Brexit negotiations
- Thread starter Scott-Copywriter
- Start date
The ordinary voter last voted to change parliament before this was raised as an issue for most of them.
And can change parliament again only at the next general election.
Plenty of people protested what MPs are doing. Cannot force MPs to vote a particular way.
There's one MP who for many years voted against his own party many times. He's now leader of his party and still finds his MPs voting against his party.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
So undemocratic decisions taken behind closed doors without proper debate is OK? Is this really why we are leaving the EU?
That and a blue passport for Nigel Farrago.
Upvote
0
What is rubbish? Are you suggesting that Henry VII powers are not an internal matter for the UK ?
Upvote
0
I did not say that they were OK. How did you get that from my post. I said that they were internal as in internal to the UK. The laws that Scott and I were discussing are the laws that the EU could make during the transition period, when the UK presumably will not have any EU MEP's. Laws that the UK would have no say on.
Upvote
0
No I am suggesting that legislation without representation does not differ, for the elctorate, whoever is making those decisions.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Probably, but don't take this as gospel, because you were talking rubbish.
Upvote
0
I will not trade insults I am afraid. If you choose to insult members on this forum that is up to you.
Upvote
0
Maybe, but "that's what people voted for", so what's the issue?
Please stop trying to redefine democracy to fit your argument, whatever that argument actually is.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
The EU will continue to make laws with proper consideration, research and debate in a grown-up democratic manner.
The UK intends to use outdated Henry VIII powers to alter our laws with no oversight by our elected Parliament. A law could be changed after a minister has a boozy lunch with a lobbyist. I remember the fortunately defeated Clause 43. This was a suggestion that all of the UK's copyright could be handed over to the likes of Google at the say so of just one minister under Henry VIII powers.
Upvote
0
The Henry VIII matter is an issue which I certainly think is a serious one and it is a matter which could bring down this government. My point, which seems to have caused people here to insult me over, is that it is an internal matter in the UK which MP's can call a vote of no confidence on and cause a General Election.
The laws that the EU could bring in during the transition period, might well be brought in after "proper consideration, research and debate in a grown-up democratic manner" , but if there are no MEP's from the UK, what part of that process will be democratic as far as the UK voter is concerned? At least now when the UK is a full member of the EU, UK MEP's can be involved in the debate. My understanding is that the UK MEP's will disappear after March 2018.
Upvote
0
Hasn't brought them down yet and its been in the news for months.
So perhaps not the deciding issue.
Have parliament voted on the issue yet?
Just think if there is another general election its quite possible the Conservatives will win again. Have won the previous 3 general elections despite problems.
Upvote
0
The part where, as we keep hearing, we already voted "Leave" and depending upon who is making the argument, that vote included the knowledge of all of this. Thus, therefore, ergo: democracy.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,499
Difficult to say for sure.
What I don't understand is the number of people who suggested that real damage would occur shortly after the Brexit vote.
That never made any sense to me. Yes, sentiment and confidence would be damaged (which does have an impact), but apart from that, everything has remained exactly the same ever since. The single market, customs union, EU FTAs - they're all still there.
It's the disruption of those which will cause economic damage. That's the meat which will make a tangible difference to the costs and complexities of trade. We aren't there yet.
This applies to both sides of the argument as well. Remainers claimed that there would be an apocalypse right after the vote, and leavers argued that Brexit won't cause the damage people claim because everything seems to be okay up to this point (even though we haven't left yet).
I've always found both of those arguments nonsensical.
Upvote
0
Yes, I take that point. However, it is likely that there will be a general election before we leave and very likely before the transition period ends. The terms on which we leave the EU will surely be a major issue in such a general election. If it is not a major issue it is an issue that all the major parties and smaller parties for that matter will have to have position on in their manifestos.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Agreed both on the timing and the positions needed.
Disadvantage for all parties are that the terms are subject to negotiation and the other party (the EU) does not play ball.
That doesn't matter to the political parties, winning seats does matter. Realistically only Labour and Conservatives might be required to implement any promises and policies after next general election.
Upvote
0
Will it be damage?
Certainly there will be economic change, from which there will be winners and losers, upsides and downsides. I wouldn't like to say whether the upsides will exceed the downsides, or vice versa. And no economist can tell you that with any degree of certainty.
It's a risk, a big risk if you like, but one that I thought, and still think, was worth taking.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Is it Parliament's job to take big risks with the nation's economy? A strong and stable economy is needed to pay for schools, health, infrastructure, defence, pensions etc. We already know this has done harm to the wellbeing of millions of British citizens so how can this ever be a risk worth taking?
Upvote
0
Yes, it is Parliament's job when instructed by voters. The referendum was clear about the course of action to be taken.
And what "harm to the wellbeing of millions of British citizens" has been done already?
Upvote
0
Yes pretty much.
Decisions by parliament have an impact on the economy, to the tune of billions of pounds a year in some cases.
Was the decisions to leave the EU something that should have been followed by parliament? That's open to question. However having followed the will of the majority of the voters Brexit process has started.
The end result is anyone's guess and could be a decade before we see the final agreement.
Likely be a series of big documents to wade through and with nuances some will not understand until their preferred media source tells them what to understand.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,507
Yes. Although it depends on the time frame you're referring to.
The vast, vast majority of our trade is with either the EU, or countries where we have some kind of EU-brokered trade agreement (I believe it's near 90%). This doesn't just involve the traditional FTA, but lesser agreements relating to regulations and procedures.
If you reset them all to zero, without sufficient time to replace the trade infrastructure with something better, then it's a simple fact that, for a period of time, it's going to be more expensive and more complicated for the UK's existing trade. That will cause damage.
Now it's certainly possible that one day the UK will come out stronger than it was before. The damage is unlikely to exist forever. The question is how long it will take. Personally, I think we'll be waiting a while. All of the great ideas people have for the UK's future, unfortunately, take many years to bear fruit (decades in some cases).
That being said, when you leave the most frictionless trade bloc on Earth, that happens to represent almost half of your trade and all of your local neighbours, it's a tall order to replace that with anything better. Geography is important, which is why virtually every trade bloc in the world is regional.
Upvote
0
And every trading partner will be asking 'what's in it for us?' which could well put paid to the idea of limiting immigration. So we may leave the EU because of immigration and ultimately have similar or increased immigration as a result of deals with other countries.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Students planning to study in Europe through Erasmus+
Young people hoping to gain experience by working in the EU
About 2 million British citizens living in the EU.
An uncounted number of British citizens who have made investments in the EU.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,512
Probably.
The issue with the UK economy is that it's fairly restricted in what it does. Simply put, there are many countries out there that aren't that interested in what we sell - no matter what we do with tariffs or quotas.
Services are our real strength, which is why 80% of our economy depends on them. Of those, two of the most important are financial and legal services.
The problem is that very, very few trade agreements, if any, incorporate services like these. The EU has already ruled it out, and other major economies outside of the EU are eager to nurture their own financial and legal sectors instead.
Such services are also notoriously difficult to form into an agreement due to the complexities of regulations and dispute mechanisms. It's difficult enough doing it in a bloc, and positively nightmarish to cover it in multiple bespoke agreements all over the world where every country has their own laws that inevitably clash with each other at times.
Now CETA (the Canada-EU agreement) does have a chapter on financial services. However, it's very restricted and nowhere near as open as single market passporting.
Crucially, Canada also has an MFN (most favoured nation) clause. This means they can object to the UK being given a deal by the EU that is far more favourable than what Canada enjoys. MFN clauses are quite common, and all of them risk throwing a spanner into the works of our trade agreements with the EU and the rest of the world.
To see why this is such an issue, this is an article worth reading: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/...al-with-south-korea-this-is-why-its-unlikely/
It lays out why it's so difficult for South Korea, as an example, to give the UK a trade agreement that's better than what the EU enjoys (and by extension, what we currently enjoy as an EU member).
I'll lay out the most important point here:
This is very problematic, considering that our supposed path to glory involves offsetting losses in the European market by striking more lucrative deals with the rest of the world.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-exchange-scheme-officials-say-idUSKBN1FJ2N1
Because May has not said it would continue past 2020.
Upvote
0
She also hasn't said there will be a police force after 2020 either, but my guess is, there will!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So we do not know. We might still be in the EU in 2020.
There are a number of EU agencies (as distinct from institutions) where continued membership and participation would be a good idea.
It is disappointing that the govt, as far as I am aware, have made no announcement as to how those will be handled.
Upvote
0
I agree. Perhaps it is because this government hasn't the faintest idea how any of it is going to be handled. It is not, in any event, for either our government or the EU to announce how these things will be handled. It is for them to negotiate, something they seem strangely reluctant to do.
Upvote
0
It's a topic that's easily muddied.
With the First-Past-The-Post system there's no good way to gauge opposition to Brexit in a General Election. We saw this at the last one where despite Corbyn's fence-sitting, voters saw Labour as the best bet against the unwanted extreme Brexit that the government are intent upon pursuing - May was caught completely by surprise, lost her majority, and had to bribe an ultra-nationalist to stay in power.
The right-wing simply spins that whole outcome as 85% of voters voted for Pro-Brexit parties. It's *incredibly* dishonest.
Further, should the groundswell for a Final Say Referendum reach critical mass, how are the campaigns to be split? Leave will simply revert to their bold lies and use their media outlets to amplify them. The government, formerly (very poor) campaigners for Remain, are the ones blindly racing for the hardest Brexit they can manage, so where does the power for the other side come from? It's certainly going to be interesting.
Upvote
0
Every economic analysis undertaken concludes damage on some scale and for varying periods of time. To find pro-Brexit reports that talk of actual positive economic outcomes requires reading through a great deal of thinly-veiled spin. No amount of hand-waving at the words of economists will change that.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,519
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read