Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

But we've already done deals on......fish. When in the EU, we negotiated our limits and allowed french trawlers to land their catches in UK ports. Much to the dismay of the local fishermen. It was our lot that agreed to it though, the EU just said 'can we land them in Grimsby' and we said 'Sure thing'.

Now, we've got to negotiate everything again, but why? We've got even less negotiating power than we had the first time round, when our lot messed up the fishing industry.

I'm yet to be convinced that the UK government can negotiate successful and improved deals with other countries and the EU. We're in a weaker position, because we're not in the EU, we're an island with...at the moment...no trade deals!

The UK fishing fleet was battered (pun?) over a decade ago by our own government. It's going to take at least another decade and a lot of investment to get it back.

No, we are an island chain with a single trade deal with a single country in a single sector of the economy. Switzerland, insurance and same as EU.
Not sure that the financial sector is celebrating.

But not relevant to the fishermen. That I think may take a year or two. Lots of important things to be done in parliament over the next few years, fishing being one part.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I'm yet to be convinced that the UK government can negotiate successful and improved deals with other countries and the EU. We're in a weaker position, because we're not in the EU, we're an island with...at the moment...no trade deals!

It's not going to happen.

We've lost the leverage of the EU which amounts to almost 20% of global GDP.

We've lost the single market.

We've lost over 60 EU-brokered free trade agreements and secondary agreements with the rest of the world.

The moment the clock strikes 11pm on Brexit day, we'll instantly become the most isolated developed country on earth in terms of international trade frameworks. We'll need new deals as quickly as we can to mitigate the day-by-day erosion of our economy.

In a position of desperation like that, we can't afford to play hardball. FTAs will end up being considerably more one-sided to the other party compared to any EU-brokered agreement we rely on today.

 

[Cobby]

Interesting to read about the panic spreading across the French agriculture lobby about a no deal Brexit. Just £26.8 billion of exports from France into the UK to worry about and Macron is standing shoulder to shoulder with the EU politburo as their own people fret and panic.

But it's worth it to worship at the altar of EU solidarity regardless of the cost, right?

"Projet Peur"!!!???????

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

An interesting idea. MPs back the deal on the condition that a second referendum is held to ascertain whether the public want to leave with the deal or stay in the EU.

If we vote to stay put, we stay put. If we vote to leave with the deal, we automatically do so without any further parliamentary input.

It might seem far-fetched considering the opposition to a second referendum for fear of "destroying democracy", but we must remember that the current options on the table are hardly much more appealing.

No deal is likely to be ruled out entirely, so if May's deal is rejected, we'd have to ask for an extension anyway. And even then, the only other options are something along the lines of a permanent customs union which takes away the supposed benefits of an independent trade policy, but this may not be approved by the Commons either.

The longer this parliamentary deadlock goes on for, the greater the chance that the decision is eventually, in some way, put back in the hands of the people. But if MPs refuse to accept no deal, the options turn into a choice between some form of Brexit or none at all.

 

[Mr D]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

An interesting idea. MPs back the deal on the condition that a second referendum is held to ascertain whether the public want to leave with the deal or stay in the EU.

If we vote to stay put, we stay put. If we vote to leave with the deal, we automatically do so without any further parliamentary input.

It might seem far-fetched considering the opposition to a second referendum for fear of "destroying democracy", but we must remember that the current options on the table are hardly much more appealing.

No deal is likely to be ruled out entirely, so if May's deal is rejected, we'd have to ask for an extension anyway. And even then, the only other options are something along the lines of a permanent customs union which takes away the supposed benefits of an independent trade policy, but this may not be approved by the Commons either.

The longer this parliamentary deadlock goes on for, the greater the chance that the decision is eventually, in some way, put back in the hands of the people. But if MPs refuse to accept no deal, the options turn into a choice between some form of Brexit or none at all.

So in the event of an extension to hold a 2nd referendum (which could be agreed by the 28) and there being a 2 option referendum - we'd still be relying on the very people the extremists on each side do not trust to make the 'right' decision.

Looking at what? August / September for a new referendum now? Possibly even October?

Or is a 2nd referendum nothing more than an expensive way of kicking the ball down the road again? Delaying decisions and consequences for the future. Something our governments tend to be good at. Runways. Trident. Nuclear power.

 

[KM-Tiger]

referendum is held to ascertain whether the public want to leave with the deal or stay in the EU.

Non starter as it's a false alternative. Some MPs might rule out no deal but the public, according to polls, are not.

We had a leave/remain referendum and we know the result of that. That's why we are leaving on 29th Mar.

IMHO the only valid question for a referendum is deal or no deal.

 

[Cobby]

Non starter as it's a false alternative. Some MPs might rule out no deal but the public, according to polls, are not.

We had a leave/remain referendum and we know the result of that. That's why we are leaving on 29th Mar.

IMHO the only valid question for a referendum is deal or no deal.

Many members of the public believe that "No Deal" represents the equivalent of walking out of the showroom without making a purchase - i.e. nothing changes and things go back to how they were. So that wouldn't really be a helpful assessment even if it were true.

As to the result of the last referendum, that was almost 3 years ago. We may not feel the same way about it, so it's absolutely reasonable to double check with the public (now we have more information about how harmful Brexit actually is) whether we wish to continue with that course of action.

At this point it's one of the few rational courses of action remaining and one can only really argue against it in bad faith.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Non starter as it's a false alternative. Some MPs might rule out no deal but the public, according to polls, are not.

We had a leave/remain referendum and we know the result of that. That's why we are leaving on 29th Mar.

IMHO the only valid question for a referendum is deal or no deal.

I highly doubt that's going to happen, sorry.

You can have your own opinion of what's fair and justified, but if politicians think that no deal is far too damaging for the country, then that's the way it is. Much in the same way the public would never be allowed to fire a nuke vertically into the sky, nor will they be allowed to force no deal through either.

Much of the fault lies with politicians claiming that no deal was on the cards if we didn't get the deal we wanted. In reality though it's always going to be avoided in every conceivable way. You wouldn't catch a major company putting itself through that much disruption voluntarily, never mind a country.

You may think it's a non-starter, but what are the realistic alternatives? If May's deal fails again, we're probably looking at an Article 50 extension with work on a permanent customs union. In that scenario, a second referendum would provide the only remaining avenue to May's deal still happening.

If the government thinks brexit + deal has a good chance of winning a second referendum, I wouldn't count it out. It would be a gamble, but if leave won again, anger over the second referendum being called in the first place would be soon forgotten.

 

[Cobby]

It would be a gamble, but if leave won again, anger over the second referendum being called in the first place would be soon forgotten.

I think this is what gets forgotten very quickly.

There's a strong feeling against the next referendum by Brexiters because despite their claims, Brexiters really aren't sure that's what the country wants; if they genuinely believed it to be the case then they'd be throwing their weight behind the People's Vote, too.

However if it does end up Leave again, there'd be little room left for argument against it and any resentment people might feel at voting again (as absurd as that claim might be) would vanish.

 

[dan19900]

(now we have more information about how harmful Brexit actually is)

Really? We had the Prime Minister saying there'd be immigration camps in the Kent, the chancellor and the head of the bank of England saying we'd immediately go into recession after the vote. I don't think anything sounds more harmful than that now?

I think this is what gets forgotten very quickly.

There's a strong feeling against the next referendum by Brexiters because despite their claims, Brexiters really aren't sure that's what the country wants; if they genuinely believed it to be the case then they'd be throwing their weight behind the People's Vote, too.

However if it does end up Leave again, there'd be little room left for argument against it and any resentment people might feel at voting again (as absurd as that claim might be) would vanish.

You'll just ask for a third referendum in 3 years time. There's already 'little room left for argument' for another vote as we've already had one.

 

[simon field]

The idea of another referendum makes me want to puke!

Don't you think that enough mess has been made? You want to do it AGAIN????

Give me strength.

 

[simon field]

Oh don't tell me, don't tell me.... we know so much more now than we did before, really we do!

Utter tosh! You've just had more time to pretend you think you know what'll happen in 10, 20,30, 100 years time when actually you don't! It's a complete guess.

 

[Mr D]

I highly doubt that's going to happen, sorry.

You can have your own opinion of what's fair and justified, but if politicians think that no deal is far too damaging for the country, then that's the way it is. Much in the same way the public would never be allowed to fire a nuke vertically into the sky, nor will they be allowed to force no deal through either.

Much of the fault lies with politicians claiming that no deal was on the cards if we didn't get the deal we wanted. In reality though it's always going to be avoided in every conceivable way. You wouldn't catch a major company putting itself through that much disruption voluntarily, never mind a country.

You may think it's a non-starter, but what are the realistic alternatives? If May's deal fails again, we're probably looking at an Article 50 extension with work on a permanent customs union. In that scenario, a second referendum would provide the only remaining avenue to May's deal still happening.

If the government thinks brexit + deal has a good chance of winning a second referendum, I wouldn't count it out. It would be a gamble, but if leave won again, anger over the second referendum being called in the first place would be soon forgotten.

A no deal always going to be avoided?

Seems to be a strange way they are going about it then. Its the current option - and before anyone tells me that is wrong, please explain what is wrong with that.

 

[Mr D]

The idea of another referendum makes me want to puke!

Don't you think that enough mess has been made? You want to do it AGAIN????

Give me strength.

If a 2nd referendum then why not a third, a fourth, a fifth? Best of 11?
The ones pushing for a new referendum apparently know more now than they did in June 2016. Scary that they apparently voted without knowing things - can we believe they now know stuff that was not known by them sufficient to make another informed decision?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

A no deal always going to be avoided?

Seems to be a strange way they are going about it then. Its the current option - and before anyone tells me that is wrong, please explain what is wrong with that.

Again?

Okay, let's say you're in a car that's rolling down a hill and there's a brick wall at the bottom.

If you do nothing, you'll crash into that wall.

But you have a working brake pedal and a steering wheel in the car, so if you wish, you can either stop rolling, or steer left/right, to avoid the brick wall.

That is the current situation. If we do nothing, we'll leave without a deal. But we have the means to avoid it if we wish to, and I believe MPs will do all they conceivably can to prevent leaving without a deal.

Understand now?

 

[Mr D]

Again?

Okay, let's say you're in a car that's rolling down a hill and there's a brick wall at the bottom.

If you do nothing, you'll crash into that wall.

But you have a working brake pedal and a steering wheel in the car, so if you wish, you can either stop rolling, or steer left/right, to avoid the brick wall.

That is the current situation. If we do nothing, we'll leave without a deal. But we have the means to avoid it if we wish to, and I believe MPs will do all they conceivably can to prevent leaving without a deal.

Understand now?

Great. Thanks for that.

From where I am sitting the driver (MPs) is either not doing anything to prevent the crash or is fixated on crashing hoping they come out of it all right.
And no one else can reach the pedals or steering wheel.

So currently we are aimed at the wall and approaching it at speed. You believe the driver is going to do something.
A belief, not something others of us can accept as a certainty.

Multiple groups of MPs with contradictory positions, what are the odds that enough of them will agree to something that the EU agrees with? Need over a hundred of them to change their minds one way / go against party lines on the current deal on offer with NI backstop included.

To me the current default position is leave. As voted on by MPs a while back and as the only alternate option was voted against last month.

Maybe your belief will come true and MPs will take action in the next 6 weeks.
I don't have your faith in them, having seen their actions to date.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Great. Thanks for that.

From where I am sitting the driver (MPs) is either not doing anything to prevent the crash or is fixated on crashing hoping they come out of it all right.
And no one else can reach the pedals or steering wheel.

So currently we are aimed at the wall and approaching it at speed. You believe the driver is going to do something.
A belief, not something others of us can accept as a certainty.

Multiple groups of MPs with contradictory positions, what are the odds that enough of them will agree to something that the EU agrees with? Need over a hundred of them to change their minds one way / go against party lines on the current deal on offer with NI backstop included.

They may have contradictory positions, but MPs also voted (albeit in a non-binding way) to rule out no deal by 318 votes to 310. The result of this vote by the Commons means that this text was added to the motion:

[Parliament] rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.

And in my view, I suspect a number voted against this amendment because they still believe they should threaten no deal for leverage, so the actual number of MPs opposing no deal, when push comes to shove, would probably be a fair bit larger.

I also believe, like Yvette Cooper, that May and the Government secretly want Parliament to rule out no deal and take steps to avoid it. They just can't admit it at this stage:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eal-brexit-yvette-cooper-article-50-extension

Put everything together, and no deal (or at least a voluntary one) is extremely unlikely at this point. Within the Commons it will probably become a case of choosing anything except no deal. Maybe May's deal could somehow be approved, or Article 50 could be extended to work towards a permanent customs union.

There is also the idea floated previously that the Commons accepts May's deal on the condition of a second referendum that puts the final deal/remain choice in the hands of the people.

The key thing to remember about ideas like the deal/remain referendum, and the permanent customs union, is that they would bring a lot more opposition MPs on board, and it wouldn't take a great deal of Tories to create a combined Commons majority.

 

[Mr D]

They may have contradictory positions, but MPs also voted (albeit in a non-binding way) to rule out no deal by 318 votes to 310. The result of this vote by the Commons means that this text was added to the motion:



And in my view, I suspect a number voted against this amendment because they still believe they should threaten no deal for leverage, so the actual number of MPs opposing no deal, when push comes to shove, would probably be a fair bit larger.

I also believe, like Yvette Cooper, that May and the Government secretly want Parliament to rule out no deal and take steps to avoid it. They just can't admit it at this stage:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eal-brexit-yvette-cooper-article-50-extension

Put everything together, and no deal (or at least a voluntary one) is extremely unlikely at this point. Within the Commons it will probably become a case of choosing anything except no deal. Maybe May's deal could somehow be approved, or Article 50 could be extended to work towards a permanent customs union.

There is also the idea floated previously that the Commons accepts May's deal on the condition of a second referendum that puts the final deal/remain choice in the hands of the people.

The key thing to remember about ideas like the deal/remain referendum, and the permanent customs union, is that they would bring a lot more opposition MPs on board, and it wouldn't take a great deal of Tories to create a combined Commons majority.

MPs voting against a no deal Brexit but not actually preventing a no deal Brexit. Amusing in a way.
Well lets see what they do in the next 6 weeks then shall we? I'm not as convinced as you, perhaps simply more cynical.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

"Projet Peur"!!!???????

I learnt a new French word recently.

Infox = fake news.

I like the way it links in the Dirty Digger and his reputation for lying stories.

 

[Cobby]

Really? We had the Prime Minister saying there'd be immigration camps in the Kent, the chancellor and the head of the bank of England saying we'd immediately go into recession after the vote. I don't think anything sounds more harmful than that now?

Most of the economic predictions about the economic effects of a Leave vote have been pretty accurate.
You are asserting here that Mark Carney's warning of a "technical recession" in the wake of Leave vote is worse than our own government admitting it is stockpiling food and medicines and preparing for widespread civil unrest. Think about that.

You'll just ask for a third referendum in 3 years time. There's already 'little room left for argument' for another vote as we've already had one.

If the public has an appetite for being consulted on it, fine, let's keep having them. Unfortunately, as we've been over like a million times, the 2016 ref was advisory, vague, and has huge questions hanging over it about its legitimacy; criminality, government influence on police investigations, and interference by foreign hostile powers. One must have a very low bar of principle if they are satisfied that the mandate for democracy has been met with that vote.

 

[Cobby]

The idea of another referendum makes me want to puke!

Fine, don't vote.

Don't you think that enough mess has been made? You want to do it AGAIN????

It's important to remember that the 2016 referendum itself wasn't the cause of the division. The division came from the Leave campaigns' leaders telling and, to this day, maintaining lies and deliberate misrepresentations to achieve a specific goal.

In 2014 (Ipsos Mori) 2% of people considered the EU to be "the most important issue facing Britain".
Most people didn't care about the EU because it's mostly fine and it mostly works and people's lives are better for it without them having to think much about it.

So how do you extrapolate that TWO PERCENT into something that divides the country in half? A good way to do that is to make up stories about how the EU is responsible for the everyday problems people face. Make an incredibly complex topic black and white, with a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. Tell lies about how EU Freedom of Movement makes people's lives harder. Paint the EU as the Bond villain's organisation operating out of a volcano...

"£350m" on a bus. Farage, Johnson and Mogg's fear mongering about Turkey and Iran. "Undemocratic!" "Unelected!" "Elitists!"

If you don't want the division, you have to be willing to stand against this dishonesty when you see it, even if that dishonesty would ultimately help your cause. If you don't then you are part of what causes the division and you lose the right to be outraged by it.

Either you genuinely want a robust democratic system or you don't.

 

[simon field]

Fine, don't vote.


It's important to remember that the 2016 referendum itself wasn't the cause of the division. The division came from the Leave campaigns' leaders telling and, to this day, maintaining lies and deliberate misrepresentations to achieve a specific goal.

But nobody listens to those losers!

In 2014 (Ipsos Mori) 2% of people considered the EU to be "the most important issue facing Britain".
Most people didn't care about the EU because it's mostly fine and it mostly works and people's lives are better for it without them having to think much about it.

And most people still don't care. A majority just said 'Nah'

So how do you extrapolate that TWO PERCENT into something that divides the country in half?

One percent on either side maybe?

 

[quikshop]

In a position of desperation like that, we can't afford to play hardball. FTAs will end up being considerably more one-sided to the other party compared to any EU-brokered agreement we rely on today.

Nothing but defeatist clap-trap, wishing the worst on our economy and those of our European partners to feel better about losing a vote. Quite disgraceful really.

Italy has a £10 billion surplus with the UK, they are now talking openly about a bi-lateral trade arrangement with the UK in a direct challenge to the EU politburo.

French businesses that export in excess of £25 billion agro products into the UK are being prevented from speaking openly about the huge impact on them, their standard of living and job losses in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Germany's leading industrial and academic bodies are now openly criticising the EU politburo for their zealotry, knowing full well a no deal Brexit will push Germany into recession along with Italy, with the rest of the EU to follow.

I could go on but you get the picture.

All of this risk is being perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable fanatics at the top of the EU political machine hell-bent on creating a single country called Europe regardless of the cost to it's people.

But you go on supporting this Priesthood, if only you had the slightest idea of what you are championing.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

All of this risk is being perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable fanatics at the top of the EU political machine hell-bent on creating a single country called Europe regardless of the cost to it's people.

But you go on supporting this Priesthood, if only you had the slightest idea of what you are championing.

The unelected fanatics I am much more frightened of are the ones who bankrolled the leave campaign. Do you really want to swap democracy for an oligarchy controlled by Aaron Banks, Farage, Rupert Murdoch, and the billionaire hedge fund managers who have already made millions from Brexit?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Nothing but defeatist clap-trap, wishing the worst on our economy and those of our European partners to feel better about losing a vote. Quite disgraceful really.

I've noticed that a lot of pro-Brexit arguments tend to fall back to this point. No reasoning. Just "Pah! We are strong and determined. That will see us through. If you underestimate us you're a traitor."

During FTA negotiations, most other countries in the world will be relatively unchanged, while we will lose 60+ trade agreements and the single market in which almost half of our global trade is conducted. This is not subjective.

And free trade agreements, while seemingly amicable in nature, are actually about both sides trying to gain as many benefits as they can while conceding as little as they can. More access to their markets than access they have to our markets = A good trade deal.

Note, for example, the Switzerland/China FTA (which I'm sure you've read). China gained immediate access to many of the Swiss markets, while Switzerland will less access but gradually over a ten year period.

Why? Because China can. If the Swiss don't like it, no trade agreement. They can afford to be picky as they're in a much stronger position.

And believe me, with Switzerland already having established FTAs and the single market, they were in a much stronger negotiating position then than we'll be during the first decade or two. Overnight we're going to lose agreements that underpin 70%+ of our international trade.

Deals with:

The EU (27 regional trade partners)
Chile
Canada
Israel
Japan
Mexico
Norway
South Africa
South Korea
Turkey
Ukraine
CARIFORUM states (15 countries)

All gone in a flash.

And in our rush to build the losses back up, you really don't think it's going to weaken our negotiating position? You really don't think countries will use this to their advantage? What do we do? Say no to everyone and just sit with nothing as our economy continues to erode?

Italy has a £10 billion surplus with the UK, they are now talking openly about a bi-lateral trade arrangement with the UK in a direct challenge to the EU politburo.

French businesses that export in excess of £25 billion agro products into the UK are being prevented from speaking openly about the huge impact on them, their standard of living and job losses in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Germany's leading industrial and academic bodies are now openly criticising the EU politburo for their zealotry, knowing full well a no deal Brexit will push Germany into recession along with Italy, with the rest of the EU to follow.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Let me guess. The UK will be fine in all of this and only they will suffer?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

All of this risk is being perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable fanatics at the top of the EU political machine hell-bent on creating a single country called Europe regardless of the cost to it's people.

Who's really more democratic?

 

[Mr D]

All of this risk is being perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable fanatics at the top of the EU political machine hell-bent on creating a single country called Europe regardless of the cost to it's people.

But you go on supporting this Priesthood, if only you had the slightest idea of what you are championing.

Who are these unelected and unaccountable fanatics at the top of the EU political machine and how do they get their jobs?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

All gone in a flash.

And in our rush to build the losses back up, you really don't think it's going to weaken our negotiating position? You really don't think countries will use this to their advantage? What do we do? Say no to everyone and just sit with nothing as our economy continues to erode?

But Scott, you forget. Theresa May is an expert poker player.

 

[The Byre]

Germany's leading industrial and academic bodies are now openly criticising the EU politburo for their zealotry, knowing full well a no deal Brexit will push Germany into recession along with Italy, with the rest of the EU to follow.

That is news to me!

Sources? Spiegel? Suedeutsche Zeitung? FAZ? Handelsblatt? Anything?

I was in Germany on business many times last year and nobody spoke to me about Brexit. I asked automobile industry insiders and they were quick to point out that origination costs and in-market costs far outweigh the marginal cost of manufacture, so they could easily swallow a 10% tariff.

 

[The Byre]

But Scott, you forget. Theresa May is an expert poker player.

Give her a good poker and she'll play you any tune you care to name!

 

[KM-Tiger]

@The Byre

Is it still not going to happen?

 

[Cobby]

But nobody listens to those losers!

They did and they do. They still do. Their statements are covered extensively and they still get opinion columns in the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph, the Standard, the Spectator and the Financial Times.

Even Farage, a man who failed to become an MP SEVEN times, once being beaten by a man in a dolphin suit, gets extensive air-time on major BBC programmes (and of course Russia Today).

Their lies STILL carry weight: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-bre

And most people still don't care. A majority just said 'Nah'

Your argument is changing tack here, stay on target buddy. You're arguing as to why you think a People's Vote is a bad idea. Apparently because you think that's what has caused the current division.

One percent on either side maybe?

No, you've missed the point.

How do you go from 2014 when just 2% said the EU is the most important issue, into 2016 when it was supposedly >50%? The problem wasn't the referendum itself, as you suggest, rather it was the toxic, dishonest and illegal campaigns of the Brexiteers.

Another referendum on available options might end up with as much or more division, but that'll largely be driven by the same thing as before; toxic campaigns from Brexiteers.

 

[Cobby]

Nothing but defeatist clap-trap, wishing the worst on our economy and those of our European partners to feel better about losing a vote. Quite disgraceful really.

Italy has a £10 billion surplus with the UK, they are now talking openly about a bi-lateral trade arrangement with the UK in a direct challenge to the EU politburo.

French businesses that export in excess of £25 billion agro products into the UK are being prevented from speaking openly about the huge impact on them, their standard of living and job losses in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Germany's leading industrial and academic bodies are now openly criticising the EU politburo for their zealotry, knowing full well a no deal Brexit will push Germany into recession along with Italy, with the rest of the EU to follow.

I could go on but you get the picture.

May I ask, why do the documented concerns of UK industry and the detailed analyses of government get waved away as "Project Fear", but these (so far undocumented) concerns of foreign industry are things you will take as solid and 100% rational?

All of this risk is being perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable fanatics at the top of the EU political machine hell-bent on creating a single country called Europe regardless of the cost to it's people.

The "fanatics" you are talking about are heads of member states (elected and accountable) and MEPs (elected and accountable).

 

[Newchodge]

No one listens is, I think, the problem with the referendum campaigns. BBC reporting here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47214093 on ex pats in spain worrying that they may no longer get free healthcare (and why should they if we leave?) or continue to receive their UK pensions, includes this paragraph:

Yvonne Stone, 62, is one of the younger members of the club and tells me she voted for Brexit: "I've been here for three years and have no plans to go back to the UK - but it will depend on what happens.

"When I voted to leave I didn't think it would change anything for my rights to live here. We like it here and we don't want to go back but if I don't get my pension we might not have a choice."

You really could not make it up.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

"When I voted to leave I didn't think it would change anything for my rights to live here. We like it here and we don't want to go back but if I don't get my pension we might not have a choice."

I've met people like that. One Frenchwoman had a major row with her English husband for voting leave, "To help the nurses".

Did you see the interview with a couple in Huddersfield last week? I paraphrase, "Why don't they just hurry up and give the nurses the money?"

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I've met people like that. One Frenchwoman had a major row with her English husband for voting leave, "To help the nurses".

Did you see the interview with a couple in Huddersfield last week? I paraphrase, "Why don't they just hurry up and give the nurses the money?"

Here's another one:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1088841800045998082

A father voted to leave despite his son working for Airbus. His response? "I voted out for me, not for him".

And when asked whether Airbus might leave the UK, he stated "They'll sort it. They're a big enough company, aren't they".

This argument tends to crop up surprisingly frequently. There's this belief that because we are the UK, and because these companies are so big, they'll somehow sort everything out and it'll all blow over.

 

[Mr D]

Here's another one:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1088841800045998082

A father voted to leave despite his son working for Airbus. His response? "I voted out for me, not for him".

And when asked whether Airbus might leave the UK, he stated "They'll sort it. They're a big enough company, aren't they".

This argument tends to crop up surprisingly frequently. There's this belief that because we are the UK, and because these companies are so big, they'll somehow sort everything out and it'll all blow over.

Understandable.
I also voted for me, not for someone else.

Companies warned before the vote they may have to look at investing elsewhere or even leave. They were ignored or treated as 'project fear'.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

My favourite is still the story told by a friend. She was surprised that her mother voted leave. "But why?" she asked, "Your grandaughter is married to an EU immigrant."

"No she's not," came the reply, "she's married to a Romanian."

 

[The Byre]

@The Byre

Is it still not going to happen?

No chance! It would require skill, political fineness, know-how, the overwhelming support of the British people and the regional parliaments and about three or four years of preparations to make Brexit happen.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/13/brexit-uk-trade-deals-eu

Things are going well. We have trade deals with 7 countries. Faroe Islands, Zimbabwe, Seychelles, Mauritius, Chile, Madagascar and Switzerland.

Seems so worth exchanging the EU market for.