EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[AlterEgo]

Whatever the figure is, it is still going to Brussels at present and will for some time to come.

It isn't though. This was corrected upthread because there is a significant abatement which the UK keeps.

 

[burneside]

Whatever the disputed figure really is, we are still paying billions to the EU until we leave.

 

[Howardh]

Whatever the disputed figure really is, we are still paying billions to the EU until we leave.

What makes you think we won't be paying billions in after?!! Probably not as much - but won't the EU want an "incentive" to maintain some kind of free trade? Pay in but no say. Hmmm.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Whatever the disputed figure really is, we are still paying billions to the EU until we leave.

1 - And are getting billions back to regions of the country that really need it (but are ignored by Westminster), plus the benefits of being part of the EU.

2 - We may well have to pay not much less once we leave anyway for access to the single market / trade deals etc. We have no idea how this will pan out.

3 - The cost that we will be paying until we leave is massively overshadowed by:

• The money we will have to spend on negotiators and the like to actually sort out Brexit and Trade deals etc.
• The costs associated with having a weaker currancy than before.
• The costs of the current uncertain climate.

There is also the costs of bushiness potentially turning away from the UK because of Brexit. But that is another what if at the moment.

 

[burneside]

What makes you think we won't be paying billions in after?!! Probably not as much - but won't the EU want an "incentive" to maintain some kind of free trade? Pay in but no say. Hmmm.

Depends what deal is cut. Trade isn't all one way, they need our market too. Hard Brexit suits me if it means we no longer pay into Brussels.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Hard Brexit suits me if it means we no longer pay into Brussels.

At any costs? What if we (or significant parts of our country) are worse off after that?

 

[AlterEgo]

Depends what deal is cut. Trade isn't all one way, they need our market too. Hard Brexit suits me if it means we no longer pay into Brussels.

Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Whatever the disputed figure really is, we are still paying billions to the EU until we leave.

And, by all accounts from mainstream economists, getting benefits to our economy from the membership, from which the resultant extra taxes going to the Government vastly outweigh the net amount the Government pays to the EU.

 

[Howardh]

Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

Let's face it, Brexit may well make next-to-no difference with peoples lives, there still won't be money for the NHS, migrants will still be coming in taking our low-value jobs because we won't do them. Can't really see any positive benefits unless there is genuine growth in our economy, thus lowering taxes and increasing pensions etc. What are the chances of that happening - and how long will we have to wait?

Key elements will be how long the dole queue is, standard/cost of living, ease/cost of travelling abroad, whether the NHS will improve at all and getting our infrastructure (HS2, Runway 3 are the two biggies?) completed, how much tax revenue we take in and can we get the deficit down?

Glad I'm more-or-less retired now (will be once my caring duties are over) so as long as the pension rolls in - and whether I can afford to go abroad - I can sit back and watch it all unfold.

Can't see May going for a hard Brexit UNLESS all EU negotiations fail. 48% of the country are naffed off already, I don't believe every Brexit voter wants a hard Brexit, so let's say half think it's too hard/soft, that's another 26% naffed off, May will be going int the 2020 election with 3/4rs of the country spitting feathers!

EFTA/EEA could be her only sensible option. But when have politicians ever been sensible??

 

[dosxuk]

Can't see May going for a hard Brexit UNLESS all EU negotiations fail. 48% of the country are naffed off already, I don't believe every Brexit voter wants a hard Brexit, so let's say half think it's too hard/soft, that's another 26% naffed off, May will be going int the 2020 election with 3/4rs of the country spitting feathers!

EFTA/EEA could be her only sensible option. But when have politicians ever been sensible??

But go that route, and end up having to pay into the EU budget (but with no decision making ability) and accept the freedom of movement rules will just result in a different 26% of Brexit supporters being naffed off and the same number of people annoyed with the Tories come 2020.

After all, "Brexit means Brexit" because it's one of those things that as soon as you define it, a lot of people who previously thought they supported it will suddenly realise they're not getting what they thought they voted for. It's very much in the Government's interest to keep people thinking that their version of Brexit won the referendum rather than getting them annoyed at Parliament ignoring their wishes.

 

[Railops]

There is no such thing as soft Brexit unless there is no Brexit at all.
If we do actually eventually leave if we still have FOM, thousands of EU regulations and pay money to Europe we won't have left at all except in name only.
Hard and soft should be renamed Real and Imaginary.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's almost like the word "European" itself has negative connotations. It doesn't help with many years of negative reporting and conflation with the EU and ECHR.

 

[anme]

There is no such thing as soft Brexit unless there is no Brexit at all.
If we do actually eventually leave if we still have FOM, thousands of EU regulations and pay money to Europe we won't have left at all except in name only.
Hard and soft should be renamed Real and Imaginary.

No.

During the referendum campaign, the only economic model that was mentioned much was the Norwegian one. This is very very very stupid compared to being in the EU, but it was the only one leave supporters could actually name in my experience. I was stuck in a taxi with an ardent leave supporter who was very enthusiastic about it and somehow thought the Norwegians had got a "better deal" than the British.

To claim that the referendum was a 'no' to the Norwegian model is an absolute lie.

Having said that, the government seems to have set its heart on hard Brexit. This is even more stupid than the Norwegian model. Read about it here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/11/s-and-p-predicts-hard-brexit-downgrade-uk-eu

 

[miami]

Depends what deal is cut. Trade isn't all one way, they need our market too. Hard Brexit suits me if it means we no longer pay into Brussels.

Ahh, the "I'm going to stop working so I don't have to pay taxes" method

Norway's membership fee for the EEA is £75.60 per person per year
The UK's membership fee for the EU is about £93 per person per year

 

[burneside]

Ahh, the "I'm going to stop working so I don't have to pay taxes" method

Norway's membership fee for the EEA is £75.60 per person per year
The UK's membership fee for the EU is about £93 per person per year

More fool Norway for entering into such a poor deal. Canada has just signed a trade agreement with the EU, are they paying into the Brussels coffers too?

 

[Howardh]

But go that route, and end up having to pay into the EU budget (but with no decision making ability) and accept the freedom of movement rules will just result in a different 26% of Brexit supporters being naffed off and the same number of people annoyed with the Tories come 2020.

After all, "Brexit means Brexit" because it's one of those things that as soon as you define it, a lot of people who previously thought they supported it will suddenly realise they're not getting what they thought they voted for. It's very much in the Government's interest to keep people thinking that their version of Brexit won the referendum rather than getting them annoyed at Parliament ignoring their wishes.

Within Parliament there must be a whole load of number-crunching going on. I'm sure they know that someone will get a good kicking, and it's likely to be the Tories - one kicking them from one side for allowing this whole situation to happen in the first place just to keep UKIP at bay, and from the other side all the Brexiters who don't think the eventual outcome is to their liking.

Then there's the Labour split, the Labour North wanting Brexit and the Labour South wanting remain (therefore the EEA/EFTA option I assume). Try squaring that one.

Think at some point the government's only option is to go back to the country with the question "OK, we're out but now what do you want?" and keep that separate form the General Election - so we can get on with the type of Brexit the majority want and then get on with our real lives - NHS, taxes, inflation, preparing pitches that take spin etc etc.

That leaves one problem though. Suppose the Brexit we eventually get isn't what we want as much of the outcome will be determined by outside forces?

Of course, the wealthy are laughing. They can just up sticks and clear off!

 

[anme]

More fool Norway for entering into such a poor deal. Canada has just signed a trade agreement with the EU, are they paying into the Brussels coffers too?

Canada's trade deal is considerably less extensive than Norway's and doesn't cover freedom of movement of people. You really need to learn the difference between a trade deal and the single market, because it's going to be very important to the UK in the years to come.

BTW, do you know how much input Norway had into the EU/Canadian trade deal (which covers Norway)? I'll give you a clue - it rhymes with Nero and hero. The Norwegian model is really really stupid, but it's still better than leaving the single market, which is likely to be known as the "British model" in a few years' time.

 

[Senex]

Think at some point the government's only option is to go back to the country with the question "OK, we're out but now what do you want?" and keep that separate form the General Election - so we can get on with the type of Brexit the majority want and then get on with our real lives - NHS, taxes, inflation, preparing pitches that take spin etc etc.

That would be a thoroughly rational way of proceeding -- which is probably precisely why it won't happen.

I do think you're quite right about the potential splits in both parties (and in their voter-bases). No bad thing if, coupled with a decent reform of the electoral system, it led to a significant realignment of parties, probably with the emergence of two or three new ones. But how likely is either of those things?

 

[anme]

That would be a thoroughly rational way of proceeding -- which is probably precisely why it won't happen.

I do think you're quite right about the potential splits in both parties (and in their voter-bases). No bad thing if, coupled with a decent reform of the electoral system, it led to a significant realignment of parties, probably with the emergence of two or three new ones. But how likely is either of those things?

This is why Theresa May wants to keep any debate about Brexit out of parliament. It will split the conservative party and neither side will be able to claim a mandate from the last election or the referendum. It will split the labour party too, but acceptance or fear and hatred of foreigners, nationalism and free trade are not so fundamental to their psychological make up so it will be less serious (although they have plenty of other problems right now).

 

[EM2]

More fool Norway for entering into such a poor deal. Canada has just signed a trade agreement with the EU, are they paying into the Brussels coffers too?

And yet Norway always seems to rank highly for quality of life...
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

 

[NSEFAN]

This is why Theresa May wants to keep any debate about Brexit out of parliament. It will split the conservative party and neither side will be able to claim a mandate from the last election or the referendum. It will split the labour party too, but acceptance or fear and hatred of foreigners, nationalism and free trade are not so fundamental to their psychological make up so it will be less serious (although they have plenty of other problems right now).

If there really is the risk of completely tearing apart both major parties, perhaps we could use this as an opportunity to reform our electoral system?

 

[Howardh]

If there really is the risk of completely tearing apart both major parties, perhaps we could use this as an opportunity to reform our electoral system?

Now you had a referendum on that.....

 

[NSEFAN]

Now you had a referendum on that.....

Indeed, although this time it'd be good to have a proper proposal for PR, rather than AV. There was a huge amount of negative campaigning for AV, but with the main parties broken up there might be more political will to actually have PR.

 

[anme]

Indeed, although this time it'd be good to have a proper proposal for PR, rather than AV. There was a huge amount of negative campaigning for AV, but with the main parties broken up there might be more political will to actually have PR.

I wonder if I/we overestimate the likelihood of the two main parties splitting.

The risk of a split is higher for the Tories. The parliamentary conservative party is certainly very divided, and for many of them (especially on the "leave" side) this issue goes deep into their psychological make up and beyond party loyalty (as John Major found out). However, the party is a whole outside of parliament is much more united - they are nationalists and they hate foreigners and the EU. (I once knew a young conservative who described his party as being "mostly nasty old people"). A pro-Europe splinter group would take some MPs, but few party members, or resources or infrastructure and would be in a poor position to fight a general election. A large majority of conservative voters voted to leave the EU, so it's hard to see such a group winning many seats. They might be better off joining the Liberal Democrats, or even a pro-European split from the Labour party - but see below.

For Labour, Europe is less of a defining issue. There are different positions in the party (as there are in any party on most issues) but it's not such an important issue for them. The fear and hatred of foreigners which burns so bright on the right is simply not such a big deal on the left. So on the face of it, a split seems less likely. However, given the current situation in the Labour party, maybe Europe could be the excuse those who are unhappy with Corbyn's leadership need to leave. They might take more of the infrastructure, resources, party members and (most important) parliamentary seats than a pro-European Tory splinter group. But it's still a high risk strategy.

We should bear in mind that British political parties very rarely split, because the odds of a splinter group with few resources being able to win any seats are so low. Look at how little UKIP have achieved in parliamentary elections. This is also a very strong reason for the established parties to oppose any move to proportional representation.

Edit: a bigger danger for Theresa May is that pro-European MPs from all the parties in the current house of commons start to co-operate outside of the party system. This might be especially dangerous towards the end of the article 50 negotiations if the deal on the table looks to be damaging to the UK, and the court cases in progress decide that parliament has the right to approve the final deal or to revoke article 50 (which looks quite likely). If the economy is turning nasty by then and people are losing their jobs, such a grouping may have the support of much of the country (48% + some proportion of the 52% who don't actually want to see their country destroyed). This situation would be very interesting indeed, and the outcome quite unpredictable.

 

[Trog]

This might be especially dangerous towards the end of the article 50 negotiations if the deal on the table looks to be damaging to the UK, and the court cases in progress decide that parliament has the right to approve the final deal or to revoke article 50 (which looks quite likely).

Even if a British Court said parliament has the right to revoke article 50 once it had been triggered if they did not like the outcome, would the EU accept it if they did?

 

[anme]

Even if a British Court said parliament has the right to revoke article 50 once it had been triggered if they did not like the outcome, would the EU accept it if they did?

Good question. If not, it might have to be decided by the European Court of Justice.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The UK could join NAFTA.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...theresa-may-a7412791.html?cmpid=facebook-post

So was this really about protectionism and trading on our terms, or was it really about some Anglo-Saxon hegemonic fantasy?

Yet again, a set of nationalistic elites who strung along a large sub-set of the working class with Brexit betray them. Sovereignty, eh? It only mattered when it was against the EU.

 

[furnessvale]

The UK could join NAFTA.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...theresa-may-a7412791.html?cmpid=facebook-post

So was this really about protectionism and trading on our terms, or was it really about some Anglo-Saxon hegemonic fantasy?

Yet again, a set of nationalistic elites who strung along a large sub-set of the working class with Brexit betray them. Sovereignty, eh? It only mattered when it was against the EU.

Oh my God! Do you mean I have swapped unrestricted access for East Europeans for unrestricted access for Mexicans? (Like they DON'T have in the USA).

Can I have my Brexit vote back please.

In case anyone doesn't get it, I am being sarcastic.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oh my God! Do you mean I have swapped unrestricted access for East Europeans for unrestricted access for Mexicans? (Like they DON'T have in the USA).

Can I have my Brexit vote back please.

In case anyone doesn't get it, I am being sarcastic.

That's the best you've got? Unfocused sarcasm?

You do understand the massive opposition in the US to NAFTA for the exact reason you oppose Brexit, right? I'd be a lot more convinced there was something to the Brexiteer's side if they didn't constantly shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting themselves.

 

[furnessvale]

That's the best you've got? Unfocused sarcasm?

You do understand the massive opposition in the US to NAFTA for the exact reason you oppose Brexit, right? I'd be a lot more convinced there was something to the Brexiteer's side if they didn't constantly shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting themselves.

Given the nonsense you spouted in #3507, unfocused sarcasm is more than sufficient.