Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[jimbob]

It wasn't "52% of British voters"
It was 52% of those that voted.

And since then there have been 3% new voters, who are overwhelmingly remain and a shift towards remain in many of the voters who did vote to leave.

If only we had a competent leader of the opposition

 

[Michel H]

Britain won't be leaving just for 'a while'
It is permanent. If we leave you don't think they are going to let us back in again?

I see no reason why the UK would not be allowed to rejoin later, after it has left the EU. However, this can probably not happen very often, otherwise it would not look very serious.

 

[Michel H]

Why? The arguments presented to get people to vote leave were lies, £350 million a week, a trade deal with the EU as good as/better than the existing one, Turkey joining the EU. Endless lies backed up with Russian manipulation and illegal campaign spending. The deal we have as a member of the EU is the best deal available, that was Remain's position from the beginning and there is nothing on offer now that changes that reality.

Yes, that's right, but it seems to me the UK could defend itself a little better than what it is doing, for example like when Boris Johnson was saying:

What I have always said is that we will pay for things that are reasonable, scientific programmes. But when it comes to paying for access to the market, that won’t happen any more than we would expect them to pay us for access to our market.

(http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ )
This kind of argument has been dismissed by the EU, but I think it does make some sense. Perhaps some talent is required to convince the European Commission of the validity (or the partial validity) of this argument. One concerning thing about the UK also is that so many remainers seem to be siding with the EU and seem to be against their own country (when they are British).

I assume that, after it has left the EU, the UK will have a better control of its immigration, this could be a substantial benefit of a (full) Brexit.

 

[Amazer]

I see no reason why the UK would not be allowed to rejoin later, after it has left the EU. However, this can probably not happen very often, otherwise it would not look very serious.

It could only happen if the UK applies for membership .. and meets all the conditions required for membership... including becoming part of Schengen and the Eurozone... my guess is that it will be a while before that happens.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Amazer]

Yes, that's right, but it seems to me the UK could defend itself a little better than what it is doing, for example like when Boris Johnson was saying:



(http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ )

This kind of argument has been dismissed by the EU, but I think it does make some sense. Perhaps some talent is required to convince the European Commission of the validity (or the partial validity) of this argument. One concerning thing about the UK also is that so many remainers seem to be siding with the EU and seem to be against their own country (when they are British).



I assume that, after it has left the EU, the UK will have a better control of its immigration, this could be a substantial benefit of a (full) Brexit.

How does it make sense? How could a non-EU country enjoy the same level of access to the single market as EU-members without contributing to the organisation that enables the single market to excist?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[GnaGnaMan]

But there are, in my opinion, major problems with the European Commission. I have seen no indication so far that they would be willing to change opinion about the freedom of movement of people, or about the British contribution. Perhaps that will change if the UK leaves the EU for a while. Or perhaps Tony Blair could do something more useful than invading Iraq by convincing his European friends to give a better deal to his own country.

I don't see how that is a problem with the EC. What could it possibly do?
I think the Belgian government would be a better target for your complaints.

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, that's right, but it seems to me the UK could defend itself a little better than what it is doing, for example like when Boris Johnson was saying:

(http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ )
This kind of argument has been dismissed by the EU, but I think it does make some sense. Perhaps some talent is required to convince the European Commission of the validity (or the partial validity) of this argument. One concerning thing about the UK also is that so many remainers seem to be siding with the EU and seem to be against their own country (when they are British).

I assume that, after it has left the EU, the UK will have a better control of its immigration, this could be a substantial benefit of a (full) Brexit.

If the UK wants something, whether as a member of the EU or not, it can try to negotiate for it, i.e. strike a deal. Whether it will get what it wants depends on a multitude of factors, but mostly it boils down to how the deal would affect the other parties in the negotiation. If the other parties conclude that the deal would be a net loss for them (once all the consequences are considered), they have absolutely no reason to agree to it.

 

[Garrison]

Yes, that's right, but it seems to me the UK could defend itself a little better than what it is doing

Defend what? You seem to have bought into the Brexiteer hyperbole that tries to portray the EU as some sort of evil empire out to take advantage of the UK. The real issue has been more often than not successive governments finding it convenient to blame the EU for every unpopular policy decision.

for example like when Boris Johnson was saying:

You mean one of the architects of the lies the Leave campaign told? The man who supported Leave only because he saw it as the best route to Number 10? His comments simply hark back to the same lies Leave told during the referendum, that the UK was so important to the EU that they would bend over backwards to accommodate us, wasn't true then, isn't true now.

This kind of argument has been dismissed by the EU, but I think it does make some sense. Perhaps some talent is required to convince the European Commission of the validity (or the partial validity) of this argument. One concerning thing about the UK also is that so many remainers seem to be siding with the EU and seem to be against their own country (when they are British).

Insulting nonsense, Remainers were of the opinion that what was best for Britain was to stay in the EU and that Brexit couldn't possibly deliver what the likes of Johnson promised. everything that has happened since has proved them right.

I assume that, after it has left the EU, the UK will have a better control of its immigration, this could be a substantial benefit of a (full) Brexit.

And there is a large part of the problem, you seem to have chose the believe the rhetoric of Johnson and Rees-Mogg without bothering to find out if it has any foundation in reality. The immigration plans being put forward by the government are every bit as arbitrary as the one you proposed, intended to do nothing but get a few favourable headlines in the Daily mail without bothering to address the actual costs and benefits of immigration.

 

[Michel H]

How does it make sense? How could a non-EU country enjoy the same level of access to the single market as EU-members without contributing to the organisation that enables the single market to excist?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

I believe (after having spent some time studying this issue - but not enough time to have the right to describe myself as an expert) that "paying for market access" is kind of an "European anomaly", that the UK and other nations, like Norway and Switzerland (which are members of the European Economic Area) should fight with more energy. It is actually (in my opinion) a kind of financial extortion that everybody seems to find normal, but which is actually done for partly idealistic and social reasons. The (perhaps dubious) idea which governs this "payment for access" is that free and frictionless trade is hard for weak economies, therefore these economies need financial assistance (reference: http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ , already cited). So, in a simplified way, if the UK, after it has left the Union, wants to join the single market, it will have to pay an enormous amount of money for Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and so on, because free trade is allegedly so hard on them.

(You have to realize that free trade intrinsically costs nothing or almost nothing. Of course the UK may have to follow some European rules, which can be downloaded on the relevant European agency, but the cost of this is almost zero.)

Now, it seems to me that one can answer to that, that free trade (not having to fill out customs forms, not having to pay tariffs) is actually good for everone, including in Romania and so on. But it seems that almost nobody is doing this, everybody is fascinated by the "European snake". I am not convinced that medium-income countries like Romania really need financial assistance, aid should be given to those who really need it, and there should a budget to end climate change, to build advanced nuclear reactors.

In addition (in my opinion), atomic weapons should be banned (and the money used for more useful purposes, such as the building of civilian nuclear reactors), and military expenses greatly reduced, for example to 0.1% of GDP. Terrorism can be brought largely to an end by telling Israel to comply with relevant UN resolutions.

 

[Craig B]

I see no reason why the UK would not be allowed to rejoin later, after it has left the EU. However, this can probably not happen very often, otherwise it would not look very serious.

What I hope for is that Scotland will secede from the British Union and seek admission to the EU into which I have no doubt its EU referendum result will earn it a warm welcome. N Ireland could unite with the Republic of Ireland and join the EU by accession to an existing member state, as E Germany did after the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

In that way the wishes of the majority of voters of each constituent country of the UK, with regard to membership of the EU, can be fulfilled.

 

[Belgian thought]

It is not extortion.

The EU club, and it has faults and needs more transparency, has its rules and allows so much economic freedom making it a powerhouse. A balance between US, China and economically to a lesser degree Russia.

The EU as just finalised trade deals with Canana and Japan. Post Brexit, the UK will have to negotiate a new trading terms with the above bearing in mind that they cannot negotiate better deals than existing EU-X trade agreements.

These negotiations also take years.

In my life, I have been able to travel and work in 4 EU countries without having to apply for visas and so forth. Amazing.

As a Belgian, I lived in the UK pre 1975. The changes since then have been amazing.

The UK does not want to be part of this anymore.

Their wish is sadly for Europe a loss too. I value UK ingenuity and fear that that this valuable input will be missing.

Sadly, the UK overestimated their bargaining position, resting on its past.

The writer Fintan O'Toole has an interesting take on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuONK6Nmj_k

Brexit has divided families more than the miners strike in the 80's since divisions were mainly based within the mining communities and not country wide.

As has been pointed out to you, there are four pillars that are the foundation of the EU.

The UK only wants bits of them.

As for countries like Norway who also pay into the EU for access, they do it for a reason which they deem benefit their citizens, otherwise they wouldn't do it. No one is forcing them to do so.

And finally, the idea of a Norway plus or EFTA membership deal, this is a very sobering resume of a recent Channel 4 news report.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/a6u9hw/norwegian_politican_heidi_nordby_lunde_on_brexit/

The UK finds itself in a very difficult position and as much as I dislike Maybot, her current deal is their best option. Sadly.

 

[a_unique_person]

Or we could just organise another Blitz. Same thing really

The simplest way to do it would be to just drop bombs on yourselves.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, that's right, but it seems to me the UK could defend itself a little better than what it is doing, for example like when Boris Johnson was saying:

(http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ )
This kind of argument has been dismissed by the EU, but I think it does make some sense. Perhaps some talent is required to convince the European Commission of the validity (or the partial validity) of this argument. One concerning thing about the UK also is that so many remainers seem to be siding with the EU and seem to be against their own country (when they are British).

No, Remainers simply realise how reality works and that the best possible deal for the UK is staying in the EU as every other option will make us worse off. That's not being 'against your own country' it's the very opposite

I assume that, after it has left the EU, the UK will have a better control of its immigration, this could be a substantial benefit of a (full) Brexit.

Again, lowering immigration will make us worse off. How is that a benefit?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What I hope for is that Scotland will secede from the British Union and seek admission to the EU into which I have no doubt its EU referendum result will earn it a warm welcome. N Ireland could unite with the Republic of Ireland and join the EU by accession to an existing member state, as E Germany did after the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

In that way the wishes of the majority of voters of each constituent country of the UK, with regard to membership of the EU, can be fulfilled.

I agree but I would love someone to explain to me why the SNP continue to hol off on a referendum. We have now reached the point where rather than Scotland continuing to be a member of the EU it will have to leave and apply for readmission which will probably mean less favourable terms.

I appreciate that there had to be a balance between calling the referendum and waiting for the fustercluck to play out but it is surely preferable to man the lifeboats BEFORE the ship sinks?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I believe (after having spent some time studying this issue - but not enough time to have the right to describe myself as an expert) that "paying for market access" is kind of an "European anomaly", that the UK and other nations, like Norway and Switzerland (which are members of the European Economic Area) should fight with more energy. It is actually (in my opinion) a kind of financial extortion that everybody seems to find normal, but which is actually done for partly idealistic and social reasons. The (perhaps dubious) idea which governs this "payment for access" is that free and frictionless trade is hard for weak economies, therefore these economies need financial assistance (reference: http://capreform.eu/the-uk-must-pay-for-access-to-the-single-market/ , already cited). So, in a simplified way, if the UK, after it has left the Union, wants to join the single market, it will have to pay an enormous amount of money for Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and so on, because free trade is allegedly so hard on them.

(You have to realize that free trade intrinsically costs nothing or almost nothing. Of course the UK may have to follow some European rules, which can be downloaded on the relevant European agency, but the cost of this is almost zero.)

Now, it seems to me that one can answer to that, that free trade (not having to fill out customs forms, not having to pay tariffs) is actually good for everone, including in Romania and so on. But it seems that almost nobody is doing this, everybody is fascinated by the "European snake". I am not convinced that medium-income countries like Romania really need financial assistance, aid should be given to those who really need it, and there should a budget to end climate change, to build advanced nuclear reactors.

That's a good link but I'll try to make it simpler.

Everyone benefits from free trade but it does produce losers. The benefit comes in that it may be cheaper to import something than to produce it locally.
For example, it's obviously much better for a country like the UK to import bananas rather than to grow them in greenhouses. That's straightforwards comparative advantage.
Or it may be cheaper to produce something in a single, central location for multiple countries rather than to have multiple production centers, one in each country.

The benefit of free trade materializes through moving industries to other locations. That means that some locations will lose out. Some people will lose their jobs.
Obviously, the effect can be cushioned if workers who lose their jobs at one location can move to the new location: Free movement for the win.

Basically, everyone benefits a little but a few people lose a lot. It seems fair to compensate those few who are taking one for the team.
It's not different, in principle, from the effects of technological progress. Everyone wins but some people used to make horse carriages.

Within a nation we have social programs to take care of people who lose their jobs. We have subsidies for deprived regions.
The origin of such welfare measures are in the massive social changes brought on by technological progress. In particular, the move of the broad mass of the population from agriculture to industry.
The social welfare budget of EU countries is on the order of a 100 times bigger than the EU contributions.

You could, of course, say that we don't need those social programs. There hundreds of millions of people in the world living in extreme poverty, on less than $2 per day. In any western country you can make more in an hour by begging or by dumpster diving. I'm not going to get into that argument. It's simply how we do things.

Free trade agreements are so hard to negotiate because free trade produces losers. Every special interest group wants to make sure that it comes out ahead. This is also why renegotiating quotas every year is a non-starter.

The depth of the EU single market is unique. There are no free trade agreements that come even remotely close. Trading across the EU is easier than trading across some countries. You cannot have that kind of single market without a budget to help out the losers in the same way that you can't have an industrialized country without social programs.

 

[Michel H]

Again, lowering immigration will make us worse off. How is that a benefit?

Archie Gemmill Goal, you seem to have a purely financial vision of immigration, and its advantages and disadvantages. How reasonable is this?

Do you really think that, when people are asked to vote for or against leaving the European Union, they see only the financial aspect, and not the consequences of the massive immigration on their everyday lives?

Poles speaking to each other in Polish in your office, and not bothering much about the only native Englishmen.
People losing their jobs (because their company found a less expensive East European).
Wages going down.
Transportation systems saturated.
And so on, and so on.

 

[Michel H]

You cannot have that kind of single market without a budget to help out the losers in the same way that you can't have an industrialized country without social programs.

But I am not convinced that allowing the UK to remain in the European single market, completely free of charge, after it has left the EU, would produce a large number of losers. On the contrary, this would probably be an enormous relief, on both sides of the Channel. So I am coming back to my idea that the EU may have some bad extortion habits, and that many British remainers are actually against their country. I don't know if I should use the word "traitor" (this is not a war), but such a word is perhaps not completely out of place.

Today, I have tried to fill some of the many gaps in my knowledge, by studying CETA, the free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement ), after reading a post by Belgian thought:

The EU as just finalised trade deals with Canana and Japan. Post Brexit, the UK will have to negotiate a new trading terms with the above bearing in mind that they cannot negotiate better deals than existing EU-X trade agreements.

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Archie Gemmill Goal, you seem to have a purely financial vision of immigration, and its advantages and disadvantages. How reasonable is this?

Do you really think that, when people are asked to vote for or against leaving the European Union, they see only the financial aspect, and not the consequences of the massive immigration on their everyday lives?

Poles speaking to each other in Polish in your office, and not bothering much about the only native Englishmen.
People losing their jobs (because their company found a less expensive East European).
Wages going down.
Transportation systems saturated.
And so on, and so on.

Well given that the areas with the highest immigration are also those most likely to support the EU no I don't accept this argument. The people who are anti-immigration are the people who only read about it in the Daily Mail and scapegoat immigrants for the results of Tory austerity.

 

[Michel H]

Well given that the areas with the highest immigration are also those most likely to support the EU no I don't accept this argument.

This is what you say, but I have not seen any solid evidence supporting this argument.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But I am not convinced that allowing the UK to remain in the European single market, completely free of charge, after it has left the EU, would produce a large number of losers. On the contrary, this would probably be an enormous relief, on both sides of the Channel. So I am coming back to my idea that the EU may have some bad extortion habits, and that many British remainers are actually against their country. I don't know if I should use the word "traitor" (this is not a war), but such a word is perhaps not completely out of place.

Today, I have tried to fill some of the many gaps in my knowledge, by studying CETA, the free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement ), after reading a post by Belgian thought:

I was asking myself the question: does the EU also force Canada to pay for market access? The answer is apparently "no". This requirement seems to apply to the UK, but not to Canada. And this, once again, leads me back to my idea that the UK may need to better defend itself.

Canada isn't getting what Britain wants though.
Britain wants to pick from the EU as though it were a buffet.
Britain can have a trade deal just like Canada but it will have to be negotiated after we leave the EU.