really picked the wrong time of year to release the document, will be new year before I have read it.

Of course the EU will not have our best interests at heart. They are the other side. They should have the EUs best interests at heart.

Which includes the disciplining of a government that goes against the agreement about budgets that the country had previously agreed to.
Or should agreements not be kept unless convenient?

Italy does not want Itexit. It wants to do what it can get away with.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

As a committed leaver, I find myself in the curious position of actually preferring remain to this dreadful Withdrawal Agreement. If it was a binary choice I'd definitely vote remain. At least we would continue to have some sort of say, and there would be a legal means of ending the nightmare at a later date.

You're not the only one I don't think.

The Irish border, ladies and gentlemen. It was always the factor that was most likely to derail a clean break, and it has.

And if we're to guarantee that no hard border will ever return (which should be as much of a commitment from ourselves as it is from the EU and ROI) then these really are the only two choices: take a backstop deal, or don't leave.

Then we've got Gibraltar:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-way-over-gibraltar-after-spains-veto-threat

I think if there was any slim chance of the deal passing in Parliament, it may have just slipped away entirely.

But is it any great surprise? We seem to think of ourselves as this isolated little island, but we (including Gibraltar) have got two highly, highly contentious land borders with two EU members. Our situation really is unique, not just in the EU, but in the whole world. The Irish border alone means that it's far more difficult for us to leave the customs union compared to any other member.

We made our bed decades ago. In some cases even centuries. Now we must lie in it.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I am only about page 140 so far with just 8 pages of notes.

Unless you are legally trained you a probably wasting your time.

The Spectator has a very good summary of points, and replies from Downing St.

 

[KM-Tiger]

The Irish border alone means that it's far more difficult for us to leave the customs union compared to any other member.

Cannot find a reference right now, but head of customs for HMRC is on record to a Select Committee this week stating that a hard border will not be required even in the event of no deal.

So we won't build one, ROI won't build one. EU won't require one, so where has this massive red herring come from? And FoM is guaranteed by the bilateral agreement which pre dates the EU.

 

[Mr D]

Unless you are legally trained you a probably wasting your time.

The Spectator has a very good summary of points, and replies from Downing St.

I may indeed be wasting my time. Until I have read it I cannot know can I?



Tell me, does this summary differ in any particular from other summaries?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Cannot find a reference right now, but head of customs for HMRC is on record to a Select Committee this week stating that a hard border will not be required even in the event of no deal.

So we won't build one, ROI won't build one. EU won't require one, so where has this massive red herring come from? And FoM is guaranteed by the bilateral agreement which pre dates the EU.

That's just an opinion from one side of it, and it wasn't quite said in such a confident way:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44230523

Max fac would mean the need for customs controls but that those controls could be operated without physical infrastructure at the border.

He admitted that presents "a design challenge".

"If you look around the world, even the most technologically advanced customs borders generally involve some kind of infrastructure."

So he's saying that the border may not require infrastructure, but this is already the view of the UK and the EU in terms of the deal they have agreed on anyway, so nothing new.

It's important to bear in mind that a UK/EU free trade deal doesn't magically solve this problem. Perhaps people are just too distracted with current affairs, or maybe they'd prefer not to think about it, but either way, this is taking a problem we currently can't solve, kicking it down the road for a few years, and hoping that by then we can somehow negotiate a FTA that does solve it.

But it won't be much easier to do than it is now, even with a comprehensive trade agreement (unless that FTA effectively combines the UK into a customs union with the EU).

That's what the backstop is for. It's the plan B if we can't find any other way. A guarantee, whatever happens. And despite this only being a backstop (so there's no guarantee it would ever be applied) I think politicians are spooked about it because they know we probably won't be able to solve the unsolvable and will therefore see the backstop come into force.

But this is the deck of cards we've got, so we have to play with them.

 

[Newchodge]

As a committed leaver, I find myself in the curious position of actually preferring remain to this dreadful Withdrawal Agreement. If it was a binary choice I'd definitely vote remain. At least we would continue to have some sort of say, and there would be a legal means of ending the nightmare at a later date.

But wasn't that always the problem? We have to have a worse relationship outside the EU than within it, otherwise why would anyone be a member? But we need a close relationship to ensure economic stability. So we have to be worse off outside than staying in as we lose all involvement in decision making. The Leave campaigners kept shouting we could get the same as Norway, but what on earth would have been the point? No say, no control, continued payment and continued migration. No deal is really the only option but the potential economic consequences are huge. That is what remain supporters were screaming about 2 years ago, and were called scare-mongerers.

Given a totally free hand, what do you want fromBrexit?

 

[KM-Tiger]

Given a totally free hand, what do you want fromBrexit?

Well that's a nice easy one.

Leave the EU, institutions, single market, customs union, jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Have free trade deal that would enable EU countries to continue to sell to us tariff free and vice versa, including services.
Rejoin certain EU agencies. eg Erasmus, security, and science things.

 

[Mr D]

Well that's a nice easy one.

Leave the EU, institutions, single market, customs union, jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Have free trade deal that would enable EU countries to continue to sell to us tariff free and vice versa, including services.
Rejoin certain EU agencies. eg Erasmus, security, and science things.

Yes we could refuse to have import charges on items. That is of course up to us - but those items we'd have no import charges for anyone. So America can sell those items to us without import charges as easy as the EU can. A trader in Goa can sell those items to us without charges too.

The EU companies buying from us? Oh dear.
The EU would apply standard import duties until such time as we have a deal on trade - which as has been noted on here will take years. Decades even to be fully in effect.
And the EU limits on imports would apply to us whereas currently they don't apply to our goods.

Is there any reason for the EU to do trade agreements before we start to pay whatever size bill?

 

[Newchodge]

Well that's a nice easy one.

Leave the EU, institutions, single market, customs union, jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Have free trade deal that would enable EU countries to continue to sell to us tariff free and vice versa, including services.
Rejoin certain EU agencies. eg Erasmus, security, and science things.

So, effectively, you want to turn the clock back 40+ years and start again. Do you think that is achievable?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I still think these "opportunities" for independent trade deals are a lot more limited than some make out.

We have well over 60 free trade agreements and accessory agreements across the world due to EU membership. And that's on top of completely frictionless trade with our 27 closest neighbours and many of our largest trading partners.

We'll lose single market membership that won't come anywhere near close to being replicated to the same degree, and have to re-negotiate every deal and agreement but without the leverage of an economy that rivals the United States. We'll also be in a naturally weaker position due to a lack of trade deals, and the urgency to build them, that other countries can exploit.

It's going to take decades just to build up the trade frameworks we had before, and even then, we're highly unlikely to end up in a more favourable position when all is said and done. Particularly as I'm sure we'll be opposed to certain levels of visa liberalisation from emerging economies.

As for what the EU may or may not do in future, we have opt-outs, we negotiated a legally-binding opt-out of the "ever closer union", and we'd always have the ability to leave in future if things did truly turn sour. If people think leaving on WTO terms without a deal isn't so bad, then we're capable of doing that any time in future fairly swiftly.

I look at everything that's going on and just ask myself what the point is. I sincerely wish we'd just focus on leveraging the lucrative opportunities we have to grow the economy and improve the quality of life for everyone instead of throwing a spanner in it for the next 20 years.

 

[Mr D]

EU have now agreed the deal.

Let's see if our parliament agrees to it too.

Labour luckily enough doesn't control its MPs very well and they can follow a great example of voting their conscience even when the party leader wishes them to vote a particular way.

The SNP will vote against they have said, as will the DUP and Greens. Haven't yet heard the latest for the Lib Dems. And some of the Conservatives will also vote against the deal.

Its anyone's guess as to whether the deal is agreed or not.

 

[Newchodge]

EU have now agreed the deal.

Let's see if our parliament agrees to it too.

Labour luckily enough doesn't control its MPs very well and they can follow a great example of voting their conscience even when the party leader wishes them to vote a particular way.

The SNP will vote against they have said, as will the DUP and Greens. Haven't yet heard the latest for the Lib Dems. And some of the Conservatives will also vote against the deal.

Its anyone's guess as to whether the deal is agreed or not.

The Lib Dems should vote against as their policy is Remain.

The 3 big questions:

Has the Project Fear about (pro-Leave) accept this or face No Brexit and (pro-Remain) accept this or leave with No Deal had any effect?

How many Tories are prepared to risk a Corbyn government?

How many Labour are afraid to risk a Corbyn government?

 

[KM-Tiger]

So, effectively, you want to turn the clock back 40+ years and start again. Do you think that is achievable?

I wish you could turn the clock back. I would have voted quite differently in 1975.

But back then, in a generally high tariff world, the Common Market seemed a good idea. Shame we were lied to about the implications on sovereignty.

 

[KM-Tiger]

How many Tories are prepared to risk a Corbyn government?

How many Labour are afraid to risk a Corbyn government?

Very good question.

People like me could find themselves with no one to vote for.

Do I not turn up, or spoil the paper which is the nearest you can get to recording an abstention.