The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Petminder]

what is the plan?

 

To trigger article 50 and start the negotiations with the EU with the aim of keeping tariff free access with the single market and ending the free movement of people, and cooperating with the EU on a wide verity of things that are in out mutual interest.

[andyofborg]

We have the result of the referendum and the campaigns from each sides which made it clear that a vote to leave was a vote for hard brexit, hard brexit being controlling immigration by leaving the single market, repatriating all our law making and money.

 

 

If it's possible for the government to keep us in the single market whilst repatriating all the money we send, repatriating our law making, and stopping the free movement of people then I can't see why anyone would have a problem with letting the government get on with the negotiations.

 

thank you for repeating the jist of your previous post twice but you still haven't explained why a soft brexit would prevent that from happening?

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 11:43 ----------

 

To trigger article 50 and start the negotiations with the EU with the aim of keeping tariff free access with the single market and ending the free movement of people, and cooperating with the EU on a wide verity of things that are in out mutual interest.

 

so a soft brexit then?

[Petminder]

thank you for repeating the jist of your previous post twice but you still haven't explained why a soft brexit would prevent that from happening?

 

Not a single remoaner that as described soft brext as made the claim that a soft brexit is one which keeps us in the single market without the have to allow the free movement of people, that it would cost us nothing and all future laws would be made here. I would be interested in hearing how you think it is possible.

 

Ending the free movement of people and repatriating all our law making and money is being described by everyone as an hard brexit.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 11:48 ----------

 

thank you for repeating the jist of your previous post twice but you still haven't explained why a soft brexit would prevent that from happening?

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 11:43 ----------

 

 

so a soft brexit then?

 

That's not the definition of the soft brexit people like Clegg are describing. If its possible I could live with it and it does appear to be the government negotiating stance.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37500140

Supporters of a "soft" Brexit imagine a future where the UK retains some form of membership of the European Union single market in return for a degree of free movement.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Petminder

[andyofborg]

Not a single remoaner that as described soft brext as made the claim that a soft brexit is one which keeps us in the single market without the have to allow the free movement of people, that it would cost us nothing and all future laws would be made here. I would be interested in hearing how you think it is possible.

 

Ending the free movement of people and repatriating all our law making and money is being described by everyone as an hard brexit.

 

Perhaps we are all guilty of a lack of clarity and abuse of terms which no one has really ever defined.

 

Membership of the single market means accepting the four freedoms, the shouty brexit racists (a very noisy minority) have made that all but impossible regardless of the opinions of the brexit (shouty or not) non-racists (the majority).

 

Given that, then phrases like "access to the single market" have cropped up and they are basically euphemisms for what is essentially a barrier and tariff free(ish) deal to trade with the EU.

 

Such a deal would end the "free movement of people" and will no doubt make the shouty racists happy. However, that doesn't solve of the problem of both skilled jobs which the people here don't have the skills to do and the jobs which the people here simply don't want to do which have all been filled by eu and non-eu migrants. So, some immigration will still be needed. For me, then some sort of visa/work permit system would satisfy that. Would we want to make it easier for eu migrants to get visas/permits as opposed to non eu migrants? Maybe since it might make settling the rest of the eu leaving issues easier or maybe not if you think all foreigners are dirty and want to eat our babies.

 

In many ways, non-tariff barriers to trade are a bigger dis-incentive to trade than tariff barriers. Removing the non-tariff barriers means having things like common standards and such like. That unfortunately means that some legislation will need to be agreed and shared with the EU. Is that such a bad thing?

 

We also have a body of law which has arisen from our membership. I'm sure there will be a process by which we review those laws and repeal or replace those which are no longer needed but some will be retained and possibly updated in line with how EU law changes.

 

Finally, there are a number of EU institutions and projects and remaining in some of those would definitely be beneficial to our country, I'm thinking like the ones which encourage cooperation and joint university research projects, pollution doesn't respect borders so cooperation with the EU on the environment should be retained, and of course security and law enforcement. These don't happen for free, so if we want to keep these links, and I don't see why we shouldn't, then that will mean we'd probably need to make a contribution to the necessary budgets.

 

Equally, if making a sensible (for a given value of sensible) contribution to the overall EU budget make all these things happen then I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that since we would get some tangible benefits.

 

Is that a hard brexit or a soft brexit? I'd call it a soft brexit.

Edited November 5, 2016 by andyofborg

[I1L2T3]

Once again. The PM himself and many other from both sides were absolutely explicit that we would be leaving the customs union and the EU internal market.

 

Who could possible have spoken with more authority than the head of government, what government policy would be in the event of a leave vote?

What more do you need? Should it have been carved on the moon?

 

There's no evidence of any consistent plan. None at all. There was virtually no economic discussion in the campaign. Any attempt by the remain side to initiate it was slapped down as scaremongering.

 

Gove made some announcements but they were instantly torn apart by the experts he hates and deemed unworkable. Johnson hardly mentioned the single market at all until after the result. Farage wasn't part of the official campaign but even he generally refused to be drawn on economic specifics. Fox was not a prominent figure in the campaign.

 

Things were said off the hoof at times but there was never a plan. In fact Brexiters on here made a virtue of there being no plan, arguing that it wasnt needed at all.

 

Nothing was explicit. Show me where there was any consistent campaign theme based on falling back on WTO rules. There wasn't one. It didn't happen.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 12:57 ----------

 

thats utter rubbish, remainers have used it as stick to beat the leave campaign and a pretty weak stick at that, anyone can read that as a suggestion?? well unless you are really thick:roll:

 

There are several parts of the pledge, and it's all quite loaded with meaning. And all of it disingenuous but powerful.

 

1. That we send £350m a week. That was never true. It was exposed by the government's chief statistics officer as being untrue. Even after being censured for it the leave campaign failed/refused to remove it from the bus and other posters and camapign literature destite knowing it was untrue. £350m a week sounds a lot, and of course it is a huge sum of money, but it is only 1% of our GDP.

 

2. The idea that we could not send any money to the EU or contribute in any way after we leave. This will turn out to be a nonsense claim. We will have to retain some kind of market access and the price of that will be some form of EU contribution. A senior Tory has adminnted this and even argued for continuing contribution.

 

3. The idea that we could fund our NHS with the money. Well, that has been utterly destroyed. Well and truly.

 

The significance of the lies around this will grow. It was interpreted as a pledge by many voters. You can't escape that and it will come back to bite the Brexiters.

[Petminder]

Perhaps we are all guilty of a lack of clarity and abuse of terms which no one has really ever defined.

 

Membership of the single market means accepting the four freedoms, the shouty brexit racists (a very noisy minority) have made that all but impossible regardless of the opinions of the brexit (shouty or not) non-racists (the majority).

 

Given that, then phrases like "access to the single market" have cropped up and they are basically euphemisms for what is essentially a barrier and tariff free(ish) deal to trade with the EU.

 

Such a deal would end the "free movement of people" and will no doubt make the shouty racists happy. However, that doesn't solve of the problem of both skilled jobs which the people here don't have the skills to do and the jobs which the people here simply don't want to do which have all been filled by eu and non-eu migrants. So, some immigration will still be needed. For me, then some sort of visa/work permit system would satisfy that. Would we want to make it easier for eu migrants to get visas/permits as opposed to non eu migrants, maybe since it might make settling the rest of the eu leaving issues easier or maybe not from if you think all foreigners are dirty and want to eat our babies.

 

In many ways, non-tariff barriers to trade are a bigger dis-incentive to trade than tariff barriers. Removing the non-tariff barriers means having things like common standards and such like. That unfortunately means that some legislation will need to be agreed and shared with the EU. Is that such a bad thing?

 

We also have a body of law which has arisen from our membership. I'm sure there will be a process by which we review those laws and repeal or replace those which are no longer needed but some will be retained and possibly updated in line with how EU law changes.

 

Finally, there are a number of EU institutions and projects and remaining in some of those would definitely be beneficial to our country, I'm thinking like the ones which encourage cooperation and joint university research projects, pollution doesn't respect borders so cooperation with the EU on the environment should be retained, and of course security and law enforcement. These don't happen for free, so if we want to keep these links, and I don't see why we shouldn't, then that will mean we'd probably need to make a contribution to the necessary budgets.

 

Equally, if making a sensible (for a given value of sensible) contribution to the overall EU budget make all these things happen then I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that since we would get some tangible benefits.

 

Is that a hard brexit or a soft brexit? I'd call it a soft brexit.

 

It was made very clear that a vote to leave was a vote to take full control of the money we send to the EU, any negotiation that ties us into long term donations to the EU coffers would go against what was said in the campaign, short term contributions that start and end with each elected government would be acceptable because that would give the elected government full control of the money.

 

The terms soft and hard brexit are remoaner terms so it is for them to define each. Soft appears to be a Norway type deal and that would be unacceptable on the grounds that no one wanted it, even the remain campaign said a Norway type deal would be rubbish and the out campaign said it would not be a Norway type deal.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 13:08 ----------

 

There's no evidence of any consistent plan. None at all. There was virtually no economic discussion in the campaign. Any attempt by the remain side to initiate it was slapped down as scaremongering.

 

Gove made some announcements but they were instantly torn apart by the experts he hates and deemed unworkable. Johnson hardly mentioned the single market at all until after the result. Farage wasn't part of the official campaign but even he generally refused to be drawn on economic specifics. Fox was not a prominent figure in the campaign.

 

Things were said off the hoof at times but there was never a plan. In fact Brexiters on here made a virtue of there being no plan, arguing that it wasnt needed at all.

 

Nothing was explicit. Show me where there was any consistent campaign theme based on falling back on WTO rules. There wasn't one. It didn't happen.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 12:57 ----------

 

 

There are several parts of the pledge, and it's all quite loaded with meaning. And all of it disingenuous but powerful.

 

1. That we send £350m a week. That was never true. It was exposed by the government's chief statistics officer as being untrue. Even after being censured for it the leave campaign failed/refused to remove it from the bus and other posters and camapign literature destite knowing it was untrue. £350m a week sounds a lot, and of course it is a huge sum of money, but it is only 1% of our GDP.

 

2. The idea that we could not send any money to the EU or contribute in any way after we leave. This will turn out to be a nonsense claim. We will have to retain some kind of market access and the price of that will be some form of EU contribution. A senior Tory has adminnted this and even argued for continuing contribution.

 

3. The idea that we could fund our NHS with the money. Well, that has been utterly destroyed. Well and truly.

 

The significance of the lies around this will grow. It was interpreted as a pledge by many voters. You can't escape that and it will come back to bite the Brexiters.

 

The people voted to take full control of the money we send, end the free movement of people and take full control of our law making. Any deal must include all these things.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Petminder

[altus]

To trigger article 50 and start the negotiations with the EU with the aim of keeping tariff free access with the single market and ending the free movement of people, and cooperating with the EU on a wide verity of things that are in out mutual interest.

That's not the plan, that's the hope. The other EU members have repeatedly said no tariff free access without free movement of people. Any realistic plan has to deal with that and the other entirely predictable awkward realities they are going to face.

[Petminder]

That's not the plan, that's the hope. The other EU members have repeatedly said no tariff free access without free movement of people. Any realistic plan has to deal with that and the other entirely predictable awkward realities they are going to face.

 

Its a plan, the end result of a negotiation is impossible to know, if everyone knew the the final outcome the negotiations would be rather pointless don't you think.

[altus]

Its a plan, the end result of a negotiation is impossible to know, if everyone knew the the final outcome the negotiations would be rather pointless don't you think.

Having a plan that doesn't deal with the realities of a situation is at best wishful thinking but more like incompetent. Do you think they should be planning to deal with the EU saying no tariff free access without free movement?

[Petminder]

Having a plan that doesn't deal with the realities of a situation is at best wishful thinking but more like incompetent. Do you think they should be planning to deal with the EU saying no tariff free access without free movement?

 

The plan is to negotiate an exit deal with the EU, they have some objectives that are based on what people voted for but no one can know the outcome before the end of the negotiations, and no amount of speculation or moaning is going to change that. Worst case scenario is they don't reach a deal and we leave, at that point we have the same deal that hundred of other countries have with the EU.