Brexit Referendum Superthread

123shooter

Calina wrote: »

They would not be having so much trouble negotiating if they wanted nothing. The opt in they really want is single market membership without freedom of movement. Or sector by sector membership if the single market without freedom of movement.

They are also seeming to get ready to bully Ireland to get what they want. If they wanted nothing this would not be necessary.

The problem is that the UK doesn't want to leave. Otherwise they would just negotiate the divorce and hike off to their sunlit uplands, no hard feelings. But they are tearing themselves apart, lack a coherent policy and negotiating strategy.

You can't actually do that. There are lots of things to sort out like just one for instance as it concerns Ireland.........the right for your civil aircraft to travel in UK airspace en route to your hols destination and vis versa. Something O'leary is in a panic about.

And so on, many many things but I haven't seen any news about the UK wanting to keep this or that, in fact the only thing I saw mentioned was about the EU wanting EU citizens having EU rights while in the UK.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Your point about it not affecting the European Union again doesn't consider the different levels of exposure different countries have to Britain. That's going to be significant later if the European institutions want to maintain a united front by member states. European countries will realise they need good access to debt and equity markets in London also.

A bad deal will be very bad for both. The UK is a big enough economy to weather it.

I think even though both parties are in theory willing to pay the price for their principles in the worst case scenario it is the worst case scenario. I think both parties will realise they need a better deal when the EU understands the UK is actually leaving and drops the posturing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you're banking on the thus far extremely (dare I say unusually) unified negotiation strategy falling apart as Ireland, France and Germany realise they have more to lose than Latvia or Lithuania?

Ireland stands to lose the most but there still seems to be support for a unified negotiation strategy afaict.

Also...who is "posturing"? Barnier, Juncker and Tusk seem quite clear that they accept the UK's departure but also that this will of necessity when you leave a club have consequences for the departing member (as well as the remaining members but to a lesser extent for each member). Are you confusing truthfulness towards the British public with posturing?

123shooter

murphaph wrote: »

So you're banking on the thus far extremely (dare I say unusually) unified negotiation strategy falling apart as Ireland, France and Germany realise they have more to lose than Latvia or Lithuania?

Ireland stands to lose the most but there still seems to be support for a unified negotiation strategy afaict.

Also...who is "posturing"? Barnier, Juncker and Tusk seem quite clear that they accept the UK's departure but also that this will of necessity when you leave a club have consequences for the departing member (as well as the remaining members but to a lesser extent for each member). Are you confusing truthfulness towards the British public with posturing?

Suppose when all the bravado from you lot has wained you have to sit down and ask what is better for Ireland.

The EU doesn't give a monkies about you except when they need your vote or your money and you have a say in nowt as you already state others are dictating on Ireland.

You aint gonna get any more cash from the EU.........thats a cert it's basically finished now as the pot is empty.

And you are gonna have to start paying a lot more to them to fill the shortfall and extra needed.

They restrict your exports to who they say you can sell to and impose ridiculous laws which do not suit.

So where is the benefit to Ireland staying in the future EU?...........and I don't mean this so you join the UK. I mean it solely as where are your advantages to stopping or leaving a future EU?

First Up

123shooter wrote:

They restrict your exports to who they say you can sell to.

They do nothing of the sort. Where do you get this nonsense?

123shooter

First Up wrote: »

They do nothing of the sort. Where do you get this nonsense?

No member country can do an individual deal unless it complies with the EU rules that is why the EU is seeking a deal with the US, has just done one with Japan etc.

First Up

123shooter wrote:

No member country can do an individual deal unless it complies with the EU rules that is why the EU is seeking a deal with the US, has just done one with Japan etc.

That is not telling you who you can sell to.

Ireland's access to world markets is vastly better by being part of EU trade agreements.

123shooter

First Up wrote: »

That is not telling you who you can sell to.

I am sorry but if you have to comply with rules made by others instead of agreeing with whatever terms you and your new future trading partner decide you want...then it is!

Ireland's access to world markets is vastly better by being part of EU trade agreements.

How do you know?............You can't keep referring back to over 40 years back to what was going on then to now...........the world is a different place with many many more potential trading partners interested in your products over the late 1960's early 1970's...........that is bozo thinking.

I remember back then all that came out of middle eastern countries except for the few then with oil was figs and dates:D...........look at the place now.

murphaph

123shooter wrote: »

Suppose when all the bravado from you lot has wained you have to sit down and ask what is better for Ireland.

The EU doesn't give a monkies about you except when they need your vote or your money and you have a say in nowt as you already state others are dictating on Ireland.

You aint gonna get any more cash from the EU.........thats a cert it's basically finished now as the pot is empty.

And you are gonna have to start paying a lot more to them to fill the shortfall and extra needed.

They restrict your exports to who they say you can sell to and impose ridiculous laws which do not suit.

So where is the benefit to Ireland staying in the future EU?...........and I don't mean this so you join the UK. I mean it solely as where are your advantages to stopping or leaving a future EU?

Maybe, just maybe we appreciate what EU membership has done for us. It brought us from an economy dominated by selling food to the UK, as our economy had been for a hundred years and more before to an economy exporting and developing high value products to the world. I shudder to think of the position we'd be in now if we had not joined the EU and were still totally dependent on trade with our near neighbours. We'd be facing a much bigger problem.

Maybe we think it's right that we contribute now to the body that transformed our country and help other European nations develop their economies so we are all stronger in this part of the world.

Enzokk

123shooter wrote: »

No member country can do an individual deal unless it complies with the EU rules that is why the EU is seeking a deal with the US, has just done one with Japan etc.

Do you think Ireland on its own will be able to negotiate FTA that offers access to other markets as good as the FTA that the EU negotiates with those same markets?

As an example, what is in it for the US to negotiate a free trade deal with Ireland? What kind of deal would a market of 4 million odd people bring to the table to the likes of Japan or the US?

123shooter

murphaph wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe we appreciate what EU membership has done for us. It brought us from an economy dominated by selling food to the UK, as our economy had been for a hundred years and more before to an economy exporting and developing high value products to the world. I shudder to think of the position we'd be in now if we had not joined the EU and were still totally dependent on trade with our near neighbours. We'd be facing a much bigger problem.

Maybe we think it's right that we contribute now to the body that transformed our country and help other European nations develop their economies so we are all stronger in this part of the world.

It's not about what something has done for you. It's about what will be best for you.

123shooter

Enzokk wrote: »

Do you think Ireland on its own will be able to negotiate FTA that offers access to other markets as good as the FTA that the EU negotiates with those same markets?

As an example, what is in it for the US to negotiate a free trade deal with Ireland? What kind of deal would a market of 4 million odd people bring to the table to the likes of Japan or the US?

It has sod all to do with how many of you there are.

It's about producing a product that people want to buy.. Do you not think your products aren't any good and can only sell them because you are part of a big organisation?

Perhaps if you had developed your own economy more instead of relying on handouts from multi-nationals you would have more confidence and not begrudge others who prefer other?.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Also...who is "posturing"? Barnier, Juncker and Tusk seem quite clear that they accept the UK's departure but also that this will of necessity when you leave a club have consequences for the departing member (as well as the remaining members but to a lesser extent for each member). Are you confusing truthfulness towards the British public with posturing?

Good morning,

I'm referring to Tusk and others saying Britain is welcome to return. That's not respecting the referendum.

I'm also referring to Barnier highlighting the idea that authority of the ECJ over Britain is a red line and that Britain needs to pay fines to the ECJ for example amongst other claims he made last week. Even about sectoral membership of the customs union (I'm of the mind that the UK probably shouldn't take this route) or that there's no possibility of passporting of financial services.

These things aren't true. CETA isn't subject to the ECJ for example. It's got it's own court of arbitration with representatives from both parties. Canada would never agree to be solely subject to the ECJ and the UK shouldn't either. There are arrangements for sectoral membership of the customs union. Turkey is currently in this situation. Or indeed the fact that there are provisions in MiFID II for third countries dealing in financial instruments with the EEA if there is regulatory equivalence (which there will be).

So yes - this is just an opening negotiating position. There's no reason to say that it is fact or truth, just as much as what comes from DexEU in Whitehall is fact. It's a negotiating position.

Edit: I'm of the opinion that the EU suits Ireland very well but that it doesn't suit Britain. That's where I might disagree with 123shooter.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

123shooter wrote: »

It has sod all to do with how many of you there are.

It's about producing a product that people want to buy.. Do you not think your products are any good and can only sell them because you are part of a big organisation?

Perhaps if you had developed your own economy more instead of relying on handouts from multi-nationals you would have more confidence and not begrudge others who prefer other?.

Once again when asked a question you don't want to answer you change your position. Do you think the UK will get better deals outside the EU than inside the EU? What products do the UK sell that cannot be done in other EU countries that is wanted all over the world?

And population makes a difference when discussing trade deals. If you have 500 million potential customers to sell a product to you will get a better deal than only having 4 million. Its why items sold in bulk are cheaper than buying them individually.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm referring to Tusk and others saying Britain is welcome to return. That's not respecting the referendum.

I'm also referring to Barnier highlighting the idea that authority of the ECJ over Britain is a red line and that Britain needs to pay fines to the ECJ for example amongst other claims he made last week. Even about sectoral membership of the customs union (I'm of the mind that the UK probably shouldn't take this route) or that there's no possibility of passporting of financial services.

These things aren't true. CETA isn't subject to the ECJ for example. It's got it's own court of arbitration with representatives from both parties. Canada would never agree to be solely subject to the ECJ and the UK shouldn't either. There are arrangements for sectoral membership of the customs union. Turkey is currently in this situation. Or indeed the fact that there are provisions in MiFID II for third countries dealing in financial instruments with the EEA if there is regulatory equivalence (which there will be).

So yes - this is just an opening negotiating position. There's no reason to say that it is fact or truth, just as much as what comes from DexEU in Whitehall is fact. It's a negotiating position.

Edit: I'm of the opinion that the EU suits Ireland very well but that it doesn't suit Britain.

You will only see what you want to see. You seem to only see the the remarks from the EU that talks about the UK being welcomed back to the EU if they want to reverse course. This is not saying that the EU will not allow the UK to leave the EU, but if those in charge feel that they don't want to continue course they will be open to them stopping the process.

What the EU side have been consistent in is saying that there will be pain for all concerned. There will be more pain for the UK, but Ireland will suffer and the EU will suffer. It seems that those that want Brexit to happen are the ones that believe it will all be okay and everyone will be fine. People will suffer from all sides, and those that still want it to happen doesn't seem to register this. But I guess suffering is better than having supposed control.

123shooter

Enzokk wrote: »

Once again when asked a question you don't want to answer you change your position.

I just looked over the thread and I answered any question I was asked.

Do you think the UK will get better deals outside the EU than inside the EU?

Certainly for one reason alone is that in a lot of cases the deal involves conditions the EU imposes over dealing with them.

What products do the UK sell that cannot be done in other EU countries that is wanted all over the world?

Probably very few and vice versa.

And population makes a difference when discussing trade deals. If you have 500 million potential customers to sell a product to you will get a better deal than only having 4 million. Its why items sold in bulk are cheaper than buying them individually.

So if you sell Mercedes to ????? you get a higher price for them from a purchasing country because you are in the EU?:D.........I think you have things back to front, you are talking about buying not selling.

First Up

123shooter wrote: »

I am sorry but if you have to comply with rules made by others instead of agreeing with whatever terms you and your new future trading partner decide you want...then it is!


How do you know?............You can't keep referring back to over 40 years back to what was going on then to now...........the world is a different place with many many more potential trading partners interested in your products over the late 1960's early 1970's...........that is bozo thinking.

I remember back then all that came out of middle eastern countries except for the few then with oil was figs and dates:D...........look at the place now.

The "rules" are not made by "others". Ireland plays an active part in the EU's trade negotiations and our interests are included. We are one of the most successful exporting countries in the world and we are so as part of the single market and under the market access terms negotiated by the EU with third countries.

It has nothing to do with 40 years ago. If we were to negotiate with only the Irish market to offer as a bargaining chip, our access to third country markets would be a tiny fraction of what we have as part of the EU. The UK is going to discover this shortly.

123shooter

First Up wrote: »

The "rules" are not made by "others". Ireland plays an active part in the EU's trade negotiations and our interests are included. We are one of the most successful exporting countries in the world and we are so as part of the single market and under the market access terms negotiated by the EU with third countries.

It has nothing to do with 40 years ago. If we were to negotiate with only the Irish market to offer as a bargaining chip, our access to third country markets would be a tiny fraction of what we have as part of the EU. The UK is going to discover this shortly.

So the Egyptians pay you more for your beef and lamb because you are in the EU?
:D:D:D

First Up

123shooter wrote: »

So the Egyptians pay you more for your beef and lamb because you are in the EU?
:D:D:D

No, why would they?

123shooter

First Up wrote: »

No, why would they?

Because you claim you get better deals for your produce as a member of the EU.

First Up

123shooter wrote: »

Because you claim you get better deals for your produce as a member of the EU.

No I don't. You need to understand the difference between (a) trade agreements, which are the terms under which countries allow access to each others' markets and (b) commercial sales, which are governed by supply, demand and competition.

The EU's role applies only to the former.

123shooter

First Up wrote: »

No I don't. You need to understand the difference between (a) trade agreements, which are the terms under which countries allow access to each others' markets and (b) commercial sales, which are governed by supply, demand and competition.

The EU's role applies only to the former.

No you need to understand the difference between producing a product that people in the world want and being able to sell under the agreement and conditions laid out between the buyer and seller..............than trying to sell a product under the rules and regulations of one size fits all with terms and conditions laid down by others.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I'm referring to Tusk and others saying Britain is welcome to return. That's not respecting the referendum.

I'm also referring to Barnier highlighting the idea that authority of the ECJ over Britain is a red line and that Britain needs to pay fines to the ECJ for example amongst other claims he made last week. Even about sectoral membership of the customs union (I'm of the mind that the UK probably shouldn't take this route) or that there's no possibility of passporting of financial services.

These things aren't true. CETA isn't subject to the ECJ for example. It's got it's own court of arbitration with representatives from both parties. Canada would never agree to be solely subject to the ECJ and the UK shouldn't either. There are arrangements for sectoral membership of the customs union. Turkey is currently in this situation. Or indeed the fact that there are provisions in MiFID II for third countries dealing in financial instruments with the EEA if there is regulatory equivalence (which there will be).

So yes - this is just an opening negotiating position. There's no reason to say that it is fact or truth, just as much as what comes from DexEU in Whitehall is fact. It's a negotiating position.

Edit: I'm of the opinion that the EU suits Ireland very well but that it doesn't suit Britain. That's where I might disagree with 123shooter.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well it did suit Britain. It was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Enzokk did ask if there would be better deals outside the EU than in it.

My answer would be potentially. It depends on the continuing remit of trade with the EU and the scope of the agreement.

If that is in place Britain will benefit hugely from free trade agreements with other countries in addition to the agreement with the EU.

Countries have already expressed interest including the United States and a number of countries covered under arrangements with the EU.

Brexit needs to be handled very carefully but if done right it'll be a success.

The EU didn't suit Britain in the estimation of the voters for a number of reasons. The EU post Maastricht and Lisbon is very different to the EEC.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

123shooter

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it did suit Britain. It was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

That is correct and it was by unions and Labour governments as well.

murphaph

123shooter wrote: »

It has sod all to do with how many of you there are.

It's about producing a product that people want to buy.. Do you not think your products aren't any good and can only sell them because you are part of a big organisation?

Perhaps if you had developed your own economy more instead of relying on handouts from multi-nationals you would have more confidence and not begrudge others who prefer other?.

You're going to find out just how much of what the UK sells into the EU can be easily replaced by EU suppliers. Services are the easiest thing to replace. Meanwhile is the UK quickly going to develop specialised machine tool manufacturing to replace German suppliers?

I wish your country well. It would be idiotic for any Irish person to do otherwise as our economies are still heavily intertwined but you are overstating how diverse the UK economy is. It is service sector dominated and that's a risky position to be in when leaving a large trading bloc. You either quickly diversify into manufacturing desirable goods or sell your services to India and China.....but I don't know how many of them need a Barclaycard or health insurance.

123shooter

murphaph wrote: »

I wish your country well.

Thank you and you must be the first here because some of the comments by others are dire.

........ but you are overstating how diverse the UK economy is.

No I am not. I have always said a country and it's people should be able to steer their own destiny.

First Up

123shooter wrote: »

No you need to understand the difference between producing a product that people in the world want and being able to sell under the agreement and conditions laid out between the buyer and seller..............than trying to sell a product under the rules and regulations of one size fits all with terms and conditions laid down by others.

Example please.

flatty

I think the Tories will hard brexit.
They will then be obliterated.
Labour will then take office.
For a change they will take the reins of a country already bankrupt, as inward investment dries up.
Sterling will collapse, and everyone will be worse off.
After a generation of stagnation in some parts, decline in others (and quite likely default), a bright new middle of the road party, likely a new labour type, will request re entry to the EU, only this time it will be full entry, no opt outs. What is left of the UK will gradually improve as a result of inward investment.
The generation of empirists who overwhelmingly voted for brexit willbe dead.
The young, who didn't bother voting will pay the price, and just maybe ,their children will see a brighter future.
Its a horror show of idiocy, xenophobia and navel gazing. Stupid beyond belief, economy aside.
It'll be vaguely entertaining watching the brexiteers complaining about roaming charges of £2 a minute, expensive beer, long queues at Spanish airports, and realising that the boot has switched to the other foot as they are looked down on by all Europeans as the poor neighbour, and Europe, neither needing nor wanting chav tourism eases them out.
At least the UK airports will be a bit more pleasant. I can see no other upside as a pro EU (whatever the financial cost) Irishman stuck in the UK for family reasons (ten more years tops).
The UK is f3cked for the foreseeable future.

murphaph

flatty wrote: »

I think the Tories will hard brexit.
They will then be obliterated.
Labour will then take office.
For a change they will take the reins of a country already bankrupt, as inward investment dries up.
Sterling will collapse, and everyone will be worse off.
After a generation of stagnation in some parts, decline in others (and quite likely default), a bright new middle of the road party, likely a new labour type, will request re entry to the EU, only this time it will be full entry, no opt outs. What is left of the UK will gradually improve as a result of inward investment.
The generation of empirists who overwhelmingly voted for brexit willbe dead.
The young, who didn't bother voting will pay the price, and just maybe ,their children will see a brighter future.
Its a horror show of idiocy, xenophobia and navel gazing. Stupid beyond belief, economy aside.
It'll be vaguely entertaining watching the brexiteers complaining about roaming charges of £2 a minute, expensive beer, long queues at Spanish airports, and realising that the boot has switched to the other foot as they are looked down on by all Europeans as the poor neighbour, and Europe, neither needing nor wanting chav tourism eases them out.
At least the UK airports will be a bit more pleasant. I can see no other upside as a pro EU (whatever the financial cost) Irishman stuck in the UK for family reasons (ten more years tops).
The UK is f3cked for the foreseeable future.

This is pretty hard but I fear not too far from reality.

murphaph

123shooter wrote: »

Thank you and you must be the first here because some of the comments by others are dire.

No I am not. I have always said a country and it's people should be able to steer their own destiny.

But the UK chose it's destiny under Thatcher in the 80's when manufacturing was sidelined in favour of services. Services are easily replaced and the little bit of car manufacturing left is by foreign companies who will relocate to EU sites if customs become a problem for their logistics.

The UK is a totally different economy to say Germany, which sells, from inside the EU desirable products to the whole world. It's a disaster waiting to happen.