Brexit

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:
That’s still not proof. You can’t factually predict the future. There’s evidence now to suggest that the EU could all come crumbling down in the next decade. People were confident that Greece would leave the EU and it would start to tumble but it hasn’t happened. I don’t think the EU will collapsed anytime soon though. I think it will be around for my lifetime but I can’t guarantee it.

Anti EU types think there is evidence the EU is going to crumble. Mostly based on France and the Netherlands pulling out. Which didn’t happen.

You’re right we can’t 100% predict the future. But it was bloody unlikely the EU was going to give us free access to the market with no freedom of movement and no membership fees.

It was about as likely as it is for Sky and BT to let the BBC show all the football for free. Sounds crazy but as we can’t predict the future maybe it will happen next week.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:There was no proof that we wouldn’t be able to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU, control our borders and not have to pay for access.

There really was.

Why the hell would the EU say "Hey UK! We love you guys, how about we give you free access to our market, with no membership fee and we will even let you kick out all of the Polish and Romanian workers!"

That’s still not proof. You can’t factually predict the future. There’s evidence now to suggest that the EU could all come crumbling down in the next decade. People were confident that Greece would leave the EU and it would start to tumble but it hasn’t happened. I don’t think the EU will collapsed anytime soon though. I think it will be around for my lifetime but I can’t guarantee it.

I agree with you though. I don’t think it was ever achievable but it all boiled down to who managed to convince the voters of their vision for the future better. What the remain side didn’t have was 30 years of propaganda through the right wing media like the mail and express.

We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.
There was absolutely proof we'd have to pay for any access to the EU market, it's written into EU law and has been for decades.
There was proof that negotiation of a free trade deal with the EU would take far longer than any 2 year exit period, because that's how long EVERY free trade deal takes to negotiate. It's just that leavers thought the UK was some special little snowflake that would get everything fast tracked and handed to it because they fell for the "They need us more than we need them" bullshit.

I’m aware that we already control our borders.

I’ve never seen mention before of it being written into eu law that you have to pay for access to the market. Again I was saying this was true just saying what people believed to be the case.

On the negotiation front, even now both sides are claiming that a deal can be negotiated if it starts very soon. Personally I don’t believe this to be possible as I’ve seen how long other deals have taken. If we leave then we have to have a transition stage to continue negotiations but currently I’ve only seen mention of a transition stage if we can finalise a deal before the leave date and a transition deal to allow for further negotiations which I believe will be necessary. We should never have invoked article 50 when we did but for some reason people on both sides were insistent that it had to happen before we could negotiate even though it was clear that 2 years was not long enough to finalise anything.

As I said I’m not supporting the arguments to leave just saying that I understand why some people voted out.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:As I said I’m not supporting the arguments to leave just saying that I understand why some people voted out.

Garth wrote:Let's not waste money subsidising the failing fishing industry of Grimsby, fund our NHS instead!

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:As I said I’m not supporting the arguments to leave just saying that I understand why some people voted out.

I understand that people voted based on a cocktail of lies, misinformation, racism, misplaced optimism and stupidity. I just don’t think they were very good reasons and have no sympathy for people that voted out who will be worse off because of their belief in the lies, misinformation, racism, misplaced optimism and stupidity.

DML wrote:'You can't factually predict the future'.

You're right. Australia will probably win the Russian World Cup. I mean we can't factually predict the future after all.

Brexit: How the Netherlands is braced for 'no deal'

The Netherlands could be one of the hardest-hit EU countries if the UK leaves the bloc without an agreement. The Dutch government is expected to unveil plans this week in preparation for a hard Brexit. The BBC's Paul Moss has been to Rotterdam to see the adjustments already being made.

It is not like they are unaccustomed to challenges.

The people of Rotterdam have seen it all - their famous port was bombed by the Germans in World War Two, and once they occupied the city it was bombed again by the British and the US. But right now, there is a more prosaic problem vexing local people, like Peter Westdijk, from cargo company DFDS.

"We have to divide our terminal into separate parts," he says, standing at the harbour side, "and that will cost a lot of money."

Mr Westdijk's problem is that much of the cargo he ships goes to and from the UK. And with negotiations on Brexit showing little sign of progress, he has to prepare for what happens if the UK leaves with no trade agreement in place - which could well mean customs checks on goods which until now have flowed freely.

"You can't estimate the amount the delays will cost," he says, "but it will be considerable."

The port of Rotterdam is just one segment in a whole network of commercial ties between the Netherlands and the UK. More than €50bn ($59bn; £45bn) worth of goods and services flow between the two countries every year.

When you factor in suppliers and ancillary businesses, the UK is responsible for 4% of the Dutch economy. So an end to free trade between the two, the imposition of tariffs or other barriers, could well make a dent in Dutch growth figures.

Yet paradoxically, this threat offers potential support to a key argument deployed by the pro-Brexit side. In the run-up to the referendum, they insisted it would be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, on the basis that "they need us as much as we need them."

With the Netherlands and other countries vulnerable to the consequences of a hard Brexit, Britain might indeed be seen to have leverage in any negotiations.

It was a suggestion I made to a Dutch MP specialising in European affairs, Anne Mulder. Was it time, I asked, for the Netherlands and other influential EU nations to offer the UK more concessions, given all would suffer from a breakdown of talks?

The Dutch have a reputation for politeness, and I was expecting a reply laden with diplomatic euphemism. What I got was a surprisingly pithy denunciation of Britain's politicians, and their approach to the Brexit negotiations:

"Some of them are unrealistic, they are not rational… they are always saying the ball is in the EU's court. Well there's a great big ball in their court, but they don't want to see, because they are blind."

And what about the claim that the EU needs the UK just as much as the UK needs the EU?

"If you want to dream, do it at night," he suggested.

When it comes to those UK-EU negotiations, it seems the current betting here is on failure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41986090

Moggy wrote:The Dutch have a reputation for politeness, and I was expecting a reply laden with diplomatic euphemism. What I got was a surprisingly pithy denunciation of Britain's politicians, and their approach to the Brexit negotiations:

"Some of them are unrealistic, they are not rational… they are always saying the ball is in the EU's court. Well there's a great big ball in their court, but they don't want to see, because they are blind."

And what about the claim that the EU needs the UK just as much as the UK needs the EU?

"If you want to dream, do it at night," he suggested.

Moggy wrote:

Yet paradoxically, this threat offers potential support to a key argument deployed by the pro-Brexit side. In the run-up to the referendum, they insisted it would be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, on the basis that "they need us as much as we need them."

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

Lagamorph wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

And why exactly do we need 'complete control' of that level?

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

Lagamorph wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

And why exactly do we need 'complete control' of that level?

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

And why exactly do we need 'complete control' of that level?

That's a separate issue. We couldn't control the borders, is all I wanted to say.

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:We already could control our borders, and that includes EU migration not just outside EU migration. Successive UK governments just chose not to exercise those powers whilst other EU nations did.

We went over this recently. Using limited powers (and the EU has to agree to them - for example the "seven year brake") to try to influence immigration numbers isn't the same as controlling the borders - i.e. having complete control over immigration.

And why exactly do we need 'complete control' of that level?

That's a separate issue. We couldn't control the borders, is all I wanted to say.

twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931174573122506752

twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931189149079621634

twitter.com/politicshome/status/931181315004686336

twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931208161629036544