Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That is a British problem. The option was quite clear "Leave the European Union" - nothing said leaving a bit or partly or if is convenient.

The other way around, nothing was said about what the future relationship with the EU should be. So they leave the EU, but the question is what now? No relationship?

Entirely possible. I didn't think "no deal" is viable, but it seems Liam Fox is now of the view that a free trade deal with the US is undesirable because of the concessions the US is seeking.

The new plan, according to the Financial Times, is to get a deal focused on services. Turns out the self-proclaimed future champions of free trade are already facing trade hard ball despite the "special relationship".

IIRC, the inclusion of services in the EU-US trade deal negotiations was a stumbling block because the US don't want services to be covered by trade deals, so we might end up in a curious situation with no trade deal, but possibly a services agreement of some sort.

Weird and amusing. Brexit in a nutshell.

The issue is the EU ceased being a trading bloc only decades ago, so if someone votes to leave:
Does it mean giving up the European Court of Justice?
Making your own laws versus laws from Brussels?
Controlling your borders?

Now if one is going to take the option being floated about staying in the Common Market, is it possible:
Without accepting the ECJ as your supreme court of last resort?
Accepting laws from Brussels to ensure integrity of the Common Market?
Accepting freedom of movement as that is integral to the common market?

The 4 pillars are the 4 pillars, if one votes to leave it has to mean giving up the 4 pillars since the EU has ensured that their trading bloc is fully integrated, there is no compromise on those, so why folks think people voted to leave the EU but accept the 4 pillars is not really logical, as stated by the EU, they are in-divisible, unless that is / was too complicated for the 17+ million who voted to leave?

One last point on the vote, the EU and the official government fully supported Remain, all machinery of the government was bought to bear, to now claim that the Leave grouping with no official support, a budget that was peanuts compared to Project Fear and the official media - BBC - all against was somehow able to mislead the 17+ million is also not logical, where was the government, Project Fear and the BBC when Boris bus was running around, in hiding?
My take is that people chose not to believe the government and the EU, not strange since that is what happens whenever a vote related to the EU is given, I have no doubt as with past history, after a period of re-education, the 17+ million will vote to remain.

Dutchy wrote:

No surprise there. Brittian is a county of 66m and America of 350m, what did they think? They will be the underdog, the same with India, China, and the EU.

Hence the reason why they should go WTO first then spend the time in years working on trade deals with all and sundry.
Based on the EU demands, the UK would essentially throw themselves into deep debt before they even know what type of trade deal they will get.
Based on the French talking about 60 billion and counting, how much is trade with the EU really worth to the UK, is anyone on the remain side even counting?
Labour are saying they will pay whatever it is, hhmmmm.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That is a British problem. The option was quite clear "Leave the European Union" - nothing said leaving a bit or partly or if is convenient.

The other way around, nothing was said about what the future relationship with the EU should be. So they leave the EU, but the question is what now? No relationship?

Exactly this. WTO rules and that is that. The population has clearly said they want no part of the EU and want to be fully sovereign again. However you can not be fully sovereign when you want to be part of the EU market. The common market is based on 4 basic pillars that every participant has to agree on. Nobody gains anything when the UK ends up with a deal that is again sold as "the evil EU forced us to do this" to the population.

seahawk wrote:

Leave means being no part of anything formed by the EU, which imho includes the common market.

That isn´t logical though, since being a EU member means being part of the common market, but not being an EU member doesn´t mean you are not.

And considering how many jobs potentially depend on being part of the common market, i´d be surprised if for example people working in car manufacturing wanted to leave the common market, .... no matter what they are thinking about the EU.

best regards
Thomas

Well, then they were delusional. Being part of the common market and gaining full control of the borders is not possible. Neither is being part of the common market and being free of any form of EU legislation or jurisdiction. And being part of the market while not paying a penny to the EU is just as impossible.

There are 2 options to access the European Economic Area, be a partner in the EU or in EFTA. Neither of those offer what the UK wanted with the Brexit.

I think the leave side knew quite well what they wanted. They wanted to leave anything connected to the EU and regain full British sovereignty. So the UK has 3 options.

1. Take the EFTA option
2. admit that leaving was a mistake and that it would be very bad for the UK and re-do the vote based on current facts
3. accept the vote and do the hard Brexit

Only option 3 is in line with what the leave campaign wanted.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Well, then they were delusional. Being part of the common market and gaining full control of the borders is not possible. Neither is being part of the common market and being free of any form of EU legislation or jurisdiction. And being part of the market while not paying a penny to the EU is just as impossible.

There are 2 options to access the European Economic Area, be a partner in the EU or in EFTA. Neither of those offer what the UK wanted with the Brexit.

The Brexiteers sold exactly that to its voters. And what you say, that is not possible.

Up until very recently they were still telling everyone about their future seamless trade with the EU. And before that they were even more specific.

Boris Johnson: UK will 'still have access to single market’ despite Brexit
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 04846.html

seahawk wrote:

Only option 3 is in line with what the leave campaign wanted.

"Whatever the leave campaign wants" wasn´t an option on the ballot, and it wasn´t what everyone voting "Leave" voted for either.



That poll was published ~2 weeks before the vote, and as you can see a hard Brexit is nowhere even remotely close to a majority, it barely makes the majority of the leave votes.

best regards
Thomas

I wonder how many voters voted to leave Euratom

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No surprise there. Brittian is a county of 66m and America of 350m, what did they think? They will be the underdog, the same with India, China, and the EU.

Hence the reason why they should go WTO first then spend the time in years working on trade deals with all and sundry.
Based on the EU demands, the UK would essentially throw themselves into deep debt before they even know what type of trade deal they will get.
Based on the French talking about 60 billion and counting, how much is trade with the EU really worth to the UK, is anyone on the remain side even counting?
Labour are saying they will pay whatever it is, hhmmmm.

This

Why should we, i.e. the UK, pay above and beyond what was agreed up till 2020, before a trade deal gets negotiated?

Because you made commitments that go further than 2020, like the pensions for British employees of the EU.

seahawk wrote:

I think the leave side knew quite well what they wanted. They wanted to leave anything connected to the EU and regain full British sovereignty. So the UK has 3 options.

1. Take the EFTA option

There's one big caveat here. EFTA is not the EEA. All EFTA countries are in the EEA, except Switzerland which has a series of bilaterals with the EU which pretty much amount to the same thing.

You can be in the EFTA but still require approval from all EU states to be in the EEA, so you would only accomplish trading with the 4 EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) which is a good start but a far cry from a backdoor to the EU market as has been touted by some in the Brexit camp.

Dano1977 wrote:

This

Why should we, i.e. the UK, pay above and beyond what was agreed up till 2020, before a trade deal gets negotiated?

because how Boris phrased it in a Sunday Times (?) column, that unfortunately somehow wasn´t published before the vote and before he figured Brexit is a good practical joke to play, " the membership fee seems rather small for all that access".

Boris wrote:

Shut your eyes, hold your breath. Think of Britain. Think of the rest of the EU. Think of the future. Think of the desire of your children and your grandchildren to live and work in other European countries; to sell things there, to make friends and perhaps to find partners there.

Ask yourself: Despite all the defects and disappointments of this exercise — do you really, truly, definitely want Britain to pull out of the EU?

full text: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 70296.html

In other words, the EU could way the hell overcharge and it would still pay off for the UK. That they just want to tally up commitments already made is already a fairly generous offer. If the EU decided to quantify those benefits and add half of it to the bill, we want to remain fair after all, to the exit bill, it would still be a good deal. So far the EU offers a lot free of charge, but it seems "free" ain´t cheap enough for the current UK government.

best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

One last point on the vote, the EU and the official government fully supported Remain, all machinery of the government was bought to bear, to now claim that the Leave grouping with no official support, a budget that was peanuts compared to Project Fear and the official media - BBC - all against was somehow able to mislead the 17+ million is also not logical, where was the government, Project Fear and the BBC when Boris bus was running around, in hiding?
My take is that people chose not to believe the government and the EU, not strange since that is what happens whenever a vote related to the EU is given, I have no doubt as with past history, after a period of re-education, the 17+ million will vote to remain.

Populism is easier than pragmatism, nothing new there.

seahawk wrote:

Because you made commitments that go further than 2020, like the pensions for British employees of the EU.

Governments make commitments years into the future and those are changed by said government or even new ones, the idea that a members commitment stays with them for life is counter to all we know about current civilizations.
The member has voted to leave, and per article 50 which grants the divorce, those commitments cease when they officially leave.
Now if life commitments were written into article 50, would it really be a divorce document or a membership termination agreement?

Saw this headline this morning, and I admit to not having read it because the headline sums up the problems that both sides have with Brexit.
1. People in the UK get a legally sanctioned vote, people in Spain have a vote that is not legal.
2. Everyone rejects the illegal vote as it is not legal, everyone rejects the legal vote because of the result.

Democracy is a funny thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rexit.html

par13del wrote:

Saw this headline this morning, and I admit to not having read it because the headline sums up the problems that both sides have with Brexit.
1. People in the UK get a legally sanctioned vote, people in Spain have a vote that is not legal.
2. Everyone rejects the illegal vote as it is not legal, everyone rejects the legal vote because of the result.

Everyone rejects the Brexit vote because the answer can be interpreted as a dozen different things. I honestly can't blame a Leave voter who believed BoJo BS about having their cake and eat it having second thoughts but they must abide by it.

The problem was framing a very complicated issue into a yes/no vote, and that blame lays at Cameron's feet.

At some point they might want to reapply, but in the meantime enjoy democracy.

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Because you made commitments that go further than 2020, like the pensions for British employees of the EU.

Governments make commitments years into the future and those are changed by said government or even new ones, the idea that a members commitment stays with them for life is counter to all we know about current civilizations.
The member has voted to leave, and per article 50 which grants the divorce, those commitments cease when they officially leave.
Now if life commitments were written into article 50, would it really be a divorce document or a membership termination agreement?

And as the commitments ends, the EU wants a monetary compensation for the costs falling on the EU that will be no longer covered by British contribution and are connected to the UK leaving - like pensions of British EU employees.

But be positive you can always go for a hard Brexit and refuse to pay one more penny, just do not expect a trade deal than.

And nobody has rejected the Brexit vote, but accepting that the UK will be leaving the UK does not mean that the UK can dictate the terms of the divorce.

seahawk wrote:

does not mean that the UK can dictate the terms of the divorce.

It is a good test for future trade deal negotiations. If the proof themselves to be just as "competent" in those negotiations, the UK economy is in for a ride.

best regards
Thomas

JJJ wrote:

Everyone rejects the Brexit vote because the answer can be interpreted as a dozen different things. I honestly can't blame a Leave voter who believed BoJo BS about having their cake and eat it having second thoughts but they must abide by it.

The problem was framing a very complicated issue into a yes/no vote, and that blame lays at Cameron's feet.

At some point they might want to reapply, but in the meantime enjoy democracy.

So DC running around to the EU prior to consenting to the referendum meant what, that he was trying to educate himself on the workings of the EU, the same EU that people are now saying the UK was a part of and helped to shape so they knew full well what their obligations were and how the EU functioned,is this a circular argument?
The entire government machinery for both the UK and the EU supported a Remain vote, along with most of the major media, how can the claim be made that the Brexiters lied to the millions and there was no rebuttal from the government, the result of the vote can be a rejection of the lies and a rejection of the government project fear.
The slides showing the polls about leaving the EU versus the single market, as we all know, they are one and the same, one cannot vote to leave the EU but remain in the single market, the foundation of the EU is the 4 pillars, not what Bojo puts on on a bus, if 17+ million people fell for such lies and went to the polls with such blinders on, do you really want such people in the EU, what exactly would they contribute other than money to the cultural, economic and social development of the union?

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Everyone rejects the Brexit vote because the answer can be interpreted as a dozen different things. I honestly can't blame a Leave voter who believed BoJo BS about having their cake and eat it having second thoughts but they must abide by it.

The problem was framing a very complicated issue into a yes/no vote, and that blame lays at Cameron's feet.

At some point they might want to reapply, but in the meantime enjoy democracy.

So DC running around to the EU prior to consenting to the referendum meant what, that he was trying to educate himself on the workings of the EU, the same EU that people are now saying the UK was a part of and helped to shape so they knew full well what their obligations were and how the EU functioned,is this a circular argument?
The entire government machinery for both the UK and the EU supported a Remain vote, along with most of the major media, how can the claim be made that the Brexiters lied to the millions and there was no rebuttal from the government, the result of the vote can be a rejection of the lies and a rejection of the government project fear.

It's much, much easier to mobilise people on emotional terms than with numbers. DC tried to deactivate the ticking bomb in his party and cut the wrong wire, and made a huge mistake of bringing party politics to the national stage.

The whole run up to the Brexit vote will be studied in history books for decades to come.

par13del wrote:

one cannot vote to leave the EU but remain in the single market

being an EU member is none of the pillars of the common market. You can be outside the EU and inside the common market.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

being an EU member is none of the pillars of the common market. You can be outside the EU and inside the common market.

best regards
Thomas

....abiding by how many of the 4 pillars?

In theory you can leave the EU and become an EFTA member. But the net effect won´t be even remotely close to the promises made by the Brexiters.

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

being an EU member is none of the pillars of the common market. You can be outside the EU and inside the common market.

best regards
Thomas

....abiding by how many of the 4 pillars?

All of course. But since no change with regards to the common market was one of the promisses of the leave campaign that should be fine. Unless of course you want to say that the leave campaign deliberately lied about common market access to cheat the UK citizens.

Best regards
Thomas

Except the 4 pillars is what the voters had / have a problem with, and since the EU, government and media houses knew the lies of the Leave camp and made them known to the public, that had nothing to do with the actual result, at least in my opinion.
At least JRM was consistent in the run up to the vote whenever he weighed in on the legal aspects of the vote.

par13del wrote:

Except the 4 pillars is what the voters had / have a problem with.

according to the poll above, almost half the leave voters had no problem with the common market.

best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

2. Everyone rejects the illegal vote as it is not legal, everyone rejects the legal vote because of the result.

Democracy is a funny thing.

Funny thing is the legal vote wasn't binding either!

But let's be honest, while it technically isn't legally binding, people only started making a big deal out of that AFTER the referendum.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

But let's be honest, while it technically isn't legally binding, people only started making a big deal out of that AFTER the referendum.

Farage also said that if remain won 52-48 a second referendum would be needed.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember- ... m-5963900/

And Farage was an idiot for saying that.

tommy1808 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Except the 4 pillars is what the voters had / have a problem with.

according to the poll above, almost half the leave voters had no problem with the common market.

best regards
Thomas

So the 4 pillars have no bearing on the common market, one can be in the common market while ignoring the 4 pillars....we are going in circles.

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

2. Everyone rejects the illegal vote as it is not legal, everyone rejects the legal vote because of the result.

Democracy is a funny thing.

Funny thing is the legal vote wasn't binding either!

In the UK form of democracy, the vote created a political mandate which the politicians have to turn into law, even the Labour Party had to admit that they have to respect the will of the voters while trying as hard as they can not to accept the will of the voters.

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Except the 4 pillars is what the voters had / have a problem with.

according to the poll above, almost half the leave voters had no problem with the common market.

best regards
Thomas

So the 4 pillars have no bearing on the common market, one can be in the common market while ignoring the 4 pillars....we are going in circles.

Nope, the UK government is just deliberately ignoring the elctorates will, since remaining in the common market had overwhelming support. You can still leave the EU.

Best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

2. Everyone rejects the illegal vote as it is not legal, everyone rejects the legal vote because of the result.

Democracy is a funny thing.

Funny thing is the legal vote wasn't binding either!

In the UK form of democracy, the vote created a political mandate which the politicians have to turn into law, even the Labour Party had to admit that they have to respect the will of the voters while trying as hard as they can not to accept the will of the voters.

I firmly believe that Remain would have been the better choice. That said, I increasingly find myself in the Brexit must proceed camp.

Not because I think the UK will be better off. Far from it. I've just come to he conclusion, like I suspect many remainers have, that the only way to deal with the disruptive, emotional and not particularly wise average Brexit voter is by accepting their choice and letting them experience the consequences first hand.

Reversing Brexit will just result in more temper tantrums about the evil elite, and more disruptive voting patterns. Might as well let them let it all out now, break the system completely, and figure it out once the consequences are known.

The simple reality is that if it goes sideways, the impact is going to be borne by the less mobile/less skilled/"somewhere" segments of society. The Remainer "anywheres" - the evil elites et al - are better placed to weather the storm, and can up and leave with relative ease if need be (it's already happening), and return when things return to normal.

Once the dust settles, see what needs to be done. My main hope is that the UK doesn't swerve hard to the left when the laws of economics take their inevitable toll. But then again, is a hard left government palatable if thats what it takes to chasten disruptive populism that characterizes Brexit? Perhaps.

A hard Brexit might just be the optimum solution. Perhaps it time to down tools, go over the cliff edge and start from scratch. Even in the aviation market. The Jacob Rees Mogg model, if you will.

Funny thing is, despite all the debunking of the Leave campaign slogans, now that the vote is in they keep coming back, no idea why people cannot accept that the no vote had nothing to do with the catchy slogans.

It is a matter of respecting democracy to do the Brexit and to do it right, which means a hard Brexit.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It is a matter of respecting democracy to do the Brexit and to do it right, which means a hard Brexit.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

Mentioned in this thread, even before the referendum more than 50% wanted the Norwegian model, so why do you have this opinion?

Precisely, there are several degrees there. It's reducing the question of "what do you want for dinner" to a binary fish or meat question. Maybe if I can't have tuna fillet I'd rather have chicken or steak than cod, but since you phrased the question that way I'll be stuck with cod.

The vote was badly timed, badly handled and badly phrased.

And the choice was "no dinner". And that means no desert as well. Imho the worst solution would be some half baked compromise that is not fully supported by either side, be it the Brexiters, the Remainers or the EU. It would be the same trouble all over again.

So imho either do the hard Brexit and accept the costs or list the true costs and do a second vote before finalizing the hard Brexit. With the clear question being. Should we do the hard Brexit or stay with the EU as a full member. The topic must be closed once and for all.

Only the idealogical loons want a hard brexit. They don't give a damn about the economy or anyone who will be affected by it.. They would rather the country went down the pan than change their beliefs.. One thing is for certain.. My family will be leaving the country if a hard brexit takes place..