Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris · 25-10-2017 07:04PM

murphaph wrote: »

Canada and Australia are major exporters of the raw materials the rest of the world needs. The UK exports credit cards and insurance policies instead.

Edit: sorry beaten to it. As mentioned above, terrible examples to give.

More than that, Britain's manufacturing tends to rely on imported raw materials. That's why even with a weak Sterling, there's little benefit from it in that sector.

mickoneill31 · 25-10-2017 07:07PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)
Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)
Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)
Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

1: They already had that. Other EU countries have control over EU economic migration.

2: There are endless debates over which is the bigger number. The benefits the UK gets from the EU or the amount the UK pays to the EU.

3: Control of laws. Last I checked the UK was a member of the EU and was involved in making those laws. And many of those laws they want control of are now just being rolled into the UK statute books without many changes. Ah well, at least they have control. Those Henry VIII powers are really handing over control alright. Are they handing it over to the right people though?
The irony here is that if the UK wants to continue trading with the EU it's probably in the future going to have to accept EU laws without any say in their formation. So they're taking back control, and losing a lot.

4: This is the best one. Increase trade with their much smaller trading partners at the expense of trade with their largest. They'll have control of their trade policy as long as the other members of the WTO don't cause them problems. You know, members such as the US who promised a "beautiful trade deal". Their actions in the last month or two with the WTO and with Bombardier may indicate that Trump meant that the trade deal would be beautiful for the US. Which makes sense. Any country that is negotiating with the UK now knows that they're over a barrel. They're not going to do the UK any favours.

Sam Russell · 25-10-2017 07:21PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you know the answer to that. The terms aren't acceptable so something else needs to be negotiated.

The UK needs to honour the referendum result. Which means (after transition)
Control of borders (specifically in respect to EU economic migration)

Control of money (ultimately ending contributions to Brussels)

Control of laws (The UK Supreme Court needs to have a final say on UK law and its interpretation)

Control of trade policy (to allow the UK to expand trade with its non-EU trade partners)

Within these lines nearly anything else can be proposed. The Government must deliver a true Brexit though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

When the High Court and the Supreme Court passed judgement on the UK Gov saying they had to have a Parliament vote of Brexit, they were called Traitors by the Brexit gutter press. So much for accepting the judgements of the UK Courts.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

Here's one of the clearest posts I've put forward:

There's no point repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Australia regrets the hurriedly agreed FTA with the USA which has damaged their economy.

So getting back control might get the UK economy screwed, plus open the door to GMO food and chlorinated chicken. Good luck with that.

The Rape of Lucretia · 25-10-2017 07:23PM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

1: They already had that.

2: There are endless debates over which is the bigger number.

3: Control of laws.

4: This is the best one.

1) Not really - other EU citizens could get into the UK. Brexit gives full control of preventing undesirables from the undesirable EU nations from being able to get in.

2) When the extra money the UK can earn through doing its own trade deal post Brexit, the UK will be better off even without the money it gets back from the EU.

3) That is not FULL control. Involvement in making laws that apply in your country and, 100% control of making them are not at all the same thing.

4) There are a lot more people in the rest of the world, than are in the EU.

steddyeddy · 25-10-2017 08:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On
The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is absurd. The problem is that Canada and the US have long established trading deals with other countries. Both countries have numerous resources and vast internal markets. The UK to be fair is a country that was struggling economically until it joined the single market.

carrickbally · 25-10-2017 09:52PM

captainspeed wrote: »

I think a lot of you are being very harsh on the English - certainly the under 45s (who let's not forget voted to remain).

I actually live in the North of England, and in a city that voted to leave (although very narrowly), yet I can 100% say that my nationality has never been an issue in the five and a bit years I've been here. The English have been very, very good to me and I've been able to make plenty of English friends.

If you take away the politics, we have far more in common with them than we wish to admit. I just wish they could see how much they have in common with their fellow Europeans, the younger generation get it, the older ones not really.

Harsh or otherwise we have to recognise the truth.

Being over 80% of the UK electorate the English decided the result.

Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against Brexit.

Decades of anti-EU propaganda by the gutter London media resulted in an English racist decision to wage economic war on fellow European citizens.

The consequences are the tearing up of the treaty the UK signed with nearly thirty other European democracies and the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement signed with this country.

The latter will result in a hard border on this island since both the customs union and the free movement of people have been rejected by the Brexit decision.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-10-2017 10:12PM

First Up wrote: »

76% of Canadian exports go to the US. Almost 70% of Australian exports go to Asia (33% to China.)

Raw materials make up the bulk of both countries' exports. (Canada also supplies automotive parts to the US motor industry under NAFTA.)

They are both spectacularly bad as models for what the UK can do outside the EU.

Norway is also an exporter of materials , food and energy.
Iceland uses it's energy to process aluminium.

Also the whole Bombardier thing should have been a wake up call to the UK. If the US is willing to shaft Canada even though it has lots of raw materials they need then how is the UK going to get a better deal ??

Nody · 25-10-2017 10:37PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also the whole Bombardier thing should have been a wake up call to the UK. If the US is willing to shaft Canada even though it has lots of raw materials they need then how is the UK going to get a better deal ??

With a stiff upper lip, some British wit and that special relationship between Trump and Nigel.

Seriously though I don't think they (as in the main driving politicians etc.) ever gave a damn; they got paid/told to get UK out of EU and know they will move on to cushy paid "consultant" jobs afterwards in the companies that swoop in and benefit from the car crash. In a few cases I'm sure it's a case of nostalgia of rebuilding the empire in one form or another, simply valuing "an independent UK" or simply (like Boris) were simply opportunists but in general they simply got paid and told what to do and got on with it.

Gerry T · 25-10-2017 11:24PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm surprised by this. I don't think the Leave campaign could have been much clearer about the control they wanted the UK to regain.

On 23 occasions on this thread I've discussed the broad thesis that they put forward namely to take back control of laws, borders, money and trade policy.

The idea that Canada and Australia can be successful countries without being in a political union like the EU and that Britain can't is just absurd. Of course the UK can be successful outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But that's not really specific, look at the each in a bit more detail:

Borders: The UK are taking back control, except they don't want a border between the north/south. So anyone can enter IRL and get a boat to "the mainland". Plus the negotiations are heading in a direction where EU citizens will have free access to the UK provided they have a job. SO no real change then. (note under current rules any eu country can return another eu country citizen if they don't get work in 3 months).

Money: There is alot of confussion in what the UK pays, what its nett contribution is, lets say its 8bn, but that's made up of a contribution based on GDP plus duty and part of VAT. The duty in 2015 was 3.1bn, that brings it down to 5bn. The VAT portion wold reduce this even further.
https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2017/04/04/336250/beginner-s-guide-customs-duties
As a whole the UK is well below the average contributor to the EU as a percentage of each countries gross national income.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf

The question is how much of the UK contributed Duty and VAT to the EU, will the EU lose. Very hard to say as a proportion of the goods entering the UK find themselves eventually in Europe, post brexit these goods may go direct from outside the EU to the EU and not the UK. That will also bring VAT contributions for simular goods sold from the EU to 3rd countries that the UK currently sell to.
As for the UK, it doesn't have any trade deals, if it wants a free trade deal it won't charge duty on incoming goods, so it won't see the 3.1bn, similarly if it doesn't charge vat to stay competitive it will not see that money.

There's a-lot of unknowns but to simply say 8 or 9bn is coming back to the UK isn't looking at the details.

Laws: This is also an interesting one. The ECJ only interprets the meaning of the law's, the UK courts apply that interpretation to the facts. These are separate and non conflicting powers. You can argue that inside the EU there are laws that must be adopted by each member state, but these laws are only in connection with trade. For example post brexit the UK can bring in chlorinated chickens from the USA, but unless it can demonstrate to the EU that any chickens it exports to the EU are from non-chlorinated stock, the UK won't be allowed to export chickens to the EU. The same will apply for ALL goods. So in other words the UK can write its own laws regarding trade, but if it wants to sell into the EU, it will have to follow EU laws. So put another way, you have control, to do what you want, provided you align with the EU :rolleyes: of course you could run parallel agencies overlooking goods sold domestically and those exported to the EU.

Trade Policy: There has been a lot of debate here on this, my understanding is the UK will over time agree trade agreements with loads of countries. Ignoring the time this may take (which is probably decades and not years) the burning question is can the UK broker a trade agreement with other countries that are as good as, or better than the deal they have channelled through the EU. Yes the UK is smaller and should be more flexible, it can also be more focused in what it can offer and what it wants. But on the other hand the size of its market is far less attractive than what the EU can offer. It's also demonstrating a serious naivety through the brexit process, which is understandable due to not being out in the big bad world for more than 60 yrs. My own opinion is the trade deals outside the EU won't be as good for the UK standing alone, but time will tell.

I don't see why your surprised, I'm trying to see some more flesh on the bone from the UK perspective, other than "we won't pay unless we get a good deal" or "the EU is holding us back" or "pesky foreigners" . Don't get me wrong, I import product from the UK which I will find difficult to source from europe with the same level of tech support. So I hope the EU and UK come up with a great trade deal, but if i was a betting man that not where I would put my money

Enzokk · 26-10-2017 06:28AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1) Not really - other EU citizens could get into the UK. Brexit gives full control of preventing undesirables from the undesirable EU nations from being able to get in.

But that's racist and we have been told many many times the immigration vote wasn't racist.

murphaph · 26-10-2017 08:20AM

carrickbally wrote: »

Harsh or otherwise we have to recognise the truth.

Being over 80% of the UK electorate the English decided the result.

Northern Ireland and Scotland voted against Brexit.

Decades of anti-EU propaganda by the gutter London media resulted in an English racist decision to wage economic war on fellow European citizens.

The consequences are the tearing up of the treaty the UK signed with nearly thirty other European democracies and the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement signed with this country.

The latter will result in a hard border on this island since both the customs union and the free movement of people have been rejected by the Brexit decision.

It's not fair to blame the English exclusively. London voted remain. If all the Scots had voted remain it would have gone the other way.

solodeogloria · 26-10-2017 08:34AM

Gerry T wrote: »

But that's not really specific, look at the each in a bit more detail:

Borders: The UK are taking back control, except they don't want a border between the north/south. So anyone can enter IRL and get a boat to "the mainland". Plus the negotiations are heading in a direction where EU citizens will have free access to the UK provided they have a job. SO no real change then. (note under current rules any eu country can return another eu country citizen if they don't get work in 3 months).

Money: There is alot of confussion in what the UK pays, what its nett contribution is, lets say its 8bn, but that's made up of a contribution based on GDP plus duty and part of VAT. The duty in 2015 was 3.1bn, that brings it down to 5bn. The VAT portion wold reduce this even further.
https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2017/04/04/336250/beginner-s-guide-customs-duties
As a whole the UK is well below the average contributor to the EU as a percentage of each countries gross national income.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf

The question is how much of the UK contributed Duty and VAT to the EU, will the EU lose. Very hard to say as a proportion of the goods entering the UK find themselves eventually in Europe, post brexit these goods may go direct from outside the EU to the EU and not the UK. That will also bring VAT contributions for simular goods sold from the EU to 3rd countries that the UK currently sell to.
As for the UK, it doesn't have any trade deals, if it wants a free trade deal it won't charge duty on incoming goods, so it won't see the 3.1bn, similarly if it doesn't charge vat to stay competitive it will not see that money.

There's a-lot of unknowns but to simply say 8 or 9bn is coming back to the UK isn't looking at the details.

Laws: This is also an interesting one. The ECJ only interprets the meaning of the law's, the UK courts apply that interpretation to the facts. These are separate and non conflicting powers. You can argue that inside the EU there are laws that must be adopted by each member state, but these laws are only in connection with trade. For example post brexit the UK can bring in chlorinated chickens from the USA, but unless it can demonstrate to the EU that any chickens it exports to the EU are from non-chlorinated stock, the UK won't be allowed to export chickens to the EU. The same will apply for ALL goods. So in other words the UK can write its own laws regarding trade, but if it wants to sell into the EU, it will have to follow EU laws. So put another way, you have control, to do what you want, provided you align with the EU :rolleyes: of course you could run parallel agencies overlooking goods sold domestically and those exported to the EU.

Trade Policy: There has been a lot of debate here on this, my understanding is the UK will over time agree trade agreements with loads of countries. Ignoring the time this may take (which is probably decades and not years) the burning question is can the UK broker a trade agreement with other countries that are as good as, or better than the deal they have channelled through the EU. Yes the UK is smaller and should be more flexible, it can also be more focused in what it can offer and what it wants. But on the other hand the size of its market is far less attractive than what the EU can offer. It's also demonstrating a serious naivety through the brexit process, which is understandable due to not being out in the big bad world for more than 60 yrs. My own opinion is the trade deals outside the EU won't be as good for the UK standing alone, but time will tell.

I don't see why your surprised, I'm trying to see some more flesh on the bone from the UK perspective, other than "we won't pay unless we get a good deal" or "the EU is holding us back" or "pesky foreigners" . Don't get me wrong, I import product from the UK which I will find difficult to source from europe with the same level of tech support. So I hope the EU and UK come up with a great trade deal, but if i was a betting man that not where I would put my money

Good morning!

I'm going to be short because I've been through this before:

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement. Michel Barnier is pointing to a CETA like arrangement. If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate. That aside I've explained why the 6 month limit on employment is insufficient. The UK needs to have the right to issue controls on contested sectors of employment and be able to decide if people are of good character (criminal record checks) before allowing them into the UK.

2) I don't know about you but I think £8bn is a significant sum of money. It doesn't really matter to me that Britain's contribution is less than average to other member states because I don't think it's worth paying particularly at the loss of control required for membership.

3) I'm speaking of control of laws binding in Britain. Not laws that suppliers need to conform to to export. The UK already needs to conform to EU standards to export to the EU. I don't see that changing. The UK has to conform to American standards before exporting to the US today. That's not massively significant. The freedom to legislate for what happens in the UK in the UK is important however. This is why saying no to ECJ jurisdiction is key.

4) The freedom to expand trade is important. You claim that the UK wouldn't be able to get as good a deal outside the EU with other countries. Firstly I'm not sure if this is actually true. Secondly even if it was true a free trade deal with improved access to new markets is better than none at all.

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

Of course the UK can stand on it's own two feet. But getting to a stage where it can thrive on it's own will likely take years and a lot of pain is likely to be felt. There is lot's of unwinding to do from the EU which need to be re-built on an, as yet, unclear pathway. People can point to the fact that unwinding needs to take place and claim the the EU is "controlling" but the structuring of these agreements and legislation has co-incided with and incredibly sustained period of economic growth and prosperity for the UK. I'd take that idea of being controlled in a heartbeat. As I mentioned there is no obvious pathway to fix this in a hard Brexit scenario in a manner that will allow the UK to thrive in the short-term. This is what the remainders are querying and the Brexiters are failing to answer. The Government is currently holding the poison chalice and I'm not sure the have a remedy.

Why do you think the UK are looking for a transition to the new state?

Yes, the economy will need to readjust to a new reality. My point is that the UK can and will be successful outside of the EU.

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is absurd. The problem is that Canada and the US have long established trading deals with other countries. Both countries have numerous resources and vast internal markets. The UK to be fair is a country that was struggling economically until it joined the single market.

The UK has a much bigger market than Canada by population. I'm sorry but I'm vastly sceptical of both the idea that the UK couldn't succeed outside the EU and I'm vastly sceptical of the claim that the EU was Britain's saviour or indeed not being in the EU was was brought Britain's downfall. It couldn't have been due to mismanagement of the public finances or indeed that the improvements were largely down to economic restructuring under Thatcher.

As for trading relationships with other countries - this is also an absurd argument - the reason why the UK has to reconstruct these is because of the EU. It isn't a good argument for your position.

The logical response to this argument shouldn't be that the UK needs the EU to manage its trade policy. It should be to realise that it is a problem, take back control of it and work hard to build up both trading relationships and a trade negotiation capacity. It's in Britain's interests to have this for itself without relying on the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 26-10-2017 08:47AM

@solo...how do you perform background checks at an open border with the republic of Ireland?

Zubeneschamali · 26-10-2017 08:52AM

murphaph wrote: »

@solo...how do you perform background checks at an open border with the republic of Ireland?

They have no intention of introducing background checks for people arriving off planes from anywhere.

They will only try to do background checks on people who apply for visas to remain and work or study. Since this is the Home Office we are talking about, the checks will be very, very bad - innocent people will be barred, guilty people will be allowed in, the tabloids will scream for years and years about it.

The sad thing is that this is all entirely predictable.

Gerry T · 26-10-2017 09:12AM

Enzokk wrote: »

But that's racist and we have been told many many times the immigration vote wasn't racist.

How's it racist, for example hes saying keep out french guy no.1 but let in french guy no.2. French guy 1 could be unemployed, illiterate with 50 convictions for theft. French guy 2 is a leading brain surgeon.

breatheme · 26-10-2017 09:19AM

The wording "undesirable countries" is quite racist, no matter how you spin it. (The original wording of the post that the post you're quoting was responding to.)

Gerry T · 26-10-2017 09:23AM

breatheme wrote: »

The wording "undesirable countries" is quite racist, no matter how you spin it. (The original wording of the post that the post you're quoting was responding to.)

Your right, calling a country undesirable is racist, you can't label a country.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2017 09:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement. Michel Barnier is pointing to a CETA like arrangement. If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate. That aside I've explained why the 6 month limit on employment is insufficient. The UK needs to have the right to issue controls on contested sectors of employment and be able to decide if people are of good character (criminal record checks) before allowing them into the UK.

I’m pretty sure that May has already said, in as many words, that she won’t agree to free movement.

On the other hand, the UK has also said that they want to maintain the common travel area and have a low-impact border in Ireland. And (if we take them at their word on this) that draws some fairly significant red lines (to borrow a phrase) around what they can do to limit free movement. Most obviously, tThey can’t do anything that relies significantly on policing at the border, since any such policing could easily be circumvented by entering the UK via the Irish border.

(They could, in theory, police the island borders of Great Britain,tacitly allowing free movement within Northern Ireland but not Britain, but I think there are huge political and practical objections to that.)

That means, I think, that the controls on free movement have to be, in substance, implemented through employment, tax, social security, etc systems.

Which is going to be a challenge, because that is completely the opposite of how the UK has implemented its migration policies since, basically, forever, which has been to take advantage of the UK’s island character, and rely entirely on border controls. Changing this will require a fundamental rethink, and the design and construction of new systems on a fairly large scale. It’s also going to require the co-operation of countless employers, schools, estate agents, etc (so much for Brexit leading to a reduction in red tape). And British citizens are going to have to get used to the idea that they need to demonstrate their British citizenship status in order to take up a job, sign on for benefits, rent a flat, register with a GP or a school, etc.

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) I don't know about you but I think £8bn is a significant sum of money.

It is a signficant sum of money. But of course the UK does get something in return, which is unparalleled unrestricted access to the world’s largest market, which boosts the UK’s GDP, and the UK government’s tax revenues, by sums which probably exceed £8bn and which are, therefore, even more significant. The UK may save £8bn in contributions to the EU budget but it doesn’t follow that they will then have that £8bn to spend in other ways. The net effect of Brexit is likely to be less government revenue to spend elsewhere, not more.

solodeogloria wrote: »

3) I'm speaking of control of laws binding in Britain. Not laws that suppliers need to conform to to export. The UK already needs to conform to EU standards to export to the EU. I don't see that changing. The UK has to conform to American standards before exporting to the US today. That's not massively significant. The freedom to legislate for what happens in the UK in the UK is important however. This is why saying no to ECJ jurisdiction is key.

Not really. UK exports will still have to conform to EU standards, as already noted (though it may now cost manufacturers more to demonstrate that they are compliant with EU standards). Plus, the UK is largely going to have to accept imports which conform to EU standards, because international manufacturers either won’t manufacture to a different UK standard - the market isn’t large enough - or will charge more for doing so, or do so only after catering first of all to the much larger EU market.

Both as sellers and buyers, therefore, the UK is effectively saddled with EU standards. They’ll have the freedom to depart from those standards but it will rarely be in their interests to do so, and consequently they rarely will. The main difference, in practice, is not the the UK will be setting separate standards; it’s that it will no longer have any influence in setting the standards that, as a matter of practicality though not of law, it still has to observe.

solodeogloria wrote: »

4) The freedom to expand trade is important. You claim that the UK wouldn't be able to get as good a deal outside the EU with other countries. Firstly I'm not sure if this is actually true. Secondly even if it was true a free trade deal with improved access to new markets is better than none at all.

But they don’t have none at all. On the contrary, they participate in the largest and freest network of free trade arrangements that the world has ever seen. They’re giving that up, which is not something an enthusiast for free trade should encourage or applaud.

Obviously, on Brexit Day plus one, then they’ll have none at all. From that point any new trade deals they arrive at will expand their trade. But that’s a bit like demolishing your house and then claiming that constructing a chicken coop on the site is a significant enhancement of your property. It’s not, really.

whatstherush · 26-10-2017 11:32AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they don’t have none at all. On the contrary, they participate in the largest and freest network of free trade arrangements that the world has ever seen. They’re giving that up, which is not something an enthusiast for free trade should encourage or applaud.

Obviously, on Brexit Day plus one, then they’ll have none at all. From that point any new trade deals they arrive at will expand their trade. But that’s a bit like demolishing your house and then claiming that constructing a chicken coop on the site is a significant enhancement of your property. It’s not, really.

24 between the US and EU alone (Search by country and nature of agreement here for full list). Brexiteers like to pretend that these don't exist and that the other half of the UK exports are working fine under just WTO alone.

murphaph · 26-10-2017 12:04PM

I wonder is there an actual figure for pure UK WTO trade, not governed by a FTA or other bilateral deal between the EU and third countries. I suspect it's a vanishingly small percentage of total UK trade.

demfad · 26-10-2017 12:05PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement. Michel Barnier is pointing to a CETA like arrangement. If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate. That aside I've explained why the 6 month limit on employment is insufficient. The UK needs to have the right to issue controls on contested sectors of employment and be able to decide if people are of good character (criminal record checks) before allowing them into the UK.

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

demfad · 26-10-2017 12:08PM

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder is there an actual figure for pure UK WTO trade, not governed by a FTA or other bilateral deal between the EU and third countries. I suspect it's a vanishingly small percentage of total UK trade.

It's probably zero. Countries rarely trade on pure WTO rules. Apart from FTAs, you have bilaterals, multilaterals etc. The WTO is basically to facilitate these other ways to trade.

demfad · 26-10-2017 12:10PM

Russian ambassador responds to growing coverage in British media of Russian interference in Brexit.

https://m.rusemb.org.uk/article/ambassador-alexander-yakovenkos-response-to-the-media-question

Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's response to the media question

Question: Accusations that Russia “undermines the British democracy” and was somehow involved in the result of the Brexit referendum appear more and more often in the British media. How could you comment on that?

Response: In fact, there are persistent attempts to impose on the British public opinion the notion of Russia standing behind the outcomes of the EU membership referendum. We believe these accusations are outright insulting, both for the British political leadership as well as for the British people. The idea to launch the referendum didn’t come from Russia – it was a key promise in David Cameron’s election campaign in 2015, and, making that promise, he didn’t seem to think much about Russia. At the referendum, the British voters used their legal right to decide, and to speak of Russian intervention is incorrect here, at the very least.

As we see that Brexit talks turn into the main foreign policy challenge for London, the temptation is obviously there to find a scapegoat, a third party responsible for all, in this case Russia. This is totally unacceptable. Russia doesn’t intervene into internal affairs of other states, and this is a key principle of our foreign policy. I am calling on the unscrupulous journalists and politicians: stop imposing this fake agenda, don’t try to solve your problems at our expense!

ancapailldorcha · 26-10-2017 12:16PM

demfad wrote: »

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

It's objectively untrue. According to the Lord Ashcroft polls, only 33% of people voted on the basis of immigration control. Even if you include the 49% who cited sovereignty as their primary motivation, you lose nearly 20% of the 52% of people who voted. Therefore, a Brexit deal which retains free movement isn't a betrayal of the majority who cast ballots.

Gerry T · 26-10-2017 12:52PM

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder is there an actual figure for pure UK WTO trade, not governed by a FTA or other bilateral deal between the EU and third countries. I suspect it's a vanishingly small percentage of total UK trade.

Not really, the attached shows where the UK exports to, it's 2015 so out of date but gives a good picture of where its at. All of this is done under EU deals, which the UK has to re-negotiate.

https://www.statista.com/chart/4476/britains-exports-what-are-they-and-where-do-they-go/

The Rape of Lucretia · 26-10-2017 01:11PM

demfad wrote: »

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

It is no betrayal. Since what existing the EU was not defined before the referendum (hence the present Mayhem), there can be no failure to deliver it. Sure, different people had different ideas on what they expected it to be - we really only heard the hard/soft-Brexit concept after the result. But there was no clear prior picture of what that was. So it can now be anything. As long as the 28 becomes 27, anything goes, and there can be no claim of betrayal of the electorate and their decision to Brexit.

The Rape of Lucretia · 26-10-2017 01:14PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's objectively untrue. According to the Lord Ashcroft polls, only 33% of people voted on the basis of immigration control. Even if you include the 49% who cited sovereignty as their primary motivation, you lose nearly 20% of the 52% of people who voted. Therefore, a Brexit deal which retains free movement isn't a betrayal of the majority who cast ballots.

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

Enzokk · 26-10-2017 01:23PM

demfad wrote: »

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

Anything would be a betrayal of something, because the question was so binary but the reality is so much more complicated. If there is some give on free movement of labour to have a little access to the single market its not what people voted for. If there is a customs union to make sure there is no cliff edge its a betrayal of the wonderful trade deals that can be signed. If they have to pay for access to the EMA to EURATOM its money that was supposed to be going towards the NHS and is thus a betrayal.

The only way to ensure a outcome of the referendum is to cut all access and ties with the EU. But that means no more CTA and a border within Ireland. There is nothing that can be done other than the hardest of Brexits that will satisfy Brexiteers and everyone has been advising against. But like the prophesies of doom that hasn't happened yet (its all going so well since the election) this will be ignored and people will run head first into wall and expect no damage at all.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2017 01:28PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

Even accepting your calculations, 64% of Brexit voters is a minority of voters as a whole, and therefore in restricting migration May is doing something not sought by the majority of the electorate. Not] doing that could hardly be characterised as a betrayal of the voters given that, mostly, they haven't expressed any desire for her to do it.

ancapailldorcha · 26-10-2017 02:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

I should have clarified. I meant 33% of people who voted to leave the EU.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments