Brexit discussion thread III

Water John wrote: »

If TM is going with this 'customs partnership', there will be no big move away from the EU, for the next 10 years.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/may-plans-customs-partnership-to-unlock-northern-ireland-dilemma-1.3448056

My understanding of that, is that the UK would maintain the current and future EU standards (whilst leaving the table and thus any input into their decisions) and would then become the tax collector for EU in terms of tariffs on goods destined for the EU.

So container arrives from China with toys. 10% tariff into EU (for example) with 0% for the UK. 30% of the container is destined for the UK market, the rest will go onto Dublin.

All this is going to be done by a country which is currently being charged with allowing Chinese products to enter the UK market in the level of billions!

So what have the UK got out of it. They cannot change the regulations, they now take on board the administration, they lose the power to take part in the discussions.

I can't see how any that is better than the position that they currently are in

Water John

Well its their proposal. I doubt a container of goods could be subdivided in this way. Each sealed consignment would have its own RIFID.

Charles Babbage

Lemming wrote: »

The AV referendum wasn't 'strongly rejected' as so much that there was a p1ss poor effort at informing the masses as to what it was, a p1ss poor voter turn out, and general apathy about the whole matter because everybody had a p1ss poor notion on it so a lot of people just voted "no" to retain the status quo - of which they did know about (or in so much as the general UK voting population pays much attention ... ). Voter turn-out was considered higher-than-expected at a whopping 41% which tells a story.

People had a piss poor notion about the EU, but still voted to change things, when the proper response is "if you don't know, vote no".
You basically have an irresponsible electorate.

Not only is the ambassadorial crisis affecting Ferrero Rocher sales, but Brexit tariffs on raw materials would add 10% to the cost of chocolate and a further 10% due to differing standards and other non-tariff barriers. And they may have to reduce the product range.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/30/brexit-means-eggs-sit-ferrero-warns-of-stale-easter-chocolate

Strazdas

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People had a piss poor notion about the EU, but still voted to change things, when the proper response is "if you don't know, vote no".
You basically have an irresponsible electorate.

The very solution they were looking for was a very simplistic one. Demanding an in / out EU referendum for years, as if a glorified opinion poll somehow could magically solve all of their problems and transform British society. It looks like an unsophisticated electorate : the difficulties that have emerged post-2016 could have been predicted by anyone.

Sooner than having a mature debate on all the issues surrounding Britain's relationship with Europe, they went with the 'magic wand' solution of thinking a silly referendum could put everything right.

Strazdas wrote: »

The very solution they were looking for was a very simplistic one. Demanding an in / out EU referendum for years, as if a glorified opinion poll somehow could magically solve all of their problems and transform British society. It looks like an unsophisticated electorate : the difficulties that have emerged post-2016 could have been predicted by anyone.

Sooner than having a mature debate on all the issues surrounding Britain's relationship with Europe, they went with the 'magic wand' solution of thinking a silly referendum could put everything right.

Having a referendum on such a complex issue is an obfuscation of the duty of a representative government, especially where they are not enshrined in the constitution like in Ireland.

is it not simply democracy?

The question was poor and the campaign was badly handled, but surely no one is advocating that people should have less of a say?

there are just over 317,000 .eu domains registered in the UK

And on and on it goes...

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/notice-stakeholders-withdrawal-united-kingdom-and-eu-rules-eu-domain-names_en

As of the withdrawal date, undertakings and organisations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU, and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names or, if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date.

Leroy42 wrote: »

is it not simply democracy?

The question was poor and the campaign was badly handled, but surely no one is advocating that people should have less of a say?

My view is the concept of representative democracy is to elect a government to run the country, and make complex decisions on your behalf, using expert advice, putting highly complex issues like Brexit to a public vote is dereliction of a Governments duty.

There's a big difference between voting on abortion for instance and voting on something as massively complex as Brexit which is incomprehensible to the average voter.

UK IT systems are just not ready for Brexit.
Details of 600,000 foreign visitors to UK go up in smoke thanks to shonky border database

It found that as of 31 March 2017, there were no departure records of 88,134 non-EU visa nationals with ISA "identities" – whose visas typically last six months – nor for 513,088 identified non-visa nationals.

...
Since 2004, as part of the troubled "e-Borders Programme" (currently running eight years late at a cost of £1bn) 16 airlines have been required to share advanced passenger information with the Home Office.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK IT systems are just not ready for Brexit.
Details of 600,000 foreign visitors to UK go up in smoke thanks to shonky border database

Aye the UK Border force is a joke, just travelled back from a holiday via Stansted and it took an hour to clear immigration, far worse than any other country and I travel a fair bit with work.

VonZan wrote: »

Swiss bankers shouldn't be allowed any additional access to the EU market. On one hand the EU is talking about tax harmonisation and stopping the laundering of money through the current EU banking set up and tax avoidance regime then they give access to one of the most private and poorly regulated banking systems in the world lined with dirty money.

Do you know who else also has lots of tax-havens ?

Together the UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies would be far worse offenders than the Swiss.

Possibly something the EU could look into with the UK veto removed. Though Luxembourg might derail that one.

Spanish Eyes

BINO is on the cards. Brexit in name only, but I'm sure you have all figured that one out!

Cannot see an alternative but a crash out.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

BINO is on the cards. Brexit in name only, but I'm sure you have all figured that one out!

Cannot see an alternative but a crash out.

Hope you are right!

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And on and on it goes...

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/notice-stakeholders-withdrawal-united-kingdom-and-eu-rules-eu-domain-names_en

there are just over 317,000 .eu domains registered in the UK

Just when you think you've heard all the possible impacts of brexit an other one turns up and you realise once again it's only the tip of the iceberg.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

is it not simply democracy?

The question was poor and the campaign was badly handled, but surely no one is advocating that people should have less of a say?

In theory, there's no problem at all with referendums but holding one on something as vast and complex as EU membership was crazy stuff. I have my suspicions that 90% of people who voted didn't even know what the Single Market and Customs Union were or were only vaguely aware of the terms.

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

Sam Russell

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

But the arguments against independence for Scotland (Stronger Together) apply identically for remaining within the EU (Stronger Together). Most of the 'Loss of Sovereignty' arguments have failed to be substantiated in any real way, and many of the claims are in fact wrongly placed, and many are based on fiction or misunderstanding. Also much of the rules of the EU complained of were in fact driven by the UK.

TM has seen a substantial level of backing from the EU states for the current spat with Russia - will she get the same level of support from the EU after Brexit?

flatty

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

There is, but many are grim faced pensioners who will be financially insulated from their decision. They will also spin off this mortal coil leaving the young with the tab. The same crowd who are up in arms about possibly needing to sell their 300k house, bought for 20, and insist that the same younger generation who are triple locking their pensions also pay for their care whilst they hold on to the assets that the young can only hope to afford one day.
There is also a sizeable swathe of the population who voted in ignorance, and almost a third didn't bother voting at all. Democracy is spelling out the options, and ramifications clearly and then having a vote, not taking a binary referendum, and ramrodding your own "red lines" into it, likely to the financial advantage of you and your coterie, or worse, in a simple venal attempt to cling onto power.

I don't disagree with your points, except for the sizeable swathe who voted in ignorance. There will be people who did the same research I did and came to a different conclusion, and there might be people who voted on a whim. We can pat ourselves on the back for the nobility of our informed decisions, but it doesn't matter, both votes are democratic.
Leave voters take every opportunity to say "we knew what we were voting for", and I remind them of it every time they are disappointed with negotiations.
Just under half of young people didn't bother to vote at all (IPSOS MORI) so the issue wasn't important to them. They might regret that, but they had their chance, so tough.

Zubeneschamali

Frito wrote: »

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

Why? Where are the economic projections that say the UK will ever make up the 3, 6, 10% (pick whichever projection you like) they will have lost by 2040?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

Why? Where are the economic projections that say the UK will ever make up the 3, 6, 10% (pick whichever projection you like) they will have lost by 2040?

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.
People who voted Leave for sovereignty reasons are prepared to take an economic hit. Some of them who sincerely believe we can recover don't give much credit to economic forecasts...the 'experts' problem. I think they're in cloud cuckoo land, but, economics was the deciding factor for my remain vote.

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

What are you better informed about?

What were the things that led you to vote the way you did and does the new information not have any impact on that?

It is curious that despite nearly everything that the leave said said during the campaign, including but not limited to the £350m per week, the mis-selling of the extent on EU migration and the power that UK still retained in this regard, the power that the UK would have in the split, the ease of international trade etc, despite all this an more being shown to be at best wishful thinking, that based on the polls the vote would remain pretty much the same as before.

Zubeneschamali

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.

But you said:

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

If you mean that they know it will cost them long term and still think it will somehow be worth it for intangible reasons like patriotism and St. George, well fine, but you seem to be saying that these well informed Leavers think that that it will not cost them long term, which is just the same as saying they are still ignorant.

I am better informed about EEA/EFTA, I understand that the Customs Union is not the same as checks at borders.

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected, more specifically the idea that voting rituals don't equal democracy. That said, those Leave voters consider the UK govt to be in need of reform, because decision-making is centralised and should be devolved.

I voted to remain for economic reasons. If we had the same binary referendum again, I would still vote to remain.
If we had different options, where there was a realistic possibility of EEA/EFTA membership, then I would vote for that. Not because I particularly want to leave, but because the Eurosceptics are never going to go away, and that seems like a good compromise.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.

But you said:

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

If you mean that they know it will cost them long term and still think it will somehow be worth it for intangible reasons like patriotism and St. George, well fine, but you seem to be saying that these well informed Leavers think that that it will not cost them long term, which is just the same as saying they are still ignorant.

My reason for this is because I understand that the economic argument is a remain argument, not a leave one.
Sovereignty is the leave issue.

I'm not going to patronise Leave voters as ignorant or deceived. If those who say they knew what they were voting for, don't trust economic forecasts, but still think we will have as good if not better economic situation than EU membership, then I'll take them at face value and say their expectations are unrealistic.

listermint

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.
People who voted Leave for sovereignty reasons are prepared to take an economic hit. Some of them who sincerely believe we can recover don't give much credit to economic forecasts...the 'experts' problem. I think they're in cloud cuckoo land, but, economics was the deciding factor for my remain vote.

Sovereignty.

Let's stick with.

Discuss with us what particular sovereignty you will get back and how that will impact you or others in Britain. Specifics please . Because you did indicate you were well versed in the subject matter

demfad

Frito wrote: »

I am better informed about EEA/EFTA, I understand that the Customs Union is not the same as checks at borders.

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected, more specifically the idea that voting rituals don't equal democracy. That said, those Leave voters consider the UK govt to be in need of reform, because decision-making is centralised and should be devolved.

I voted to remain for economic reasons. If we had the same binary referendum again, I would still vote to remain.
If we had different options, where there was a realistic possibility of EEA/EFTA membership, then I would vote for that. Not because I particularly want to leave, but because the Eurosceptics are never going to go away, and that seems like a good compromise.

This is a problem in all EU countries to varying degrees but the issue is with local parties IMO.
They campaign as local parties without addressing European issues at the doorstep. This completely severs the connection between voter and policy and weakens democracy.
This suits local parties as they are less accountable, but this should have only been a transition in the evolution of the parliament.
If the electorate are ill-informed about policy then it allows parties like UKIP to thrive based on this ignorance.
"The EU makes policies for you that you don't know about and can't really influence" is technically true but the reason lies in the dishonesty and lack of integrity of local parties who could sort this easily.