UKH

This struck a chord, I'm sure I've read similar on here.

http://newsthump.com/2016/07/26/brexiter-who-wanted-freedom-from-eu-tyranny...

In reply to Timmd:
Have a like for making me chuckle, you wet lettuce libtard.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/the-social-media-whinging-from-r...

In reply to Timmd:

I think the world needs more people to get angry. Really, really angry. Angry beyond Twitter and Facebook and, yes, even UKC forums.

People should be getting angry about things that are NOT going in their favour, however, not because things are going in their favour and others are opposing their opinions.

Dare I say people should not be taking it anymore?

In reply to Xharlie:


I think I agree.

In reply to Xharlie:


Personally I find the world to be a much nicer place when people aren't angry. Its just so much more pleasant that way

In reply to Timmd:

Keep posting this boring trivial shit up and you'll be UKC number 1 poster for a second week.

In reply to Timmd:



You do realise the irony of a militant remainer who hasn't stopped bleating on about the bloody referendum result for the past 3 months posting a link such as that on a website where hardly any Brexiteers have bothered to post since the referendum because they can't be arsed arguing against the deafening chorus of self righteousness any more?

In reply to Timmd:

Here.. this should cheer you up!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brexit-brainstorm...

In reply to Gone for good:

What I don't get is this idea that we should all stop talking about this most important of political issues. "You lost! Deal with it! Move on!"
That's the level of debate which won the referendum for Brexit and they think it is enough to sustain our country now that their simplistic nationalism has won
But how am I supposed to deal with views and approaches that I fear and despise? What are you going to do to my country now that you've got it? Every response from Brexit apologists on this forum confirms my misgivings. Unseemly triumphalism ; nothing to reassure that things are going to be alright ; nothing.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

I think your partly right but the opposite is also true. Apart from weeping into your cornflakes at the unfairness of it all what solutions are being offered by those who were in the remain camp other than holding another referendum because the thick British public ticked the wrong box?

There comes a point where we will all have to move on and get on as best we can. The sooner the better.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I think you need to get yourself one of these.
http://tinyurl.com/jejfguq

As I said above, the irony of a militant remainer posting a link about ranting Brexiteers when all the apoplectic rage is on the part of remainers seems to be lost on you as well.

In reply to Timmd:
Shamelessly ripped off from somewhere else;

In reply to Pete Pozman:




We got our country back, innit?

In reply to Pete Pozman:



Actually I seem to recall a number of past threads in which you despaired in similar fashion and you seemed genuinely disappointed at the time that both Brexiters and economically literate Remainers could outline arguments that Brexit might not be the disaster you appear to wish it be. It seems your response to not having everyone see the world from the same perspective is to ask the same question again a month or so later. How often will you wring your hands before the do-ers prove to the complainers that just getting on with normal life will deliver a UK either a little bit more or a little bit less economically successful in the league table of nations (but in any case not materially different). And that society will adjust to mildly altered migration rules but continue to reflect a liberal middle class outlook because, unless you hadn't noticed, that's who buys more, makes the TV shows, runs all the businesses and fills most of the seats in parliament. If you can't see that, is it any wonder that respondents find themselves reduced to pointing out that the referendum result delivered a majority for Brexit.

In reply to Gone for good:


In fairness that is exactly what the out camp would have been demanding if they had lost. Indeed Farage is on the record as saying he would keep pushing for one.

In reply to BnB:


An essentially even split would characterize the result more accurately.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

It would but that isn't the thrust of my post.

In reply to BnB:

No but it goes a long way to explaining why a lot of people feel, quite justifiably in my view, angry that we're doing a lot of harm to ourselves, our neighbors and our standing in the world for what at the very best may eventually prove to be small gains in limited areas. The repeated refrain from the politicians is 'we have a clear mandate'... they don't, they have a small majority gained off the back of a shameful campaign of outright lies that have since been largely disavowed. We're not getting what we were promised. We're getting f**ked.

I do understand your 'what's done is done, let's just get on with making the best of it' attitude, my thoughts were similar in the immediate aftermath of the vote but on reflection I don't agree. Remaining is the right thing to do and we should resist.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
that is my deep worry, effectively a really important vote that should have had a threshold may have been carried by a "noise spike". I hope cyberneticists can do better than that when they design autopilots and safety of life equipment.


Even more worrying when you find the demagogues who brought this about expressing admiration for Putin and cosying up to US presidential candidates who also like him as a "strong national leader" - perhaps I should have added that to the "things I thought I'd never see" thread

In reply to BnB:

Personally, I don't give a flying f*ck about the "league table of nations" but I do care about my savings, valued in Pounds, and my passport with United Kingdom and "Citizen" written on it. Both of those have been and are being pissed away by idiots - not just Farage, Cameron too - and their campaigns of lies.

In reply to Big Ger... and whoever wrote the original post copied:

"The man", really? Just name the guys.

Cameron made the referendum part of his election platform because he was scared of UKIP. Arguably, he had to hold it because the Tories won. Cameron basically went "double or quits" on the issue because he was cock sure there was no doubt about a remain outcome. He has now suffered from his hubris.

UKIP are now more or less disbanded. They should be rounded up and lined up against the wall. I know they were a one-topic party and this was inevitable but, by winning and disbanding, calling the job done, they have only shown that they never had a clue, a plan or any intention of what they wanted to do after they won.

But solutions. Here's one: hold general elections immediately.

Labour are split over Corbyn. UKIP have disbanded. The Lib Dems are split over whether they should campaign for a second referendum or not. The Tories are split into ex-Cameronites (banished and exiled by May) and a plethora of other groups behind or opposed to individuals.

The future of the UK isn't up to them and their bickering. They are supposed to be representing us, the voters, so let's vote.

This will prompt them to reform into parties that actually stand for something. There will be the hard brexit parties, the other brexit flavour parties, the lib-dems and their "best of three" platform and perhaps parties that don't take a stand on brexit at all but rather focus on real issues such as the NHS and housing.

Then, once that's all cleared up, the people can go to the polls and make their opinions heard.

The alternative solution, the one we are on track for, is much simpler: we wait and see. We trigger article 50 and cede all power to Brussels - MEPs have no mandate to look to the interests of erstwhile members of the union - and ask them very nicely to be kind to jolly old Britain.

In reply to Gone for good:


That's simple, stay in the EEA, as some Bexiteers suggested before the vote.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

That choice isn't the UK's choice to make. The deafening message from Brussels is that the UK must trigger article 50 and live with the outcome, no negotiation. Perhaps they'll let us stay but asking nicely is about as much power as we have.,

In reply to Xharlie:

They would, it's been implied by an number of European politicians, and it's less hassle for everybody when there's more important things to deal with.

The problem is selling it over here, even though it is completely consistent with the result of the vote.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Nobody really knows that they would.

I agree that the general feeling is that the UK can stay, with strings attached (freedom of movement and immigration, for instance) but there are MEPs who say "out is out", like Schäuble, there are some who suggest that the UK should have access without these conditions, like Röttgen, and the decision would be made by them, not by us.

My point was not what the outcome would be, only that it wouldn't be the UK's choice to make.

In reply to Xharlie:


of course they will, 3 reasons;

1. Europe will still want to trade the UK
2. Europeans will still want to work in the UK, as it benefits their own finances, unemployment figures and so forth
3. The EU will still want the UK to take it's share of displaced migrants and refugees. (note; T May is trying to push for asylum seekers to only be allowed to stay in the very first country they land, which won't ever happen). But, she is making it look like she is doing the fight.

For whatever reason the bargaining chips of Trade and Migration are tied. Unlike all the other factors such as Fisheries, CAP, etc... which is little odd, but as the two biggest chips on the table, it's likely to stay that way now.

In reply to Xharlie:

like all negotiations, what is said publically, stance trading, is very different to negotiations that will eventually happen behind closed doors. Like all deals, you aim high, or low, then agree somewhere in the middle and everyone feels like they got something agreeable to walk away with.

Some MEPs are bound to be bitter, they are about to lose a net contributor, to keep on dishing out the same money etc.. they have to ask other net contributors to pay more, or they cut their budgets a little. The EU only preaches Austerity to others, it doesn't practice it.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Worries? What worries?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/lack-of-brexit-effects-proves-b...

In reply to jkarran:

The referendum delivered a very clear mandate. Not necessarily for exiting the EU, but the minute those immigration statistics came out with about 4 weeks to go, the campaign ceased to be about membership of an assembly of nations and shifted to a vox pop on immigration. And the message came through loud and clear: Enough!!.

Anyone who ignores that clarion voice has their liberal middle class head in the sand. Not all decisions have to be economically beneficial, do they? And to be fair to a good proportion of Remainers, many, post poll, are better persuaded that change is required on immigration than they are about the virtues of the EU. Theresa May for one.

I don't think the impact of Brexit will be particularly significant in the long run but I'm supportive of checks and balances to the Euro project and the UK, in its rebellion, might eventually prove to have prolonged and improved the EU's future.

PS I'm a liberal middle class Remain-voting child of Polish immigrants.

In reply to BnB:


The question is WHY ? Why on earth would anyone put reducing immigration before the economy. I just don't get it.
What on earth have these immigrants done to us that is so bad.

In reply to BnB:

The UK in its rebellion?

Now Brexit is being mythologised out of all recognition.
It was a massive upwelling of xenophobia cultivated and manipulated by utterly unscrupulous politicians and media. Whatever normal was, it has gone for a long time
This is a high summer of demagoguery the landscape is utterly changed.

In reply to BnB:

That's also at odds with the post-referendum polls to ask what influenced people to vote leave - where the more nebulous "sovereignty" was more important than immigration.

Not saying immigration wasn't a big factor (or that those polls have to be right) but I just don't think we can say one way or another - at least not with the certainty we should be able to if we are going to base the future path of our country on it.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I saw the same post-referendum polls. Didn't it strike you then that "sovereignty" is a cypher for "control our borders"? It sounds so much more reasonable, so much less, well, I'll let you put your own name to it.

In reply to Pete Pozman:



You flatter me, sir


It was. I agree. But it really won't have the impact you imagine. Calm down dear.
.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Aye, you're right, you just don't get it at all, in your fancy well paid professional banking job.
Try asking all the UK tradesmen whose livelihoods are being undermined by EU immigrants offering dirt cheap work, some with scant regards of any UK regulations.

Huge respect to BnB, who as a Remainer, has accepted the referendum result and is trying his best to move on.

In reply to Lusk:

I've not always had well paid professional banking job and did all sorts of jobs.


I've heard that before, but show it to me, the evidence, I'm eagerly waiting.

The construction industry is struggling to recruit skilled staff and the salaries in this sector have risen way faster than average earning in recent years.

http://www.citb.co.uk/news-events/uk/construction-wage-growth-double-the-na...


I too accept the result, and I'm moving on, in fact I'm leaving the country.
It doesn't mean I have to accept the falsehoods that led to this result as truths, I've reviewed all the evidence I could find on the topic, staying as open minded as possible, but I just don't see it, sorry. Now, if you have any evidence to support what you are saying, I'm happy to see it.

In reply to Xharlie:
Your post is high on opinion and assertion but has little grounding in reality, much of it is in the realms of fantasy.

Your savings, valued in pounds, are worth exactly the same as they were before and your passport, post brexit, will continue to say United Kingdom and citizen on it though it might be a different colour.

Their long term future may be in doubt but they are in no way disbanded, where on Earth did you get that idea from?

Why, because they disagree with you? Good to know where on the political spectrum you sit, somewhere next to Stalin.

I repeat, they have not disbanded and they have a clear intention of pushing for a clean break from the EU. You may not like that but it very much is their intention.

Perhaps you need to have a word with Theresa because she's got other ideas and the fixed term parliament act makes it rather difficult anyway.

No they haven't
But all very keen to make a public display of their unity behind Theresa May right now.

Sorry but until 2020 it is up to them, because that's how we did vote.


Nothing will prompt Labour to reform anytime soon short of the untimely demise of Corbyn, The Lib Dems are still trailing in the polls on about 8%, pretty much where they where when they were decimated at the last election and some way behind the (not disbanded) UKIP. The Tories are very much in the mood for showing a united front right now and would back Theresa May who has made her view on Brexit as clear as day. If the Tories were to go into an election with anything other than a clear Brexit message their supporters (who largely voted leave) would punish them by defecting to UKIP so its not going to happen.

We don't cede any power to Brussels by triggering article 50, ultimately we get the powers back we have already ceded to them and in between we enter into a negotiation in which they have as much to lose as we have if they want to be silly.

In reply to BnB:
Immigration was a separate option though, and some people did say that. I just don't think you can assume that people say one thing and mean another. And as I am above, I think we have to be crystal clear about what people do want if we are going to embark on a course of action that will fundamentally change this country, which a hard brexit is likely to.

In reply to pec:

There is a lot of nonsense in this response.

"Your savings are worth the same". Only if you want to (and are able to) buy things that are produced in the UK only. Which is nigh on impossible as a net importing country. Wasn't brexit supposed to be about being open to world trade anyway?

As for Theresa may making her views on brexit "clear as day" - how the hell do you work that one out? What will the system be for immigration - how will we determine who is allowed in? What rights will UK migrants into the EU have? Are we leaving the customs union? The single market? Will passporting be retained for financial services?
None of these points are clear. Yet again, someone who I presume voted out is making broad statements that ignore the detail.

As for the EU having as much to lose as we do - we make up a small section of EU exports, they make up something like 40% of ours. This ridiculous idea that the UK has some sort of trump hand in negotiation is not realistic.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

The EU also know that they'll always get to trade with the UK on WTO rules in the worst case, defusing a lot of the bargaining power that the UK thinks it has.

I concede the point that "disbanded" was the wrong adjective to apply to UKIP. With Farage gone and only a policy of racism on which to stand, I think UKIP are largely spent but they haven't disbanded, yet.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I'm not the respondee but I don't think any of us can be sure of the outcomes yet.


It's highly likely that tariffs on goods will not form part of any post-EU trading agreement with Europe. We are Germany's second largest trading partner with a deficit of £55bn and they have a LOT more to lose than us with the imposition of tariffs. If all else is equal in the savings environment the effect on consumer purchasing power of Brexit is almost certain to be exactly zero. Of course all else won't be equal and that's where things get less transparent. It may be that new trading relationships in SE Asia in particular produce ever cheaper consumer goods and higher spending power while boosting our exports of services and engineering products. It could be that Asian consumers turn out not to be interesting in buying British-badged life insurance products and Jaguars, although the signs are good. What if GBP falls against EUR? Well, it already has and purchasing power has dropped in theory at least. But the Eurozone could equally find itself in an Italian banking crisis soon, or the sovereign debt crisis could scupper economic stability, and GBP is likely, albeit not in equal measure, to follow USD and CHF upwards as safe hard currencies. It's not certain what the effects will be and it's possible that the market will hold prices where they are. German car manufacturers have already stated they that don't expect to raise GBP prices any time soon.


I think it's pretty clear that Theresa May wants the softest Brexit (in economic terms) that delivers (possibly not much more than an modicum of) migration controls. What she says in public is all politics and negotiating stance. Just like when Junker says no negotiation without notification while back-channelling furiously to the Foreign Office.


Both sides are guilty of this


The UK's secession from the EU isn't just a game of economic top trumps. Brexit threatens the very existence of the EU project. The worries being aired in Europe are far more serious than Osborne's ill-advised "deficit of £4k per household". I voted Remain because I believe the EU has helped deliver peace across a continent previously divided and I still hold to that view and would vote Remain again for the same reason. The manner in which the EU deals with Brexit is a fundamental test of its moral authority and a failure to approach the negotiation progressively, no matter the public displays of hardball, would likely destabilise the whole Union. In short, the EU has a lot more to lose than we do. Juncker and his colleagues in Brussels know it, Merkel and Hollande know it, and the UK negotiators know it.

Edit: spelling

In reply to BnB:


I think the £'s fall is the key point immediately. Leaving aside what a fall in the £ means (the market is saying it expects lower growth prospects for the UK generally) this has already translated as higher prices in some consumer goods, and this will continue to tail in as various importers' currency hedges expire. As for other points (there could be an italian banking crisis etc) that could weaken the Euro - absolutely, that might be a windfall. But the same upward effect on the £ would have happened anyway, so we are still poorer relative to where we would have been.


I wish I could see it as that clear. At the moment I genuinely don't know if we will get a soft or hard brexit - because the hard option seems suicidal, but the soft option politically impossible. We can speculate, but to say it is "clear as day" is not true.


Disagree. Have you read the detailed studies on impacts of leaving, e.g. treasury report? That isn't slim on detail. Compare that to the leaving plans...


I agree with this, but it still requires the agreement of each MS. The indications we get so far are that several countries (see e.g. Denmark, in the news this morning) is that they do see a need not to be overly generous in the negotiation in order to deal with their own Eurosceptics. I agree that the EU will see it as a test - but what outcome that pushes it towards is not, as far as I can see, certain. To the extent that the UK still wants a deal which is never on the table (single market + no free movement), I don't think that the other EU countries will be minded to concede.

In reply to BnB:


So?

I keep hearing this. Germany's part of the EU and can't do a bilateral deal with UK.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

>

We are so glad

In reply to johnjohn:



Then a lot of people must recognise it is important


Exactly. So the whole of the EU will have to tow the line with them.

In reply to Timmd:
WTF is a 'snowflake' anyway? Someone who makes 6 good points?

In reply to subtle:

This is a forum, the general purpose is that people say things and others agree / disagree and say why, with the aim (as far as I'm concerned) being that we learn something about each other's points of view. If you don't like that format, you could leave?

In reply to BnB:


Exactly. So the whole of the EU will have to tow the line with them.

How does that work then? Germany tells the rest of the EU to toe (couldn't let that go I'm afraid) the line and they do? Why did we bother leaving if all it takes if for a powerful member state to tell the others how it's going to be?

In reply to johnjohn:


Brexiters would argue it's because the axis of power doesn't include the UK, and doesn't hold the UK's priorities dear. But I doubt this thread was intended as a recursive discussion about why we voted to leave. Isn't this thread about the reaction of either corner post-referendum?

Unless of course you're seeking to encapsulate your own reaction with that question.

In reply to BnB:

and what would you argue? That the rest of the EU does what Germany wants because it's Germany, so if Germany wants us to have free access to the single market without accepting all its conditions, so they don't lose money, then we'll get this? I very much hope this is right, but it seems a little unlikely.

In reply to BnB:


If there is an axis of power (which I doubt, given how well individual EU states tend to get on) - it certainly won't hold the UK's priorities clear now.

In reply to johnjohn:

It'll be true up to a point. Like most negotiations the meeting point is somewhere in the middle of the opening positions. Each side has to be able to claim a win for their own audience but allow the other to announce victory to theirs.

In reply to GrahamD:


No, but if the original premise is true, it doesn't leave us much worse off, does it?

In reply to BnB:

given there's 65m of us and 0.5bn of them, to whom do you think the middle position will be closer?

In reply to johnjohn:
Us, by a small margin. They have more to lose and their decision making is more divided.

In reply to BnB:

I still don't agree with them having more to lose. As to their decision making being more fragmented - surely that would mean it is harder for them to agree something, I.e. the chances of us getting them to "see the light" and make sensible concessions are lower? Any deal has to get past 27 hurdles, each of which could block it...

In reply to BnB:

Well except that we had a real opportunity to be part of the mythical axis of power. In fact we probably were.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Xharlie said " I do care about my savings, valued in Pounds" and I correctly pointed out that his savings valued in pounds are worth exactly the same now as before the referendum and with inflation currently running at around 0.5%, well short of tha BOE target of 2% its not losing its value any time soon.

Well our exports have risen since the referendum, something a lot of EU countries would desperately like to do.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough or perhaps you're being obtuse? What I meant was that in response to the endless calls for a second referendum or an early general election (with the EU being a central theme) Theresa May has made it quite clear that she isn't having either and that we will be leaving the EU, "Brexit means Brexit" etc.
Obviously I have no more idea of how exactly it will pan out than you because bnobody knows yet

Nevertheless we run a substantial trade deficit with the EU and most countries within it, in particular with the biggest EU countries who have the most clout and most to lose. Do you think our trade surplus with Malta, Bulgaria or Estonia will have much bearing on the negotiaitions?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Look at it this way, if there is no deal we revert to WTO rules and tariffs. Most EU countries run a surplus with us so the cost of those tariffs to each of those countries will be greater than it is to us.
Depending on the nature of any deal, article 50 could be determined by qualified majority voting anyway but even if its not, the idea that a deal which suits Germany, France, Italy etc will be blocked by Croatia or Malta is nonsense. At some point somebody will take them to one side and "explain to them" which way they should vote in the way the EU always does.

In reply to pec:

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on this...


What if you want to purchase something that is imported? a car, a TV, go on an overseas holiday - these things are now more expensive. Then you bring up inflation - erm, did you mean interest rates?

LD

In reply to pec:



You would have thought they had a plan... ho wait...

In reply to RomTheBear:

they have to get their orders from Spectre, or is it Thrush?

In reply to Gone for good:



There really isnt.

Slavery wasnt defeated at first vote, women weren't easily given the right to vote. Democracy allows repeated challenges. Look at Scottish Independence, they've had two bites at the cherry and will no doubt get a third in our lifetime.

Its only wrong to take undemocratic action but it is right to fight decisions you disagree with through democratic mechanisms and it has been shown time and time again you don't have to just accept a decision and 'move on'.

The big thing is what Brexit means, May says it has to mean Brexit but a brexit lite approach is probably the most popular option and would leave many brexiters furious. In fact of the three options; remain in, Brexit-lite or Hard Brexit its almost certainly hard brexit that is the least popular as that 52% gets divided into two, whilst we know 48% wanted Remain...

There is a long way to go yet, more elections, more parliamentary votes.

In reply to BnB:

You are looking at this very UK centrically. The EU has played hard ball with other countries and to suddenly play softball with the UK will be a fundamental test of its moral authority. Remember it has played hard ball with the Swiss when they said they were shutting their borders after their referendum. Which was ignored in the end.

There isnt too much wiggle room for the EU on the major points unless they change for all. Then what was the point in leaving anyway... the main issues have been deal with time and time again. Single market access means open borders.

In reply to pec:


You are of course forgetting the elephant in the room, although they have a surplus with us, that surplus is worth 5 times less to their economy than our export to them is worth to ours.
To make matters worse, most of their exports are goods, which would be covered and protected against unfair competition as part of WTO, and most of our exports are services, which for the most part are not included.

In reply to RomTheBear:

He's also forgetting that when conditions change, things change. Most notably those companies exporting from the UK will consider relocating rather than risk other producers moving into the EU and taking their market.

The world really isn't that static.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I worked for two american companies here in Scotland, both set up big data centres in the UK specifically because they needed to be in the EU to serve European institutional customers, that need to have their data hosted in the EU because of EU data protection regulations, and had access to a multilingual workforce coming from all over the EU. Otherwise they would have probably run everything from the US.

It's one example but I expect that this kind of non-tariff barriers will be a problem across the board for large international businesses that have heavily invested in the UK, and I just don't really see what they can do apart from relocating.

In reply to Lurking Dave:


Neither perhaps do you?


I did mean inflation which IS currently about 0.5% and well below the BOE target of 2%. Historically that's incredibly low, of course within that figure some things are rising faster and some slower and others are actually decreasing. Its swings and roundabouts and if some imported goods get more expensive sales of some UK made goods will increase, rather good for our economy.
Most of us buy a range of products so unless his purchasing is heavily scewed to certain types of foreign made goods (because many of them will still be decreasing as manufacturing costs are driven down) the value of his savings in pounds as he originally specified remains barely altered at all.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The elephant in the room is Germany, the biggest EU economy which runs the biggest surplus with us and largely bankrolls the EU who will not want to see tariffs imposed on their goods being sold to their biggest market.

In reply to pec:

The UK is Germany's third biggest export market. Germany is our second biggest export market. You're also deluded as to the influence Germany has. They don't control the EU parliament, they don't control what's happening in other countries, and they don't "bankroll" the EU either.
The imposition of tariff wouldn't be a massive problems for them either, these things are reciprocal. If we impose high tariffs on EU imports, which are worth about 3% of EU GDP, you can be sure that the same tariffs will apply to our EU exports, which represent 14% of our GDP.
But anyway tariffs are largely irrelevant anyway, it's non-tariffs barriers that will be the main problem, especially for us, being mostly service oriented.

This seem to be all irrelevant anyway given that it looks like the UK will not seek to stay in a customs union with the EU, so even if the German were able to offer it to us (which they aren't), it looks like it wouldn't be politically acceptable for the hard brexiters,

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm not sure tarriffs will affect car sales too much anyway. German cars are generally higher end so paying an extra tarriff will probably not overly damage that market.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Yes they probably will and I would expect the same outcome. If the SNP were that confident of winning they would have called one by now.


That'll be the next general election then which looks like the Tories will win with a handsome majority.


Remain in is not an option or are you thinking the more you repeat that mantra the more likely it might happen?


You and Rom the Bear are deluded. Elections yes, parliamentary votes maybe but with a majority in place Teresa May won't be having nightmares about the outcome.

In reply to Gone for good:
I disagree, I think remain is an option once the costs are known.

Look at switzerland. They voted to close borders, the EU said fine, close the door as you leave the single market.. nothing happened.

I do think you are right the Tories will win the next election, that doesn't mean we will get a hard brexit.

Re the SNP.. like this you mean..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/714100/SNP-leader-Nicola-Sturgeon-call-sec...

They've repeatedly said this

In reply to pec:



I don't know where to begin.
LD

In reply to Gone for good:

Well no I'm not, unlike Roadrunner, I'm pretty convinced that at this point hard Brexit is unavoidable. Even if it comes at a high economic cost, this is really the only option available, and the only non-suicidal option for T May.
Liam Fox is going to make a speech at the WTO asking for Britain to become a member. So it looks like the decision to be outside of the single market, and the customs union has already been taken (with no democratic mandate whatsoever, of course, as predicted).

On Scottish independence, not going to happen either, a referendum would be winnable, with a starting point at 45-47%, but I just don't see any reason why a Tory majority would grant a legally binding Scottish independence referendum, ever. If anything, I bet they'll attempts to scrap the Scottish parliament and the Barnett Formula as soon as practical, as it woudl be an easy way to get more votes whenever they need them. Once they exit the EU the disillusioned Brexit voter will have to find something else than the EU to blame.

In reply to RomTheBear:


If Theresa May plays Tory party internal politics and gives the hard Brexit wing free rein she will play straight into Nicola Sturgeon's hands. There's a false calm at the moment because nobody can campaign against her Brexit policy until it becomes clear what it is. The harder the variant of Brexit she goes for the more turmoil there is going to be and the easier it will be for the SNP to hold and win a second referendum. If she throws in provocations like cutting Barnett or limiting the Scottish Parliament's powers it will be Christmas for the SNP.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I disagree, once a hard Brexit is announced UK industry will be hit badly. Nissan etc.

The economic cost will be so great that it will either lead to a re-think or end the current Government who did it.

We will see.. TBH I never thought for one moment we'd be so f*cking stupid to saw of our noses like this so who knows....

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Or....

A hard Berexit is announced, and we work our way through it, taking on some hardships, and learning who our real friends are, and come out the other end changed but the same.

Glass is half full here.


Let's not forget that our EU chums are not without their problems

In reply to Big Ger:

The thing is, as has been pointed out, we trade a lot with Europe... so what happens if the EU crashes.. the UK magically rides that out too?

In reply to Roadrunner5:
If the EU crashes, then that will take some of the heat off the UK surely?

All the speculation so far from the fearful crowd has been of the EU denying the UK, demanding of the UK, or forcing the UK, or shutting out the UK.

If they go into financial meltdown, then their ability to deny, demand, force or shut out will be likewise weakened.

Also, the resulting self protection will weaken the unity of the EU.

In reply to Big Ger:

Not really.. had we joined the EU back when it would be stronger.. had we all given up fiscal sovereignty it would be must stronger..

I dont think the EU will end, but likewise I still think we will take a brexit lite approach if we dont remain.. I still think that may happen. This was advisory. That then leads to talks and the government make the calls.

I think for us and the EU its better we remain in. But also world security. TBH with Trump getting close, Putin kicking off, North Korea, Iran, ISIS.. the world isn't so stable. In fact it could turn very shit within a few years.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Oh I don't think the EU will end, I think it will change though. If the big cash cows, Germany, France, Italy and Spain find the cost of supporting the debtor nations too onerous without the UK's cash, it will have to.

In reply to Big Ger:



"Learning who our real friends are"
Exactly he kind of rethoric I'm worried about.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It's starting to become clear. It will be outside of the single market, and outside of the customs union.


Yes, but what could they do ? There is nothing the Scottish parliament can do against hard brexit. And if Westminster decided to scrap the Barnett formula or scrap the Scottish parliament, all is needed is a majority of MPs at Westminster to do it.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I think you've been away from the UK too long. In my experience many of the brexiteers WANT Europe to fail, they can't wait for things to turn to shit, they can't wait for an adversarial relationship. It's a weird sort of nihilism.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think many brexiteers thought that after the UK voted out, the EU would see the light and perhaps consider a little reform to give other wavering nations an incentive to stay. Instead it thought it could solve the waverers by pushing ahead faster with its master plan, playing right into the hands of the far right. German elections since brexit have shown this, Penn will be gain more support in France, Merkel is admitting she made wrong decisions on tackling the refugee problem.. the EU and mainland Europe leaders are steering Europe towards failure, because they refuse to admit things are wrong or need reform. It isn't the UK's fault for exiting, it's the EU for not listening to the startling obvious warning signs.

The EU might have worked, if it had been developed slower and more carefully over multiple generations, ie a 100 years, allowing for countries and populations to adapt, their economies to align more etc... But, their desire for instant power blew it.

In reply to summo:

You still don't get it how the EU works, do you ? nothing can be reformed without treaty change, treaty change can happen only with all the countries agreeing, not only you claim that it's "pushing faster" are bollocks, but the opposite is true, it cannot change fast enough precisely because of the threat of the far right making any treaty change impossible.

If anything I think the UK leaving the EU makes it more likely that the EU will succeed, as necessary changes won't be impaired by the UK dragging its feet anymore.

In reply to RomTheBear:



There's a lot more than a majority at Westminster needed to impose something like that: not that Theresa May could get a majority for something that provocative anyway in the present parliament.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Isn't that cause and effect? If the majority of EMPs / Euro leaders weren't pushing for further integration over the past 10-20years, then they wouldn't be feeding the far right. You'd have nations with their individual traits, operating within the free trade area and no extreme far right parties with 10-15% of the vote in most countries.

Maybe the far right and many in middle don't want it to change at all, never mind fast or slowly.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Like what ? As far as I understand, uk parliament is supreme. All is needed is a majority.


Here you go.

In reply to summo:


You still don't get it how treaty changes are made and ratified. I give up.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm sure the UK parliament had a majority in favour of keeping the US as a colony. Also many other currently independent countries. A lot more than just a parliamentary majority in Westminster would be needed to take away a devolved government which pretty much everyone in Scotland wants to retain.

Scotland doesn't interest the right wing of the Tory party they'd rather cut us loose than have a long and expensive struggle to force us to stay.

In reply to summo:


While I'm sure that European integration is grist to the far right mill, its a stretch to say that without it there would be no far right parties with 10%-15%. Without European integration you'd still have stagnant wage growth and an immigration crisis, for example.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes, and they couldn't keep it essentially because they lost control of it on the battleground. Not something that is either possible not even remotely desirable in the case of Scotland.

> Also many other currently independent countries. A lot more than just a parliamentary majority in Westminster would be needed to take away a devolved government which pretty much everyone in Scotland wants to retain.

A lot more ? Like what ? There is absolutely nothing preventing a uk parliament to vote tomorrow to scrap the Scottish parliament. Nothing. It would sure piss of many people in Scotland, but there is absolutely nothing they could do.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Not only that, but the UK, which had opt out on pretty much everything and was always in a position to block any further integration being imposed on them, ended up being the country where the far right managed to get the country to leave the EU.
At the end of the day, it's all about identity, even in Greece where many people are frustrated with the Junckers & co, there is still a strong sense of belonging to the EU (they even think they invented the thing). You can't go anywhere in Greece without seeing the EU flag flying on every official building. Put one up in Lincolnshire and someone would probably burn it in a matter of hours.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Is this fact?

Are you saying that with a free trade area and freedom to travel for 'employment', Europe would not have done so well. Have all the other factors like CAP, Fisheries, the Euro been the factors that generated growth, or simply free trade and huge borrowing?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Which highlights the point, they are forced to display the flag on EU funded project (as you know it's part of the funding agreement/contract), which Greek isn't going to want other countries money being spent in Greece? The flags aren't a sign of EU love, but a sign that the EU is bankrolling them, in more than one respect in Greece's case.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I do, it's a fact that the EU commissioners would love it if treaties could be forced without all agreeing. Luckily everyone has to agree. But, just like Gordon Brown sneaking off for a quick signing, many nations haven't really been given a say over just what they are being signed up for.

I think it's also the hypocrisy in general, when you have eastern Europeans countries saying that the UK must allow their people to travel to the UK for work in the future, yet at the same time building fences and refusing to accept any refugees etc.. cake and eat it nations, many people are simply fed up with their attitude. Happy to share the EU pot around their countries or have their workers travel, but unwilling to take their share of responsibility in other respects.

In reply to summo:


Which is a good thing. Better bankroll them than letting them fall back to where they were 20 years ago. And at the same time be tough and ask then to make necessary reforms. That's what friends are for.

In reply to RomTheBear:


and lend them money from your own nation's banks at a good rate for you, then let them buy goods back from you. Win for some EU nations, not so good for Greece in the long run.

those reforms were was only requested once Greece couldn't pay anymore though, not as a condition of lending them money in the first place. So now they borrowing just to keep up with the interest payments, is that really the way the EU want's to manage things or example of an organisation that should be in a position to demand ever increasing amounts of money from member nations.

In reply to summo:


Obviously not, it is a counter-factual. But the immigration crisis and stagnant wage growth are caused by factors which are external to the EU. In the case of immigration - wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, on-going crap in the horn of Africa, civil war in Syria etc etc. In the case of stagnant wage growth: the financial crisis and demographics.

Of course, the EU didn't necessarily help - especially the Eurozone and banking integration - but its hard to believe that there would be no immigration crisis or that the EU would have been unchanged by the financial crisis. At the very least, the German banks would be almost as screwed as they are today as were heavily exposed to the US sub-prime mortgage market.


No, i'm saying Europe would have done better. But not so much better that we wouldn't have an immigration crisis or stagnant wage growth and therefore we'd still be seeing the far right getting excited.

In reply to summo:


Snort! Heaven forbid!

In reply to summo:

Indeed, but explain to me how on earth the fact that government have been signing international treaties without democratic mandate from their people, has anything to do with the EU ?
It's an internal problem, not an EU problem.
As for the uk, it's likely to be made even worse, do you think the public will be given a say on future UK trade deals ? Everything is being prepared in secret, even the MPs are not in the loop.


You mean like the UK ?

In reply to summo:



Do you think that if Greece had been let down by the EU and they had to go to the IMF alonr for a bailout the IMF would have given a single f*ck ? No way. They'd be bankrupt, and would struggle to fulfill the basic needs of their population.

The troika gave substantial debt relief, and the debt is now spread over a century, it gives them ample time to fix the structural issues in their economy.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I agree, but it could have been, just like the last referendum.


Most trade deals are confidential for obvious business reasons until complete. Just like the EU's TTIP negotiations, the public isn't exactly well informed on that, thankfully that one looks likely to crash.

I don't think the UK population minds not voting on trade deals, although it is after all the ONLY other time they were actually asked to vote on anything involving the EU roughly 40 years ago. CAP, Fisheries, Migration, Legal, etc.. etc.. were all pushed through afterwards without any public say. They have changed the face of Europe much more than any trade deal.


The UK has been a net contributor for a very long time and will be forever more. I was thinking more on Eastern Bloc nations wanting to send workers to the UK, but refusing migrants themselves. Especially when the whole the migrant workers issue as a red line in brexit negotiations, at the same time other EU nations are taking truly massive proportions of refugees. All those nations taking the refugees like Germany and Sweden are also net contributors, if they keep trying to milk the cash cows too much, it's going to get fed up and go find another field.

In reply to RomTheBear:


They were let down by the EU in the first place. They should never have been allowed to join the Euro without serious reform.

Then the they were lent more money, then more, then eventually when on the brink of bankruptcy and riots on the street they were forced to reform, 20 years too late in the big scheme of things.


Their biggest structural issue is being tied to the Euro and only being able to make the interest payments, they won't ever fix their problems.

In reply to summo:




May I remind you that the uk's debt to GDP grew as much in the uk, outside the euro, as it did in Greece.
The only difference is that we had a better starting point, whilst Greece were already starting from a bad situation due to decades of mismanagement, largely unrelated to the euro or the EU.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Which isn't relevant because we aren't in the Euro and can control our own currency. We also don't have same internal problems as Greece, so whilst proportionally the debt could be even more, the UK can borrow at much better rates, which is probably more relevant than the actual individual amount. Greece could have half the debt of the UK, but if the interest rate it pays is thrice, then it is still worse off.


Which would suggest it was foolish to let them join the Euro. Better to help them gain some stability and fix their internal economics before tying their hands with a Euro.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Of course there is. Firstly, it is far from clear the UK parliament has the legal authority to take back powers from the Scottish Parliament without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Police, courts and tax collection are all devolved and an SNP government in Scotland is not going to meekly acquiesce if Westminster tries to remove powers from the Scottish Parliament.