The consequence thread (Brexit)

[tzijlstra]

If Boris goes into the council negotiations on a promise to remain in the single market come what may, they'll have him for breakfast.

Single market access is great. I don't think anybody wants to deny us that. But unless it comes with massive return of competencies, massively reduced payments, and probably also at least limits on free movement, Boris won't be PM for long.

The above is not consistent with EEA membership.

People may forget about a few months of economic turmoil by 2020. They won't forget reneging on the referendum result.

 

Now you understand why Cameron's first action was to stand down.

 

There is this firm believe with Leave voters that the UK can set all terms and conditions because the people of Britain have spoken. Incredibly naive, it does not work that way.

 

Access to the single market comes at a cost, ever since the UK voted back in 1978 or whenever it was that has been the same. The markets know that that cost was worth it, the correction of the FTSE 250 shows what they estimate the British economy to be worth without that access and this was just the first correction. Boris isn't going to the EU with a promise to remain in the single market, he is going to the EU to beg he can keep access to the single market.

 

Having said that, the EU wants to keep Britain in the single market for perfectly valid reasons, so the first, very obvious step for the EU is to inform Britain to get on with the reforms related to free movement of people as they have already had a chance to do within the framework of the EU agreements.

 

It is correct to state that there is a growing discontent in SOME EU nations about free movement. But, those are nations that had Britain as its figurehead in negotiations about the topic. And the focus isn't on free movement of Europeans, it is on free movement of refugees. As you will hopefully know, that already does not affect the UK. I think there is very little support in the EU for removing the clause for free movement of people. It would be a very interesting supranational referendum that I actually hope we will see in due time. What I am trying to say is - the EU will make that decision with regards to the single market, not the UK, not any more, the UK voted to not have that influence.

 

The aspect of legal impact of the EU, which so many bemoan but don't understand, is that practically all regulations and guidelines coming from the EU are to ensure the market is indeed single. Stating that you can be part of the single market without accepting at the very least the market-related regulations and guidelines is showing a lack of understanding of what a single market is. (Something I have warned of repeatedly).

 

Now, this is all very complicated stuff and nobody knows what the outcome will be. So I repeat - the consequence of Brexit is that nobody knows what is going to happen. This is bad for the economy, CEOs want certainty.

[truman]

Yes we do, we know what 52% of the UK that voted want.

 

The question put to them was do they want to leave or stay in the EU and a definitive answer was given.

 

They were not voting for Boris, Farage, Corbyn, or otherwise. That vote is an entirely different one, for a different day.

 

We can still be in the EEA even if we're not in the EU...

[tzijlstra]

Yes we do, we know what 52% of the UK that voted want.

 

The question put to them was do they want to leave or stay in the EU and a definitive answer was given.

 

They were not voting for Boris, Farage, Corbyn, or otherwise. That vote is an entirely different one, for a different day.

 

Ah, so those 52% know exactly what form leaving the EU should take and they are the ones deciding it, aren't they?

 

Let me be clear - invoking article 50 now, with the understanding that the only negotiation is that the UK is no longer a member and revokes all treaties as a result of that is going to lead to disaster.

[phil752]

It is a mute point and it is wrong on many levels. I can't remember how often I have explained this but will do so again.

 

Just to be clear though - Juncker is under a lot of pressure because several countries are fed-up with him making his role bigger than it is in reality. He acts like he runs the EU, he does not. He runs the Commission and the Commission is purely a mechanism to draft proposals, in majority and usually, based on the instructions of the Council and Parliament, and to ensure the EU rules are enforced.

 

Article 50 states very clearly that this is a Council issue, it is the Council that has set up a taskforce to deal with Brexit and it is the Council who will propose the treaty to the EU Parliament for ratification once it has been drawn up. The EU Parliament is fully elected, as is the Council.

 

so you say our MEPS get to change, draft legislation

[unbeliever]

Now you understand why Cameron's first action was to stand down.

 

There is this firm believe with Leave voters that the UK can set all terms and conditions because the people of Britain have spoken. Incredibly naive, it does not work that way.

 

Access to the single market comes at a cost, ever since the UK voted back in 1978 or whenever it was that has been the same. The markets know that that cost was worth it, the correction of the FTSE 250 shows what they estimate the British economy to be worth without that access and this was just the first correction. Boris isn't going to the EU with a promise to remain in the single market, he is going to the EU to beg he can keep access to the single market.

 

Having said that, the EU wants to keep Britain in the single market for perfectly valid reasons, so the first, very obvious step for the EU is to inform Britain to get on with the reforms related to free movement of people as they have already had a chance to do within the framework of the EU agreements.

 

It is correct to state that there is a growing discontent in SOME EU nations about free movement. But, those are nations that had Britain as its figurehead in negotiations about the topic. And the focus isn't on free movement of Europeans, it is on free movement of refugees. As you will hopefully know, that already does not affect the UK. I think there is very little support in the EU for removing the clause for free movement of people. It would be a very interesting supranational referendum that I actually hope we will see in due time. What I am trying to say is - the EU will make that decision with regards to the single market, not the UK, not any more, the UK voted to not have that influence.

 

The aspect of legal impact of the EU, which so many bemoan but don't understand, is that practically all regulations and guidelines coming from the EU are to ensure the market is indeed single. Stating that you can be part of the single market without accepting at the very least the market-related regulations and guidelines is showing a lack of understanding of what a single market is. (Something I have warned of repeatedly).

 

Now, this is all very complicated stuff and nobody knows what the outcome will be. So I repeat - the consequence of Brexit is that nobody knows what is going to happen. This is bad for the economy, CEOs want certainty.

 

We entered in January 1973 and had a retrospective referendum in 1975.

I've found that you can justify all manner of regulations on the ground that they serve the single market. This is why I voted to leave.

Any law which affects the cost of doing business (which is almost any law) can be justified on these grounds as it affects the level playing field.

[tzijlstra]

so you say our MEPS get to change, draft legislation

 

Do you understand how politics work? To get legislation agreed in Europe it has to be voted on by MEPs. If a vote is likely to be close those MEPs will begin to negotiate with each other either to directly amend the legislation (by kicking it back to the Commission or Council and have them make acceptable changes) or to gain support for other legislation (If you vote for A, I will vote for B.).

 

Works exactly the same in any democracy.

 

We entered in January 1973 and had a retrospective referendum in 1975.

I've found that you can justify all manner of regulations on the ground that they serve the single market. This is why I voted to leave.

Any law which affects the cost of doing business (which is almost any law) can be justified on these grounds as it affects the level playing field.

 

So you voted to leave the single market?

[Obelix]

so you say our MEPS get to change, draft legislation

 

Do you know how EU legislation occurs? Know the difference between the European Council and the Council of European Union? The reason I ask is one thing that is really worrying is the number of British people who have no idea that there are seven major institutions of the EU lurking, they just assume it's a big building in Bruxelles full of mandarins making up laws to annoy the English....

[Ridgewalk]

Osborne saying this morning that his successor will invariably have to introduce even tougher austerity measures, meaning higher taxes and reduced spending .

 

How can this be we didn't vote for this, and the incumbent Tory leadership be it Pfeffel, Gove or Duncan Smith will surely not comply with a right wing Tory Chancellor.......oh wait a minute

 

 

Never mind remember the Mantra " WE'VE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK WE'VE GOT OUR COUNTRY BACK etc ......" ad nauseum.?

[unbeliever]

So you voted to leave the single market?

 

I did not vote for EEA membership. A compromise has to be struck which maximises free trade whilst minimising the impact of EU regulation on UK law.

Those businesses which trade with the EU, will have to meet their standards and play by the bilaterally agreed rules, nobody else will.

The Swiss approach, but not quite the Swiss result.

 

Based on what Switzerland and Norway pay, the UK would likely be looking at paying at most 10% of what it does now for single market "access". That should be uncontentious. The sticking points for me will be how much regulation we have to put up with. For others I suspect the key will be free movement.

Edited June 28, 2016 by unbeliever

[Skink]

The Swiss approach, but not quite the Swiss result.

 

Don't Norway and Switzerland do something like this - and pay pretty much what membership of the EU would cost to do it?