I'm a leaver but that sounds about practical at least till 2021/2 or so, which buys time to actually set up WTO infrastructure if we want, or far better do deals with whomever around the world (that would be a red line - the ability to do deals with USA/Canada/S Korea/Japan etc whilst we are doing a "Norway"). It puts us then on a stronger foot to insist of stricter border control in addition to those we could wangle as part of the EEA.
It also probably allays much of the budget issue, as by then the 27 will be in the next round of EU budget haggling without us, and allows time for everyone to cool down a tad. I wouldn't personally want EEA to be the destination but a stepping stone to Canada + and I'd be wary of everlasting stretching out of any deadline past the next election (hence the need for teeth in WTO preparations), but as a staging post that solves a lot of pressing issues - fine.
We can debate the longer term options all you like - we have to get past 2019 first. And from a simple practical perspective if we leave the single market we are fucked from day 1
The only purpose of the A50 talks as far as we are concerned is to avoid being fucked from day 1. The money doesn't matter and the long term will happen later.
I think equal marriage was hugely relevant to this though - the imaginary social structure that a large proportion of British males subconsciously place themselves within had gay men as a chair to stand on. With equal marriage, that got kicked away.
The immigrants were equal in status (and often above them), the gays were equal (and visible in positions of power). By ~2014, the low skilled WWC straight British male was severely economically and socially repressed.
RedUKIP/Brexit/Little-English nationalism was the opportunity to f*ck'em. The lashing out.
52% of the population is not a few low skilled WWC straight males - its requires an awful lot more people than that.
On a merrier note, Retail Sales rose by 1% in August, or 1.2% on the quarter.
Is this before or after inflation?
On a different point, I suspect it was in 1642 that the English were are obsessed by Sovereignty as they are to-day.
I don't think that was counted as a success.
No it was a big success long term. We limited the power of the monarch (beheading has that effect) for good, and paved the way for Parliamentary democracy, and going out into the world while the continent squabbled away.
Granted there was fallout and many died along the way, not least in Ireland (I assume you are Irish or living there?) which is to be regretted, but the alternative was to submit to a continental style absolutist regime, under a (to the English because Charles 1 was actually Scottish by birth) foreign ruler. Instead of that they rolled the constitutional dice.
If only I could think of a modern parallel.....
But that took another 40 years and the driver was religion not sovereignty. The result may have been good for England, but many of the problems in N.I. start there.
Granted, but bear in mind in the 17th century "politics" was pretty much "religion" and all the bandwidth was Christian at least in NW Europe, though I think gradually it got "more politics" "less religion" as the century wore on.
From a 21st century perspective we wouldn't really think it a bright idea to send our religious minorities to another country across the sea to dispossess the locals and set up home, though the self same process led to NI and the USA I guess both starting at about the same time, if with differing outcomes.
Had Charles won, history would be very different indeed. "I am the state" might've been an English phrase and the guillotine set up in London in the 1790's rather than Paris. We might not have the outlook we do on the world which leads many of us to look at the continent's way of doing things somewhat askance at times.
Who can tell?
Thanks for the discussion. I see it with a different perspective, but I understand your point of view. You may have some difficulty with Sean T and some others regarding expelling minority religions.
“U.K. PM Theresa May, desperate for post-Brexit deals, plays a weak hand”
"As of Thursday, the U.K. will enjoy a free trade arrangement with Canada that its own government economists estimate should be worth about $3.5 billion a year to the island nation. But that bonanza will be short-lived. Because the British voted to leave the European Union, the U.K. will find itself outside of CETA in March 2019. A deal that took seven years to negotiate will expire for the U.K. after only 18 months."
CopperSulphate appears to be uncaring of facts and reality. He referred to my "beloved EU" which I had told him I voted to leave, and then "our" ludicrous 2 year deadline. To complain about the deadline enshrined in a treaty we signed is like howling at the moon. Its 2 years. We know its 2 years. The campaign to leave knew it was 2 years. Isn't the reality that CS makes a petulant small child's tantrum of not getting their own way?
Copper Sulphate (the salt, not the person) is mildly toxic and if ingested induces vomiting.
I just thought I'd mention that :-D
Maybe he just thinks that "if he can't change your mind then no one will".
Lots of things become possible with a land value tax.
We've reached the end game after ~35 years of engineering the economy to drain wealth from non-property owners and not-yet property owners and handing it to nimbys, land hoarders and "NO DSS" BTL landlords.
Think of it as a kind of pain-free equity release for the ~75% of voters who aren't the ~25% tory client vote.
Ah yes, that wonderful tax which extracts money from nominal capital values, on the heroic assumption that the extraction of that money has no impact on the nominal capital values.
Of course capital values get bolloxed. It's not the government's job to prop them up.
Is it?
Not unless you care about avoiding a second collapse of the financial sector and the destruction of a shitload of economic value accumulated over a lifetime of work. But who gives a toss about that as long as the lefties get their commie utopia?
So long as you can afford the mortgage and like the house...
“U.K. PM Theresa May, desperate for post-Brexit deals, plays a weak hand”
"As of Thursday, the U.K. will enjoy a free trade arrangement with Canada that its own government economists estimate should be worth about $3.5 billion a year to the island nation. But that bonanza will be short-lived. Because the British voted to leave the European Union, the U.K. will find itself outside of CETA in March 2019. A deal that took seven years to negotiate will expire for the U.K. after only 18 months."
Nobutyeahbutnobut we're going to negotiate a better deal yeah and do it quicker too right and they'll pay us money to go away yeah because we BRITAIN innit and bloody foreigners
For anyone hoping for EFTA/ EEA, it just isn't going to happen in the near future. May's speech is going to be a great let down. She has made far too many promises and red lines over controlling immigration, stopping payments, and leaving the ECJ, all of which would be fatally compromised by joining the EEA. She stands or falls with hard Brexit.
Oh I'm certain it won't happen. Politically the Tories have decided that suicide is a better option than compromise with each other.
And I do know what will happen. Because the people who actually do practical things know what will happen and are noisily telling anyone who will listen and isn't shouting traitor at them.
The EU aren't going to change their mind on enforcing the rules of the EU We can have a trade agreement with the EU (via EFTA) or fall back to the WTO We won't have the staff/systems in place for March 19 which means "WTO" would only be imposed by the EU as we aren't capable of imposing tariffs The EU WILL impose their "external border no trade agreement" protocols which is physically check everything coming in. Which will effectively close down our border (cf eastern European checkpoints and remember it'll be the French doing it...) Our trade will slow to a stop overnight. Which kills any manufacturer with a JIT european supply chain. Which empties the shelves of our supermarkets and closes restaurants. Which creates civil unrest inside a fortnight Which makes the public angry. The people responsible will pay. That's the Tory Party - who will not survive the shitfest that is hard Brexit. And if Labour nutters want to keep trying for "no deal is better than the single market" that'll be us dead as well.
I wanted away from the EU for simple reasons. We aren't a participant in its direction of travel - the Euro, the forthcoming fiscal union, Schengen. And as they move forward that would expel us from the core anyway - the "two speed Europe" talked about in the past. So better to step off at a time of our choosing rather than theirs. But we have to trade. And if you want to sell products into a market you have to be compliant with its rules. So why leave the EEA?
As it is, I'd stay in the EU and even be forced to join the Euro and Schengen if need be - anything is better than the suicidal go splat off the cliff hard Brexit apocalyseofuck planned by BoJo et al.
I'm reminded of the saying we get the government and politicians we deserve.
CopperSulphate appears to be uncaring of facts and reality. He referred to my "beloved EU" which I had told him I voted to leave, and then "our" ludicrous 2 year deadline. To complain about the deadline enshrined in a treaty we signed is like howling at the moon. Its 2 years. We know its 2 years. The campaign to leave knew it was 2 years. Isn't the reality that CS makes a petulant small child's tantrum of not getting their own way?
Copper Sulphate (the salt, not the person) is mildly toxic and if ingested induces vomiting.
I just thought I'd mention that :-D
Maybe he just thinks that "if he can't change your mind then no one will".
Fairly common delusion on this site.
Damn, failed pop reference (Sugar / Copper Blue not sulphate). TSE can sleep safe.
“U.K. PM Theresa May, desperate for post-Brexit deals, plays a weak hand”
"As of Thursday, the U.K. will enjoy a free trade arrangement with Canada that its own government economists estimate should be worth about $3.5 billion a year to the island nation. But that bonanza will be short-lived. Because the British voted to leave the European Union, the U.K. will find itself outside of CETA in March 2019. A deal that took seven years to negotiate will expire for the U.K. after only 18 months."
Nobutyeahbutnobut we're going to negotiate a better deal yeah and do it quicker too right and they'll pay us money to go away yeah because we BRITAIN innit and bloody foreigners
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
“U.K. PM Theresa May, desperate for post-Brexit deals, plays a weak hand”
"As of Thursday, the U.K. will enjoy a free trade arrangement with Canada that its own government economists estimate should be worth about $3.5 billion a year to the island nation. But that bonanza will be short-lived. Because the British voted to leave the European Union, the U.K. will find itself outside of CETA in March 2019. A deal that took seven years to negotiate will expire for the U.K. after only 18 months."
Nobutyeahbutnobut we're going to negotiate a better deal yeah and do it quicker too right and they'll pay us money to go away yeah because we BRITAIN innit and bloody foreigners
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
For anyone hoping for EFTA/ EEA, it just isn't going to happen in the near future. May's speech is going to be a great let down. She has made far too many promises and red lines over controlling immigration, stopping payments, and leaving the ECJ, all of which would be fatally compromised by joining the EEA. She stands or falls with hard Brexit.
Oh I'm certain it won't happen. Politically the Tories have decided that suicide is a better option than compromise with each other.
And I do know what will happen. Because the people who actually do practical things know what will happen and are noisily telling anyone who will listen and isn't shouting traitor at them.
The EU aren't going to change their mind on enforcing the rules of the EU We can have a trade agreement with the EU (via EFTA) or fall back to the WTO We won't have the staff/systems in place for March 19 which means "WTO" would only be imposed by the EU as we aren't capable of imposing tariffs The EU WILL impose their "external border no trade agreement" protocols which is physically check everything coming in. Which will effectively close down our border (cf eastern European checkpoints and remember it'll be the French doing it...) Our trade will slow to a stop overnight. Which kills any manufacturer with a JIT european supply chain. Which empties the shelves of our supermarkets and closes restaurants. Which creates civil unrest inside a fortnight Which makes the public angry. The people responsible will pay. That's the Tory Party - who will not survive the shitfest that is hard Brexit. And if Labour nutters want to keep trying for "no deal is better than the single market" that'll be us dead as well.
I wanted away from the EU for simple reasons. We aren't a participant in its direction of travel - the Euro, the forthcoming fiscal union, Schengen. And as they move forward that would expel us from the core anyway - the "two speed Europe" talked about in the past. So better to step off at a time of our choosing rather than theirs. But we have to trade. And if you want to sell products into a market you have to be compliant with its rules. So why leave the EEA?
As it is, I'd stay in the EU and even be forced to join the Euro and Schengen if need be - anything is better than the suicidal go splat off the cliff hard Brexit apocalyseofuck planned by BoJo et al.
A lot of us made the foolish mistake of believing the government would put the national interest first post-Brexit. Much of the "Remoaner" anger I see is not about the referendum result, but the aftermath in which May basically fell in with the Tory right rather than build as broad a consensus as possible for our leaving strategy and end goals. She made a catastrophic error that will cause lasting damage to the UK, but there seems no way back from it now.
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
Lots of things become possible with a land value tax.
We've reached the end game after ~35 years of engineering the economy to drain wealth from non-property owners and not-yet property owners and handing it to nimbys, land hoarders and "NO DSS" BTL landlords.
Think of it as a kind of pain-free equity release for the ~75% of voters who aren't the ~25% tory client vote.
Ah yes, that wonderful tax which extracts money from nominal capital values, on the heroic assumption that the extraction of that money has no impact on the nominal capital values.
Of course capital values get bolloxed. It's not the government's job to prop them up.
Is it?
Not unless you care about avoiding a second collapse of the financial sector and the destruction of a shitload of economic value accumulated over a lifetime of work. But who gives a toss about that as long as the lefties get their commie utopia?
So long as you can afford the mortgage and like the house...
Yes to both - I still wouldn't appreciate its equity being lost in confiscatory taxes and a concomitant crash in values. But we'll no doubt see what the Great British Public in their infinite fucking wisdom decide in due course.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
It is a matter of fact that Vote Leave campaigned on "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU" and Leave.EU campaigned on "Breaking Point". You might wish it otherwise but that is what was voted for.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
It is a matter of fact that Vote Leave campaigned on "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU" and Leave.EU campaigned on "Breaking Point". You might wish it otherwise but that is what was voted for.
Similarly a vote for Remain was a vote never to join the Euro and to be exempt from ever closer union.
Richard was simply fighting on the wrong side, for emotional reasons known only to him.
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
What UK manufacturing? Most of our major manufacturers are foreign owned, and if push comes to shove, any tools and equipment can be shipped out very quickly.
I've just been reading the coverage on Brexit on the www.eureferendum.com blog by Richard North. In my view, it is by far the best coverage on Brexit at the moment.
Ultimately, the only thing that is going to save this situation is people who were actively involved in the leave campaign advocating for an EEA/ EFTA solution.
CopperSulphate appears to be uncaring of facts and reality. He referred to my "beloved EU" which I had told him I voted to leave, and then "our" ludicrous 2 year deadline. To complain about the deadline enshrined in a treaty we signed is like howling at the moon. Its 2 years. We know its 2 years. The campaign to leave knew it was 2 years. Isn't the reality that CS makes a petulant small child's tantrum of not getting their own way?
On EFTA I think they have opened the door as overtly as they can to our rejoining. The UK would lend sufficient weight to make EFTA a counterbalance to the EU, a free trade association not dragged down by the baggage of political and fiscal union but still a trade association. Which is why we have to be in it. This is a trading nation. We wanted free trade, Thatcher drove it through. Why would we want a return to the bad old days before the single market and if they were the good old days as suggested why did Thatcherites so vociferously champion the single market?
And then we have the simple practical reality. Even if WTO roles was a good option for us - and its not - we can't possibly set ourselves up to trade freely that way by March 2019. So it HAS to be EEA and that logically means rejoin EFTA. the Norway option. Touted by the leave lobby during the referendum campaign but now shouted down as "betrayal" as the goal posts are shifted.
And free movement? Simple. We impose the restrictions on free movement already open to us. Its a "win" as part of the transition to buy off the "I don't like these foreigners" brigade and it actually allows some change.
This is obviously the only practicable solution that can avoid a cliff edge in the time available before March 2019. However, it places the UK in the position of making financial contributions to, and obeying rules set by, the EU without having any say in either the spending of the money or setting the rules. And if this is a "transitional" period what incentive is there for the EU to make progress toward a final exit deal? It would be in their interest to use the continuing threat of a cliff edge to keep the UK in the transitional arrangement permanently.
Moving to this position completely undermines the case for leaving, which is, perhaps, why leavers are so opposed to it.
No it doesnt. This is the same Remainer myth that was touted before the referendum
It might not undermine *your* case but it does very clearly undermine the case that was sold to the people, and the case that the majority of passionate Brexiteers believe in.
I was talking more about the myths associated with membership of EFTA and the EEA which are perpetuated by Remainers because they don't want Brexit to succeed.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
It is a matter of fact that Vote Leave campaigned on "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU" and Leave.EU campaigned on "Breaking Point". You might wish it otherwise but that is what was voted for.
Similarly a vote for Remain was a vote never to join the Euro and to be exempt from ever closer union.
Richard was simply fighting on the wrong side, for emotional reasons known only to him.
Once again William it strikes me that you have too narrow a perspective on life and you ought to widen your horizons to the wider world
Very interesting thread here, and consistent with the message that has been coming out from some other member states involved in the negotiations. The UK government is terrified of the consequences of Brexit for the UK single market, and this threatens the existing devolution settlement.
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
What UK manufacturing? Most of our major manufacturers are foreign owned, and if push comes to shove, any tools and equipment can be shipped out very quickly.
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
You can ask in vain - remainers are so desperate for a cliff edge that they just repeat it over and over and hope it means something. There is simply no evidence that the introduction of the single market increased intra EU trade. Under WTO there will be a relatively small loss in EU trade that can easily be offset by opportunities elsewhere.
If the UK simply commit to expanding its customs service, we can easily move to WTO in 18 months time. The biggest risk for the UK is in allowing the EU to drag the negotiations out, not preparing and the being forced to back down at the last minute. Thanks to Boris, this is now less likely. The EU will reject May's offer and we can hopefully see the end of this farce.
There is not going to be a deal with the EU short of abject surrender. We voted leave. Time to start preparing.
CopperSulphate appears to be uncaring of facts and reality. He referred to my "beloved EU" which I had told him I voted to leave, and then "our" ludicrous 2 year deadline. To complain about the deadline enshrined in a treaty we signed is like howling at the moon. Its 2 years. We know its 2 years. The campaign to leave knew it was 2 years. Isn't the reality that CS makes a petulant small child's tantrum of not getting their own way?
Copper Sulphate (the salt, not the person) is mildly toxic and if ingested induces vomiting.
I just thought I'd mention that :-D
Maybe he just thinks that "if he can't change your mind then no one will".
Fairly common delusion on this site.
Damn, failed pop reference (Sugar / Copper Blue not sulphate). TSE can sleep safe.
I prefer movie or literary references myself. TSE can keep the music ones
Our state pension could have been, like, actually funded.
I don't know. Ask Nigel Lawson. He was bagman at the time.
There were about 5 million of them and about 55 million of us to divvy up about the same amount of oil I guess.
Significantly less oil in UK waters as it turned out.
I don't think that is true - this says UK produced 42.8 billion BoE, while Norway produced less at 40. But they did a much better job of ensuring the public benefited - indeed over double the revenue per barrel.
"Three prominent factors appear to be 1) the timing of U.K. and Norway's production relative to global oil and gas prices, 2) lower average U.K. tax receipts from petroleum production, and 3) the Norwegian state's direct investment in the industry."
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
What UK manufacturing? Most of our major manufacturers are foreign owned, and if push comes to shove, any tools and equipment can be shipped out very quickly.
ever tried to move a car plant ?
Yes - I took it off the dashboard and put it in the bathroom as it was getting too big to be in the car. It bloomed for some weeks. Lovely!
I was talking more about the myths associated with membership of EFTA and the EEA which are perpetuated by Remainers because they don't want Brexit to succeed.
I've talked to some remainers over the last few months (and there are plenty around here to choose from). Generalising a little, it's not that they don't want Brexit to succeed, it's that they don't see how it can 'succeed'. I hope they're wrong, but the mess the government appears to be in doesn't help.
I'd also argue that most people, remainers or leavers, want a successful country. To me, that is more important than Brexit.
Very interesting thread here, and consistent with the message that has been coming out from some other member states involved in the negotiations. The UK government is terrified of the consequences of Brexit for the UK single market, and this threatens the existing devolution settlement.
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
What UK manufacturing? Most of our major manufacturers are foreign owned, and if push comes to shove, any tools and equipment can be shipped out very quickly.
ever tried to move a car plant ?
Yes - I took it off the dashboard and put it in the bathroom as it was getting too big to be in the car. It bloomed for some weeks. Lovely!
Our state pension could have been, like, actually funded.
I don't know. Ask Nigel Lawson. He was bagman at the time.
There were about 5 million of them and about 55 million of us to divvy up about the same amount of oil I guess.
Significantly less oil in UK waters as it turned out.
Have we played it clever and extracted most of the value of our oil and gas just before the value of oil and gas reduces due to renewables?
Nah. Unfortunately the Heath and Wilson Governments completely mishandled the whole North Sea Oil set up process. They were so utterly desperate to get oil companies in to explore that they gave them everything they wanted which meant that the UK got almost zero revenue out of the first decade of oil production. Successive Governments then decided to use the revenue to support either changes to the structure of the British economy or their own spending splurges.
As I have said before we should not have been burning the stuff anyway. The North Sea - UK and Norway - produces some of the highest quality hydrocarbons in the world which we need for lubricants, plastics, medicines and all the rest of the petrochemical industry. Burning it is a really dumb thing to be doing when it is a finite resource.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
Your poll notwithstanding, EFTA would not resolve, except in a very subtle way, immigration or jurisdiction or payment. That is a huge ask against the background of the present discussion. We've seen how from a small hardcore of opinion on the right of the Tory party the whole of Brexit came about. EFTA leaves enough of those central issues unresolved that they can rise again against EFTA, and quicker.
This is where I'm coming from in thinking of agreeing, n advance, an option on EFTA membership, rather than actual membership. I do wonder if we need to look Hard Brexit directly in the eye for a time before we get a robust enough majority to kill it dead for a generation and accept the compromise.
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
You can ask in vain - remainers are so desperate for a cliff edge that they just repeat it over and over and hope it means something. There is simply no evidence that the introduction of the single market increased intra EU trade. Under WTO there will be a relatively small loss in EU trade that can easily be offset by opportunities elsewhere.
If the UK simply commit to expanding its customs service, we can easily move to WTO in 18 months time. The biggest risk for the UK is in allowing the EU to drag the negotiations out, not preparing and the being forced to back down at the last minute. Thanks to Boris, this is now less likely. The EU will reject May's offer and we can hopefully see the end of this farce.
There is not going to be a deal with the EU short of abject surrender. We voted leave. Time to start preparing.
Question. According to HMRC their new fangled computer system can handle 60% of transactions needed under WTO rules. It goes live 6 weeks before exit day which means we'll be in the middle of the usual teething problems. HMRC then say they need 5 years to be resourced up for WTO. How does this equate to your confident but baseless "easily move"? What do you know about HMRC that HMRC don't?
And that's just our side of the border. I can't wait to see how much money the French throw at customer officers and facilities on their side of the channel to speedily process all the trucks that cross every day...
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
It is a matter of fact that Vote Leave campaigned on "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU" and Leave.EU campaigned on "Breaking Point". You might wish it otherwise but that is what was voted for.
I've just been reading the coverage on Brexit on the www.eureferendum.com blog by Richard North. In my view, it is by far the best coverage on Brexit at the moment.
Ultimately, the only thing that is going to save this situation is people who were actively involved in the leave campaign advocating for an EEA/ EFTA solution.
I agree about Richard North in general although his antipathy towards almost everyone on every side of the debate does rather undermine the arguments he makes some times.
Perhaps you can name a dispute the UK has been in that Corbyn has come out on our side rather than our enemies.
He didn't side with us against the Soviets, on the Falklands or IRA and it wouldn't surprise me if he supports giving Gibraltar to the Spanish.
You're assuming what you're trying to prove, by the way you use "us". What dispute with the USSR are you referring to? In the most recent conflict that Britain and that country were both directly involved in, they were allies.
Where were you when successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, decided to okay and keep foreign military bases here, including foreign nuclear bases, without asking Parliament?
I assume you mean American bases, part of the deal that kept them in NATO and us being steam rollered by the Soviets. Yeah I was here supporting the defense of the country.
Can you think of an example? I'm really happy to be proved wrong over this.
Where else would I mean? There's only one foreign country that has military bases here. If someone referred to the foreign bases that were in Poland, would you say "I assume you mean the Soviet bases"?
I was attacking your premise. So I'm not going to answer a question that implies it.
Goodness knows what you mean by "the country". You can't mean the collectivity of British citizens that is supposed to express its will through the men and women we elect to the House of Commons, because neither the citizenry nor its representatives have ever been given the chance to vote on whether the foreign country called the US should be able to have military bases here, where for a time the said foreign country was storing nuclear weapons. We have no more been given the chance than the people of Poland were given the chance regarding the foreign bases in that country.
It is interesting that you use a foreign spelling when you write of the "defense" of the country.
Your only defence of your premise seems to be that allowing a foreign country to treat Britain as its airstrip was a concession that kept the US in NATO. That's rather like saying that being kicked up the arse was necessary to give someone else some kicking practice.
Switzerland has done fine without foreign bases. If Switzerland can defend itself, why can't Britain? France did OK too after the US bases there were shut in the 1960s.
Anybody who supports a vote in the Commons on whether Britain should belong to NATO or not is a patriot. Anyone who doesn't, isn't. NATO membership is a major plank of foreign policy, and it has been and probably still is a more important issue than EU membership.
What's the problem with MPs voting against wars? That doesn't make them traitors.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
Your poll notwithstanding, EFTA would not resolve, except in a very subtle way, immigration or jurisdiction or payment. That is a huge ask against the background of the present discussion. We've seen how from a small hardcore of opinion on the right of the Tory party the whole of Brexit came about. EFTA leaves enough of those central issues unresolved that they can rise again against EFTA, and quicker.
This is where I'm coming from in thinking of agreeing, n advance, an option on EFTA membership, rather than actual membership. I do wonder if we need to look Hard Brexit directly in the eye for a time before we get a robust enough majority to kill it dead for a generation and accept the compromise.
It would not resolve immigration.
It would resolve both payments (Robert Smithson and I used the current arrangements to come up with a figure of just over £2.4 billion a year) and jurisdiction - the EFTA members are not subject to ECJ rulings.
Your poll notwithstanding, EFTA would not resolve, except in a very subtle way, immigration or jurisdiction or payment. That is a huge ask against the background of the present discussion. We've seen how from a small hardcore of opinion on the right of the Tory party the whole of Brexit came about. EFTA leaves enough of those central issues unresolved that they can rise again against EFTA, and quicker.
This is where I'm coming from in thinking of agreeing, n advance, an option on EFTA membership, rather than actual membership. I do wonder if we need to look Hard Brexit directly in the eye for a time before we get a robust enough majority to kill it dead for a generation and accept the compromise.
Lets take them one at a time: 1. Immigration will continue even with hard Brexit, Davis et al are clear that it won't stop overnight. So "no more foreigners" isn't an option in any scenario and people need to be told that. As for free movement, we can restrict it by applying the EU rules we opted out of. Tell people that people can stay only for 3 months, have to work, can't claim benefits and we can deport them after that and their opinions will swing
2. Juristiction over the single market. We currently have to obey American juristiction, Japanese juristiction, Australian juristiction etc etc when we trade into those markets. Each state / market has the absolute right to lay down and legally enforce rules which we must obey. And thats what we would insist on for other states trading with us.
3. Payment. what about the cash we'd spend paying WTO tariffs? Trade costs money.
The referendum vote must be implemented in accordance with its malign spirit. The campaign was fought by Leave on an anti-immigration basis. Any Leave voters who don't want that need a reality check.
Garbage. You want it to be that way because it satisfies your misguided smug feeling of self righteousness.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
Every PB Leaver on here tells us the country will not put up with free movement.
Only one person seems to be deluded, here.
There are actually plenty of PB Leavers on here who have said freedom of Movement is not an issue. You just don't want to listen to them because it doesn't suit your warped narrative.
You are all sure there is a cliff edge? It seems to me financial services are on the road to do what they must without terrible upheaval. Manufacturing doesn't seem to be panicking?
You can ask in vain - remainers are so desperate for a cliff edge that they just repeat it over and over and hope it means something. There is simply no evidence that the introduction of the single market increased intra EU trade. Under WTO there will be a relatively small loss in EU trade that can easily be offset by opportunities elsewhere.
If the UK simply commit to expanding its customs service, we can easily move to WTO in 18 months time. The biggest risk for the UK is in allowing the EU to drag the negotiations out, not preparing and the being forced to back down at the last minute. Thanks to Boris, this is now less likely. The EU will reject May's offer and we can hopefully see the end of this farce.
There is not going to be a deal with the EU short of abject surrender. We voted leave. Time to start preparing.
Question. According to HMRC their new fangled computer system can handle 60% of transactions needed under WTO rules. It goes live 6 weeks before exit day which means we'll be in the middle of the usual teething problems. HMRC then say they need 5 years to be resourced up for WTO. How does this equate to your confident but baseless "easily move"? What do you know about HMRC that HMRC don't?
And that's just our side of the border. I can't wait to see how much money the French throw at customer officers and facilities on their side of the channel to speedily process all the trucks that cross every day...
They need to use the existing system. It obviously works with WTO transactions since that is what we already have with the rest of the World, so they just need to increase its capacity. HMRC need a large amount of resources and be told to get on with it. The new system is, I agree, never going to work, but then the civil service are not going to implement Brexit unless they are given an unambiguous order.
What's the problem with MPs voting against wars? That doesn't make them traitors
What's the word for leaders who invite a foreign power to have military bases in a country without a referendum and without a debate and vote in the national assembly?
Johnson has merely found a way of saving face, by insinuating that he has forced May back from an EEA/EFTA position.
Or his positioning is for further down the track when he thinks Theresa will ultimately be forced into adopting such a stance.
Boris is a national hero. Leave would never have won the referendum if he had not led the campaign. Now, when he sees that the civil service in cahoots with Hammond and the Treasury are trying to backtrack on the result, he makes a timely intervention and they have to back down. EEA is not Brexit.
The vitriol aimed at Boris from all the remainers here has one basis - he beat you once and he has just done it again!
Comments
I have been saying this for a year now.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/910447585395118080
Ireland isn't.
But that bonanza will be short-lived. Because the British voted to leave the European Union, the U.K. will find itself outside of CETA in March 2019. A deal that took seven years to negotiate will expire for the U.K. after only 18 months."
Fairly common delusion on this site.
The reality is that there was a huge spread of opinion amongst the Leave voters. Indeed back in June last year I wrote a PB thread header on this which included the fact that Dan Hannan was advocating EFTA membership and that
"A Yougov poll on 8th June showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing."
I would suggest that if almost half of Leave voters were in favour of the EFTA/EEA route before the referendum then the combined Remain/ Leave vote in favour of this option both then and now would form a significant majority of opinion.
It is you who are in need of a reality check.
Richard was simply fighting on the wrong side, for emotional reasons known only to him.
Ultimately, the only thing that is going to save this situation is people who were actively involved in the leave campaign advocating for an EEA/ EFTA solution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4899670/The-ten-things-women-sex-men-hate.html
https://twitter.com/PeterKGeoghegan/status/910474416286552065
If the UK simply commit to expanding its customs service, we can easily move to WTO in 18 months time. The biggest risk for the UK is in allowing the EU to drag the negotiations out, not preparing and the being forced to back down at the last minute. Thanks to Boris, this is now less likely. The EU will reject May's offer and we can hopefully see the end of this farce.
There is not going to be a deal with the EU short of abject surrender. We voted leave. Time to start preparing.
Everything that Remainers like turns out either not to help or to actively hurt their agenda.
This is why I'm convinced that Friday's speech will be the Lancaster House speech all over again. It was well received in Europe, remember?
"Three prominent factors appear to be 1) the timing of U.K. and Norway's production relative to global oil and gas prices, 2) lower average U.K. tax receipts from petroleum production, and 3) the Norwegian state's direct investment in the industry."
https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-£400-billion-worth-oil-revenue
I'd also argue that most people, remainers or leavers, want a successful country. To me, that is more important than Brexit.
As I have said before we should not have been burning the stuff anyway. The North Sea - UK and Norway - produces some of the highest quality hydrocarbons in the world which we need for lubricants, plastics, medicines and all the rest of the petrochemical industry. Burning it is a really dumb thing to be doing when it is a finite resource.
Only one person seems to be deluded, here.
This is where I'm coming from in thinking of agreeing, n advance, an option on EFTA membership, rather than actual membership. I do wonder if we need to look Hard Brexit directly in the eye for a time before we get a robust enough majority to kill it dead for a generation and accept the compromise.
And that's just our side of the border. I can't wait to see how much money the French throw at customer officers and facilities on their side of the channel to speedily process all the trucks that cross every day...
NEW THREAD
I was attacking your premise. So I'm not going to answer a question that implies it.
Goodness knows what you mean by "the country". You can't mean the collectivity of British citizens that is supposed to express its will through the men and women we elect to the House of Commons, because neither the citizenry nor its representatives have ever been given the chance to vote on whether the foreign country called the US should be able to have military bases here, where for a time the said foreign country was storing nuclear weapons. We have no more been given the chance than the people of Poland were given the chance regarding the foreign bases in that country.
It is interesting that you use a foreign spelling when you write of the "defense" of the country.
Your only defence of your premise seems to be that allowing a foreign country to treat Britain as its airstrip was a concession that kept the US in NATO. That's rather like saying that being kicked up the arse was necessary to give someone else some kicking practice.
Switzerland has done fine without foreign bases. If Switzerland can defend itself, why can't Britain? France did OK too after the US bases there were shut in the 1960s.
Anybody who supports a vote in the Commons on whether Britain should belong to NATO or not is a patriot. Anyone who doesn't, isn't. NATO membership is a major plank of foreign policy, and it has been and probably still is a more important issue than EU membership.
What's the problem with MPs voting against wars? That doesn't make them traitors.
It would resolve both payments (Robert Smithson and I used the current arrangements to come up with a figure of just over £2.4 billion a year) and jurisdiction - the EFTA members are not subject to ECJ rulings.
1. Immigration will continue even with hard Brexit, Davis et al are clear that it won't stop overnight. So "no more foreigners" isn't an option in any scenario and people need to be told that. As for free movement, we can restrict it by applying the EU rules we opted out of. Tell people that people can stay only for 3 months, have to work, can't claim benefits and we can deport them after that and their opinions will swing
2. Juristiction over the single market. We currently have to obey American juristiction, Japanese juristiction, Australian juristiction etc etc when we trade into those markets. Each state / market has the absolute right to lay down and legally enforce rules which we must obey. And thats what we would insist on for other states trading with us.
3. Payment. what about the cash we'd spend paying WTO tariffs? Trade costs money.
Time for our politicians to grow a spine.