Merged Now What?

[catsmate]

The term 'punish' is interesting.

The Leavers seem to be saying we will get favorable terms because it would be wrong to punish us. But not getting favorable terms is not punishment it's merely what the country deserves as one that isn't in the preferential treatment club.

Not having free trade with the EU isn't punishment. It's the default position for any non-Eu country. Some countries have negotiated FTA but the terms of those are based on the strength of your negotiation position and the skill of your negotiators. Getting a crappy deal wouldn't be punishment anymore than getting a good deal would be a reward.

It appears to be part of the Leave mindset; the UK is special and deserves preferential treatment.

 

[catsmate]

I'm not aware of anything (apart from the lack of a suitable product) that prevented Rolls Royce from doing business with Embraer in the past.

Exactly. Why haven't UK companies gone looking for business before Brexit.

 

[catsmate]

[qimg]https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/the_eu_s_largest_single_export_market_.png[/qimg]

16% of EU exports of goods and services are to the UK.
15% of EU exports of goods and services are to the USA.
https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/

There are only three EU countries who sell less to us than we buy from them; Republic of Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta.

You might want to stop switching between "goods" and "goods and services" so casually.

And a large amount of the UK services sector is now up for grabs by other countries.

 

[Airfix]

It appears to be part of the Leave mindset; the UK is special and deserves preferential treatment.

Wrong.
The UK is my home. The UK's membership of the EU hasn't worked out for the best and 17.4m people to 16.1m people voted to leave.

There are very strong reasons why people voted to leave the EU.

Democracy must be observed and served.

The people have voted for self governance, not xenophobia or a trade war.

 

[Airfix]

Exactly. Why haven't UK companies gone looking for business before Brexit.

Customs tariff barriers can make UK companies less competitive.

Now we're in a position to do tariff free deals with countries we couldn't do deals with before (because of rule TFEU207 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E207:en:HTML ).

And we should do tariff free deals.

 

[Spanx]

Wrong.
The UK is my home. The UK's membership of the EU hasn't worked out for the best and 17.4m people to 16.1m people voted to leave.

There are very strong reasons why people voted to leave the EU.

Democracy must be observed and served.

The people have voted for self governance, not xenophobia or a trade war.

The U.K. Is also my home. The reason I voted to remain was because all that leave offered was hope and they couldn't back up their claims.

As you will know, they still don't know what they are doing or what they intend to achieve.

 

[Airfix]

You might want to stop switching between "goods" and "goods and services" so casually.

And a large amount of the UK services sector is now up for grabs by other countries.

Only because of the uncertainty caused by David Cameron and George Osborne not having a contingency plan.

Once there is a plan for the future from the government there's certainty.
A small bit of upheaval in the short term is worth it for a more prosperous and more open longer term future.

I suggested EFTA - EEA as that is the path offering the least amount of upheaval but it is not the only path to consider post EU.
Remember, the EU is inefficient, wasteful, overpriced compared to every other free trade organisation on the planet, and unnecessary to our needs.

We need trade, not a supranational political union which (amongst other things) tells us what our minimum tax rates should be.
It sticks it's nose in where it isn't needed. It refused to reform.

Every single treaty from the Single European Act of 1987 - Lisbon has been signed without a democratic polling of the British people.

It was inevitable that eventually, when given the chance to have our say on the political and diplomatic future of our country, the British people would vote to leave the EU.
We'd have voted against Maastricht if John Major had let us. We'd have voted against Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon if Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had let us.

We Euroskeptics (and Tony Benn opened my eyes to this), we don't want a federal superstate with a common government, currency and military. We just want trade and friendship.

This man shaped my political views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzJEzO3AMOQ

 

[Darat]

Only because of the uncertainty caused by David Cameron and George Osborne not having a contingency plan.

Once there is a plan for the future from the government there's certainty.
A small bit of upheaval in the short term is worth it for a more prosperous and more open longer term future.

I suggested EFTA - EEA as that is the path offering the least amount of upheaval but it is not the only path to consider post EU.
Remember, the EU is inefficient, wasteful, overpriced compared to every other free trade organisation on the planet, and unnecessary to our needs.

We need trade, not a supranational political union which (amongst other things) tells us what our minimum tax rates should be.
It sticks it's nose in where it isn't needed. It refused to reform.

Every single treaty from the Single European Act of 1987 - Lisbon has been signed without a democratic polling of the British people.

It was inevitable that eventually, when given the chance to have our say on the political and diplomatic future of our country, the British people would vote to leave the EU.
We'd have voted against Maastricht if John Major had let us. We'd have voted against Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon if Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had let us.

We Euroskeptics (and Tony Benn opened my eyes to this), we don't want a federal superstate with a common government, currency and military. We just want trade and friendship.

This man shaped my political views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzJEzO3AMOQ

And every single piece of legislation bar 2 has been passed without a democratic polling of the people!

 

[catsmate]

Only because of the uncertainty caused by David Cameron and George Osborne not having a contingency plan.

No. Because the services sector is highly responsive and mobile and sees the consequences of Brexit on their businesses.

Once there is a plan for the future from the government there's certainty.

I don't share your blind optimism.

A small bit of upheaval in the short term is worth it for a more prosperous and more open longer term future.

Again, blind optimism.

I suggested EFTA - EEA as that is the path offering the least amount of upheaval but it is not the only path to consider post EU.

If the UK wants access to the single market it will have to accept the four EU freedoms. This includes free movement. This has been pointed out multiple times and yet some Leave supporters refuse to accept it.

Remember, the EU is inefficient, wasteful, overpriced compared to every other free trade organisation on the planet, and unnecessary to our needs.

Unsupported assertion. The EU is far more than other free trade groups.

We need trade, not a supranational political union which (amongst other things) tells us what our minimum tax rates should be.
It sticks it's nose in where it isn't needed. It refused to reform.

Others have a different vision. If you want access to EU markets you'll have to accept their terms.

Every single treaty from the Single European Act of 1987 - Lisbon has been signed without a democratic polling of the British people.

That's a matter for the UK and it's government.

 

[Airfix]

The U.K. Is also my home. The reason I voted to remain was because all that leave offered was hope and they couldn't back up their claims.

As you will know, they still don't know what they are doing or what they intend to achieve.

Both the official referendum campaigns were truly awful.
I did not vote because of Vote Leave, my views have been shaped by 25 or so years of watching the EU, from the time of the Maastrict debates in the commons.

I am well aware of why it was created, but what it has become now, is self serving and slightly sinister.
Lieutenant General Esa Pulkkinen is the EU's chief of military staff, I didn't vote for the EU to have a military staff, I don't know anyone who did.

We can get rid of our MEPs and our Prime Minister, but we can't elect or get rid of our Commissioner (except by referendum to leave the EU itself). There is a big democratic deficit.

Yes, we can elect MEPs to scrutinise the EU's laws and vote on them, but they can't propose the EU's laws and offer a new direction to the project.

In 2014, when the UK Independence Party got the most of the UK's EU Parliament seats, ex PM David Cameron appointed Jonathan Hill to be our Commissioner.

Here was a man from a party that came 3rd in a UK wide election, who was made our representative without our consent.

If you cannot remove the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy.

There is no process in any EU country, for the democratic election of Commissioners.

That was a big reason in my voting to leave.

Remainers often say that we have influence in the EU, but as voters, we do not, because we cannot choose the policy makers.
We cannot choose the direction for the EU to go in.

We cannot elect people to cut it's budget or close departments. We cannot elect people to enlarge it's budget or open new departments. We have no influence. It is cut off from the voter.

I can go to my MP and lobby him, I can go to an MEP, but only a Commissioner can propose EU policy and they are not elected.

 

[catsmate]

And every single piece of legislation bar 2 has been passed without a democratic polling of the people!

Yeah.
It's amazing how this is such an issue for anything to do with the EU but not for other matters.

 

[The Don]

Only because of the uncertainty caused by David Cameron and George Osborne not having a contingency plan.

Ah, the old blame game. Brexit has significant levels of doubt associated with it not because the Leave campaign failed to provide a coherent and realistic picture of the UK's future outside the EU but because the government wasn't able to read the Leave campaign's mind and pull together a contingency plan.

 

[The Don]

Wrong.
The UK is my home. The UK's membership of the EU hasn't worked out for the best and 17.4m people to 16.1m people voted to leave.

We don't have a copy of the UK economy which has been run as a control.

Many people (on both sides) voted for reasons that have little to do with the EU per-se but instead were a vote to retain the status quo/a protest vote.

There are very strong reasons why people voted to leave the EU.

Clearly they thought so, I have yet to be convinced.

Democracy must be observed and served.

Yes, but it's not clear how far that democratic mandate extends.

The people have voted for self governance, not xenophobia or a trade war.

Are you sure ? It's not clear to me what the Leave campaign supporters voted for. According to some people interviewed on the radio after the vote:

Some voted for an additional £350m a week for the NHS, completely independent of EU membership.

Some voted for the immediate closing of our borders to immigration with the rapid repatriation of all immigrants.

Some voted for us to be free of all EU regulation/interference and to exit the EEA (so they can import their Malaysian manufactured vacuum cleaners more cheaply).

Some wanted to leave the EU in name only and to remain in the EEA, keep free movement of people and pay into EU coffers.

 

[catsmate]

Ah, the old blame game. Brexit has significant levels of doubt associated with it not because the Leave campaign failed to provide a coherent and realistic picture of the UK's future outside the EU but because the government wasn't able to read the Leave campaign's mind and pull together a contingency plan.

But, but £350 million per week for the NHS, and fewer brown people...

 

[Airfix]

Others have a different vision.

They aren't allowed to elect their Commissioners either and as such lack the same choice in defining the future direction of the EU, so how do you know they have a different vision ?

If you want access to EU markets you'll have to accept their terms.

Obviously.

Just as if you want access to NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR or APEC's markets, you have to accept their terms.

But other free trade organisations do not interfere with the democracy of their members or partners, as illustrated previously with the EU vat directive of 2006, as well as their railway directives and their rules on state aid, or the ability for members to have their own bilateral free trade deals.

 

[Airfix]

But, but £350 million per week for the NHS.

Vote Leave gave a gross figure pre rebate. It was misleading. I did not vote because of them.

Both major referendum campaigns projected fear, lies and scaremongering.

and fewer brown people...

Most EU migrants are white.

Meanwhile non EU migrants were being discriminated against by the UK government before the referendum. Requirements included paying more than a thousand pounds just to be here, and earnings of more than £35k or facing deportation.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ng-less-35000-employees-americans-australians

The discrimination against people who aren't from the EU is disgusting and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately one of the people who increased discrimination is now Prime Minister (can I remind you that she was a remainer?)

 

[Airfix]

Clearly they thought so, I have yet to be convinced.

You were given a vote.

If remain had won, I would have been collectively outvoted.
Most polls had put remain ahead.
I went to bed believing that remain had won. Saddened, but resigned to remaining in and that would have been the end of it for me.
I was amazed and elated that it wasn't the end of it.

We must all accept the results of a democratic vote.
Now we need to make it work.

 

[Spanx]

Both the official referendum campaigns were truly awful.
I did not vote because of Vote Leave, my views have been shaped by 25 or so years of watching the EU, from the time of the Maastrict debates in the commons.

I am well aware of why it was created, but what it has become now, is self serving and slightly sinister.
Lieutenant General Esa Pulkkinen is the EU's chief of military staff, I didn't vote for the EU to have a military staff, I don't know anyone who did.

We can get rid of our MEPs and our Prime Minister, but we can't elect or get rid of our Commissioner (except by referendum to leave the EU itself). There is a big democratic deficit.

Yes, we can elect MEPs to scrutinise the EU's laws and vote on them, but they can't propose the EU's laws and offer a new direction to the project.

In 2014, when the UK Independence Party got the most of the UK's EU Parliament seats, ex PM David Cameron appointed Jonathan Hill to be our Commissioner.

Here was a man from a party that came 3rd in a UK wide election, who was made our representative without our consent.

If you cannot remove the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy.

There is no process in any EU country, for the democratic election of Commissioners.

That was a big reason in my voting to leave.

Remainers often say that we have influence in the EU, but as voters, we do not, because we cannot choose the policy makers.
We cannot choose the direction for the EU to go in.

We cannot elect people to cut it's budget or close departments. We cannot elect people to enlarge it's budget or open new departments. We have no influence. It is cut off from the voter.

I can go to my MP and lobby him, I can go to an MEP, but only a Commissioner can propose EU policy and they are not elected.

Thanks for your reply.

It would appear you didn't vote for any of the promises made by leave apart from the take back control part.

Obviously we have yet to see what control we will have over the promises made.

 

[Airfix]

The Vote Leave campaign was rubbish as was Will Straw's "Stronger In" campaign.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Exactly. Why haven't UK companies gone looking for business before Brexit.

No I think this one is fair(ish) comment. My data is from about 2008 and a different product but it was almost impossible for exporters to compete vs domestic product in Brazil thanks to tariffs on some products.

The UK couldn't negotiate it's own trade terms and was tied to the EU process. Now we can negotiate our own terms if we want to.

Of course the EU were already negotiating a deal and now we will have to start from square one again.

The 64,000 dollar question is whether we get a better deal being out of the EU and on what kind of timeframe.

That these countries are expressing an interest is meaningless until we see some actual agreements and actual trade terms.