UKC

Lest people think these prominant conservative brexiteers are really in it for the benefit of the people of the UK. Their dream scenario is just an old fashioned  business stitch-up with the same trickle down benefits to the people as you might expect to currently get in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/rightwing-thinktanks-unvei...

"The authors argue for a free trade agreement that would loosen government controls on capital and data flows and be “more liberalising than any other free trade agreement in the world”. They say that it could become a model for future deals post-Brexit. It would remove tariffs and throw out the precautionary principle that has guided much EU regulation on GM foods, chlorine-washed chicken, hormones in meat, pesticides and chemicals in cosmetics."

Leavers will no doubt now argue that this is exactly what they knew they were voting for in 2016.

We have general elections in the UK.

Should you find, post Brexit, that there are things that the government is doing that you don't like you can vote for somebody else.

As I've said before, brexiters are one or more of zealots, xenophobes or ignorant.  The group in the article (Hannon, Fox etc.)  are clearly in the zealot category.  Peculiar that they object to EU freedom of movement but advocate US/UK movement, however.

The thing that amazes me is that the government/Parliament/Leavers/ERG etc cannot agree on what Brexit means but there are 17m people out there who they say knew exactly what they were voting for. Why don't they just ask one of them if it is so crystal clear?

That's because they read the referendum question as 'would you like some cake?' Seems pretty clear to me, except that it's now clear that the best cake on offer is unpalatable and will cost us all a fortune.

Cake or Death?

Crucifixion for me, please.

Can I have your cake please?

Most people want to leave the political project.

Leaving without a deal is our only option, apart from the, so far, punitively bad deals the EU are prepared to offer.

You mean very slightly over half the people who voted.  And that is in your opinion.  Personally, I think quite a few of that tiny majority weren't thinking political projects, they were thinking immigration.

No Deal isn't really an option though, is it? Be honest.

And it seems to me that the rest of the EU have only turned down UK suggestions that were already well known to have been contrary to their pre-agreed and published policies, so the idea of any of this being punitive is simply anti-EU propaganda that you appear to have swallowed.

I think a substantial proportion of remainers would also prefer to have the benefits of the EU without the self serving political project.

What do you mean? Would a Canada style FTA be 'punitively bad'? Would a Norway style deal be 'punitively bad'?

Sure, but currently you don't get to vote out the brexit you were promised, if it turns out to be something you very much didnt want. Also its a lot more than a bit rich when the same people promising £350million a week for the NHS were secretly seeking to facilitite US private health company access to the UK health system... importing the worst and most expensive practices for the general population of any country in the western world.

or, if it turns out to our disadvantage, we can look for those responsible and make sure they are punished for it

The only people who knew what they were voting for were those who didn't want the vote in the first place and didn't want Brexit because they knew from the beginning it was a stupid stupid idea

or had been convinced that they must make up their minds one way or the other arbitrarily or "lose their say"

The one fact that is indisputable in all of this is people voted on the basis of lies, we were all told lies.

The problem for the Brexiteers, is the lies on the stay side, were "might be" and "maybes"; world war three, house price crash, etc. etc.

The only solid piece of information people had to vote on was "£350m a week for the NHS" which obviously happened because we had pictures plastered all over the place, the rest was simple words,guesses or lies. The bus was tangible and people voted with this in mind, unfortunately it was a lie, so most people voted on that lie.

How can any follow through on what was based on a lie?

"We lied to you, but that alright isn't it?"

I'd like to see the Brexit demagogues strung up

Could be that all the bad feelings we now see are a tool for the Rees Moggs of this world to help them divide us and make more out of us for themselves

"...and freedom of movement between the two countries for workers..."

Is this what they meant by "taking back control of our borders"?

Seriously, though, this is just a libertarian thinktank extruding yet another wish-list white paper. None of these people have actual political power, and the sort of free trade they envisage relies on government giving up all but the most minimal capability to intervene: not something that sane politicians are likely to view as attractive. It does provide some insight into the wet dreams of some extreme brexit advocates, but I'd be very surprised if it achieves much.

I suppose a scenario where the things described in the white paper might happen is if brexit goes really, really, really badly, the UK economy gets utterly crushed, and resulting civil disorder brings in a proper hard-right government behind a figurehead like Boris Johnson. Then some of these people could easily end-up with policy roles and stuff like this could well happen then. I really hope that's unlikely though.

Like happened after the banking crisis...

It really doesn't need to be that bad. If we crash heavily and political options are limited, such US help suddenly becomes more electorally attractive to a struggling populace. The well connected con merchants like Banks and Farrage were always obviously looking to fool the people and make a fast buck but these senior conservative brexiters were widely believed and so its important to make the reasoning behind their lies more obvious and public, as hard brexit is clearly not even accidental.... its an ideal outcome for their political philosophy and why they would attack compromise agreements of any form.

Historically it would seem to be OK to lie to the people. Nothing bad can possibly come from it.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

You mean "us" the voters ?

Brexit won't be fixed in stone for ever.

It'll be a developing process. Parts of it will remain and many will change over time.

Who knows, it might even lead to the UK or parts of it returning to the EU.

Many leavers are probably as unenamoured with the Brexiteer politicians as the remainers.

And in the meantime the damage is done.

Not to mention that the situation is changing all the time. Some of those people have died. Some young people who couldn't vote now can, and over 80% of them are pro-EU according to recent polls. 

Come march next year, it'll be pretty fixed by legal process for a considerable time.

I don't know what this means.

As an exercise in pointlessness then?

Then they should examine what they wanted from brexit and how they would have negotiated it. Time for a bit of introspection and humility from the voters who say things like 'why are we still in' and 'we should just get out now' etc.

Done Deal Cake

You could well be right. We'd be a tasty morsel ripe for the eating if Trump is re-elected and abandons all restrain in his second term, or if someone similar is elected in the US. If we run out of options at the same time then, yes.

I imagined a civil disorder scenario because obtaining public acceptance of US corporate interests picking the NHS's bones clean, plus "Frankenstein food", represents quite a obstacle for a government to overcome. But an extended period of food supply problems and/or large-scale job losses could easily do it.

Unfortunately you're probably right.

Although, the Brexit argument with anyone can be countered very simply, with "where's the £350m?" question. What would they be offering now, if we had to vote again?

Jesus.  His current behaviour is his idea of restraint?

Soylent Green for everyone, free, paid for by Brexit

"Come march next year, it'll be pretty fixed by legal process for a considerable time."

"I don't know what this means."

I was thinking 'like a corpse'...

US presidents tend to move away from the centre in their second term. If he dodges Muller, gets decent working majorities in congress, plus a compliant supreme court, then I truly think he'd do some batshit things. Overt destabilisation of the EU for example.

Exactly. Too many people in the UK see Trump as only being supported by mad gun toting  hicks and conned blue collar unemployed... this is bullshit.... they  forget the Republican voter base was solidly behind Trump. The vast majority of white middle class well educated republican votors supported him: a good bit over 50% of ALL white college educated men voted for Trump and even nearly 50% of ALL white college educated women (breathtaking really!). The fact he got elected in the first place means re-election is a real possibility. His methods are classic orwellian stuff that would make the Bush era neocons blush: especially distract the suffering population by creating external enemies (read trade war with 'Chaynah'). The model is well proven in Russia.

Republicans point out to me, in their eyes Obama was going to do some batshit things and was then tempered by the political system.The same will happen with Trump. The political system in the USA is designed for this sort of Trump idiocy to be tempered despite cries of Orwellian dystopia from various quarters.

You have to remember that most Americans detest socialism in all its forms.

Most people voted for brexit because of the 350m claim?  It was the ONLY solid piece of information people had to vote on? Really?

I see you comment on other threads whinging about fairness, propaganda, bias and then you parrot this bullsh*t.  Well done.

They seem fine with Nazism though. As long as the state keeps its hands off their money. 

Obama was Democratic establishment, in his political alignment, hardly Ralph Nader. That some Republicans expected batshit crazy from him shows how paranoid and deranged they were: ideological alignment in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. Trump to me is a sign that this paranoia is spilling over into something dangerous. Pretty much every Democrat President since the war has been solid centrist in European terms and although many of the Republican Presidents looked pretty right wing (and a couple looked like dumb frontmen), this was never to the extent that they did things like completely ignoring protocol or crying fake news to hard evidence before.

Isn’t that how our democracy works?

We’ve had a referendum that resulted in a leave vote.

We’ve had a general election where few people voted for the only party that had remaining in the EU in its manifesto.

There’s people asking for a ‘people’s vote’ but no real clarity as to what the referendum question would be.

We’ve got people who want to remain in the EU but who have no idea how to persuade leavers to change their mind other than trying to scare them.

You need to persuade leavers to change their mind.

In the 2 years since the referendum the remainers haven’t managed to persuade a Prime Minister who was a remainer, an opposition leader who should be wanting to do anything to stop the conservatives having a successful Brexit or the vast majority of those who voted leave.

What do you have to offer other than remain in the EU and keep the status quo?

Something that people voted against not so long ago!

I think the mid-term elections will be crucial.  If Trump/Republicans do well (keep control of the House), I can't see the whole drift to the authoritarian, populist right being reversed.  If they do badly, possibly the saner Republicans will start to abandon Trump.  The supreme court nomination process is also important.  The court is looking a little less likely to be stacked to the right now, but that is still the most likely outcome.

Quite a few have.  Probably sufficient in fact for a second referendum to have a different result.

EEA membership is one option easily available.

EEA involves the free movement of people.

So even though it might be a good idea it won’t please many leavers.

You’ll convince more people to stay in the EU if you can address the issues that the leavers have and/or get the EU to state that if we remain it’s on the same terms as we have now.

Well as above it's quite possible no more need convincing, and even at the last referendum it was only a couple of percent so EEA seems a good compromise.  

I agree with you from a European perspective. 

But in the USA it is just well different.Chalk and cheese.

It might not please them but, then, they didn't vote about being in the EEA

Some people will doubtless have voted Leave in full expectation, as persuaded by Facebook propaganda, that remaining would see Turkey joining the EU, which was a deliberate lie since the UK would have a veto on it.. Hardly a status quo choice.

Some will have voted Leave in full expectation that it would facilitate better funding of the NHS, which was a deliberate lie, since all forecasts show UK a economic downturn/crash if Brexit were to go ahead. If the NHS were still to be funded better, the costs to other public services by way of compensation would most likely be unacceptable to most. Either that or taxes would need to rise considerably - and how likely is that?

It’s only my opinion but I’d rather stay in the EU than join the EEA.

Indeed. I should have said that it won’t please them and so it’s a non starter.

People who think that leavers voted purely on economic issues are mistaken.

While nobody voted to be poorer many didn’t vote leave to become richer either.

That might not make much sense but given that the many dire economic forecasts from usually reliable sources haven’t made much of a dent in the number of leavers it should be obvious that there is more to Brexit than economics.

Until a politician addresses the social and political issues that many leavers see as important then the economic discussions are missing the point.

I don't think many people voted on economic issues. I think many and possibly most voted on immigration issues, with little regard for or knowledge of the fact that their option would leave them, and everyone except a few disaster capitalists, considerably poorer.

They're starting to realise the implications now. Time for a reappraisal.

Common sense would seem to indicate that, given all the doom and gloom forecasts, there should be hordes of people in the street demanding a new referendum.

This doesn’t seem to be happening.

True, there aren't yet hordes in the street, but polls indicate an ever growing majority.

Should this be ignored?

Given Mrs May is a remainer I’m sure she’d jump at the chance to hold a new referendum - but only if she’s sure that the vote would be remain.

As she hasn’t called a new referendum she probably isn’t as sure as some that there’s either the demand for one or that the outcome would be different.

What we're seeing is an exercise in brinkmanship. Quite who actually thinks what, and how late they're willing to leave it to make a move, is beyond my pay grade

Totally agree - except for the bit about it being beyond your pay grade  

At the very most May was on the fence on brexit, she was never a europhile. It was a big surprise to many that she supported remain... could well have been a clever political gamble. Hence, I think your analysis is wrong. In fact I think any leading tory seeking a second referendum would be sunk in terms of their political future, given party views.

I stand by my analysis that the only reason Mrs May has dismissed talk of a second referendum is that there isn’t a real chance of a reversal in the result.

A referendum to remain would be easier to deal with than where she is now.

Therese pictures perhaps say otherwise

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brexitometer&tbm=isch&tbo=u&s...:

I'm getting regular updates about these and they seem to be getting quite a response.

The house has just stopped shaking from a what sounded like an unilluminated chinook passing low overhead repeatedly- perhaps that is dropping off more result sheets?

Easier to deal with? She is currently PM and would be removed by her MPs at the slightest hint of support for a 2nd brexit vote.

People don't go in the streets because of forecasts.  They go in the streets when things actually happen to them.   Most EU citizens and large companies are still waiting to see the outcome of May playing her hand out.  

There's analysis that shows that even if everyone who voted last time voted the same way remain would narrowly win in a referendum held after January 2019.

The reason is that old people disproportionately voted leave and young people disproportionately voted remain.  By January 2019 enough old Leave voters will have died and young Remain voters joined the electorate to reverse the result.  

Mrs May's problem isn't the country it is the Tory party which is dominated by geriatrics.   They'd kick her out if she wavers before there is a total crisis.   If they kick her out and put in a hard line Leaver the party will split and lose its majority in the House of Commons.

If people’s votes are secret how do we know who voted which way?

I keep hearing how the old voted leave and the young voted to remain.

As for who would win a referendum wouldn’t that depend on the question?

If most MPs, including conservatives, were/are remainers, why would they be against a second referendum especially if, as many posters on here are saying, there’s a majority of people in the UK who want one.

Could it be that by going through with Brexit, even if it’s a disaster, the Conservatives hope to avoid a defeat in the next general election as they can claim to have been following the will of the people?

Pushing through Brexit if the majority of the people don’t want it and denying these people a second referendum  sounds like a good way to be trounced at the next election and to spend years in the political wilderness.

This is what makes me think that despite some polls saying otherwise the government still believe that the majority of people still support Brexit.

Or is it a case of hanging onto power in the short term and damn the consequences at the next general election?

Here's a link that explains the maths that YouGov used:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referend...

Their conclusion is that if the referendum was run again with the exact same question as before, everybody who voted last time and is still alive voted the same way as before and young people entering the electorate vote the way they say they will in opinion polls then the majority for leave is reducing every day and is gone before we leave the EU.

But wouldn't those people who were middle aged then creep up into the old bracket and nothing would change? 

Your data must be correct, it's in a poll, when have they ever been wrong. 

Thanks for the link, interesting reading.

I personally doubt there would be a change. Most Brexit voters I know have no intention of changing their vote.

you need another 5/10years before there might be a decisive swing back for remaining.

And In all this Labour still have not made up their mind about what to do,are they in/out. 

Can't find the source I originally read at the moment, but it suggested a re-run would likely be marginal remain not because of those who voted last time changing their minds, but because of a likely increased turnout by younger voters which are perceived to have a remain bias.

And nobody asks the obvious question. You are assuming the vote would be a remain win.  Just like last time.  

What happens if it is still in favour of brexit?

It destroys any hope of a compromise with the EU. 

Having another vote now would be horrendous. And I speak as a remain voter

Indeed.  No point in a public vote now.  We just have to hope that Parliament will consider the best interests of the country when presented with the options.

Spot on. 

The people with nostalgic memories of life in their youth before the UK was in the EU are really old.  If you are 60 then your memories from your twenties will be of life in the EU.

Polling data has a margin of error.  Death rates are fairly accurate,  the numbers of young people entering the electorate very accurate.   Overall it is a reasonable calculation, it could be refined and improved but it is clearly better than assuming that nothing has changed since 2016.

It's a typical leaver argument when presented with data and analysis to come back with 'oh yeah you've been wrong before' as if that made a hypothesis based on nothing but handwaving and emotion equally likely to be correct.

There was a great deal made about the narrowness of the 'winning' margin in the first referendum.

Will the second referendum address this issue and if it is decided that there needs to be something like a 60/40 split for the win will this still result in a remain win?

the prediction doesn't allow for people who spun a coin to decide whether we should stay or leave, like the idiot manager from Stobbarts on our local TV

We do but they can't save us from this stupidity. Is this really what you wanted if you're honest with yourself?

But we will not be able to undo the damage. There will be no second chance once the process is underway, there will be a fire-sale, you will not benefit, you will pay dearly for the things you need in the coming years, the things you have paid for, the things you could reasonably have expected of the state. This is being taken from you. I will not benefit, actually I'll probably just leave, you can pay your own bloody pension for all I care, I won't be getting one and I'll be living in a country that is no longer what I want from home.

You're being mugged, fight back while you have something to fight for.

jk

The thing that will turn the region you live and work in into yet another post-industrial wasteland of unemployment and hopelessness for a generation or more (but without the dole safety net this time around) isn't 'an option', if you seriously think it is you are a fool or a sociopath.

jk

Why do you keep asking such silly questions? Yes, by a large margin, most MPs are remainers but the two main parties are stuck in a mess of their own making and support brexit. The key for May's survival as PM is not pissing off the remain or brexit side of her party so much that a leadership election is triggered (if this happens she is toast). This only needs 48 MPs to write to the 1922 committee saying they have no confidence in her. Given the tensions in her party its impressive she has lasted this long (partly as the voters are unlikely to forgive the tories squabbling in this way while the UK burns). So yes May may be painted as following the will of the people but in practice it's pure political expediancy. 

On the need to follow the will of the people. First, as Tom points out, its almost certain that 'will' has shifted just on demographic terms, let alone after the mess of recent months showing the level of lies that were told by Boris and co about cost and simplicity of leaving. Secondly  the referendum was only advisory in the first place so they could say they tried to follow the will of the people but were thwarted by the evil EU.  Thirdly democracy always gives next chances: another referrendum was always possible and would be normal if the poll evidence and political consequencies of not doing this become too clear (might be the case soon).

I agree, 90%+ of those who voted brexit would not change. In fact immediately after the vote many remainers would have voted to support brexit. What you miss is the change in demographic and the influence of all the recent disastrous politics on those who voted remain and those who didn't vote last time. The closer we get, the more likely remain would win a second vote easily.

As my questions are silly I won’t ask anymore.

Enjoy debating with yourself.

To reply in the vein of your statement.

If you believe that you are the fool.

It is what will happen if nothing better is agreed. 

You don't need most of the leavers you know to change their mind, you need somewhere between half and two of them (depending upon the size of your network) in the privacy of the poll booth to change their vote, no loss of face, no setting themselves aside from the group they've defined themselves within, just quiet secret pragmatism. Polls suggest we're way past that point as does the desperation of the hard brexit wreckers to re-brand the only democratic tool which can stop this, the one they used to wreak this havoc: 'undemocratic'.

Which is unforgivable except of course it's not because for many like me our dismal electoral system means the choice to punish Labour is also a choice to punish myself and my community and to support brexit by potentially returning a tory, usually a pliable novice cutting his or her teeth.

jk

I'm not.

We've had this discussion several times and each time you have eventually conceded the relevant points regarding damage brexit can do to the complex supply chains the employers of your region depend upon so it seems we're back to delusion and denial. I hope it keeps a roof over your head.

Doesn't make it a realistic option for a government wishing to be re-elected (at best, get out alive at worst).

jk

You've been dreaming.

And if the vote happens and it is still for Brexit, where do you stand? Its about the worse possible scenario.The hard Brexiters will get everything.Parliament would literally have no choice but to wave goodbye to the EU.

It is not even worth thinking about or taking the risk.

I'd probably with some sadness resign myself to finding somewhere new to live. I've absolutely no problem with people making properly informed choices for themselves but I don't have to live with the consequences either.

It's definitely worth it though it will be divisive and damaging it is still the lesser evil by some margin. The only viable referendum question is between a 'known brexit' and a 'known remain', a re-run of the last vague one isn't politically possible or in any way desirable.

'Known brexit' could be the wrecker's wet dream or a pointless 'Norway' or something we might actually want (gods forbid) but it is at least known and if we want it we'll support it.

jk

I don't think there will be a vote. I've already indicated if there is one it will only be because there is no political choice, as neither main party wants it, and hence the result will be decisive remain (if the politics force it: opinion polls, etc). If we had a vote now all the demographic and poll information points to the result would be a fairly clear remain.

I think many have changed their minds already. There are also many who are ideologues and simply won't be persuaded. A cabal of these are holding the tory party to ransom.

Those who want to remain in the EU can't be held to account for the actions/opinions of the Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition.

Nothing - I think this is far and away the best course of action to pursue.

Labour have performed dishonestly and spinelessly in my view. They seem to be standing on the sidelines waiting for the tories to self destruct before stepping in to win a general election (which would by no means be a certainty anyway).

They have made the acquisition of power their only priority; to the detriment of their role as an opposition party.

My parents voted Leave, my nephew voted Remain and his brother and sister would have voted Remain if they could have done, they were 17.

What is your definition of ‘no deal’? 

Surely having absolutely no deal will be massive? No flights between Europe and the UK? No UK based business allowed access to any EU personal data? All UK parts and goods deemed to be non-compliant until proven otherwise? Restrictions in transport of medicines? EU cars and planes needing to remove British input to meet existing trade deals?

Are we doing a deal for these? Or are we talking absolutely no deal? 

I agree that there will not be another referendum in the next couple of years.

It was like that before the Brexit vote, Cameron read all the polls saying it would go Remain.

We still have a long way to go before it is 100% guaranteed that it would be a remain vote next time.I would suggest that until the older generation of Brexiters changes their view it is too close to risk it.

Until then  the middle ground of MP's on both sides are going to have to be relied on( parliamentary democracy in action). And when both sides are declaring its a rubbish deal ( which is what everybody is saying about May's proposal) then I suspect we have the ultimate compromise.That is usually the way of politics.

No deal means being in the same position as any other country completely outside the EU.

No it doesn't. Canada, Japan ect are outside the EU but have Free Trade Agreements, which the UK would not have in a no deal scenario. The EU have suggested an FTA for the UK... a fact many Brexiteers are conveniently ignoring.

I ask again from yesterday... what is this 'punitive deal' the EU is offering the UK?

I actually think there is still a very good chance that leave would win a ratification referendum for something very much like 'Norway' and I think that's a good thing if it happens. We should choose this, we should not have any particular version of brexit forced upon us selected not on merit but on the outcome of more tory infighting. Having to win the argument for brexit forces the government to seek a deal that is both beneficial (or relatively harmless) to the economy and is not excessively socially divisive. I don't buy the argument that it gives the EU motive to offer worse terms because there is every chance we choose to cut our noses off anyway, the risk to them outweighs the benefit.

It shouldn't be viewed as a risk. Going through with some sort of brexit for lack of a better plan and leadership is a risk. Asking the people if they really want what what is realistically available on the table in the light of day is democracy in action, if the answer is no then good we shouldn't suffer what we don't wish for, if the answer is yes then good, we're getting what we want.

Except the EU have said no and there aren't the numbers to vote it through parliament so while it may debatably be the best of a bad lot it is still not deliverable, instead we'll get something else, maybe better, maybe worse, the only thing we know for sure is it'll be a surprise and there will be a distinct lack of democracy involved in its delivery, it will come down to last plan standing once the back stabbing gets under way. There has been a distinct lack of statesmanship shown to date by these 'middle ground' MPs, I hold out little hope of them collectively growing a set in the near future.

jk

Why lie?  You know that is not true.

My point from yesterday was that there are no options yet, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", apart from no deal.

Well you phrased it badly and included a falsehood. The EU haven't offered the UK any kind of 'punitive deal' as you put it. 

So, apart from the flights, we will probably lose out in all the areas mentioned. 

I know, this is one thing that has surprised me.... just how blasé and unapologetic Brexiters are about lying.

No. My point was they had not made any offer yet.  It read "bad deals the EU are prepared to offer".

Would you claim the EU have not been prepared to offer us any bad deals ?

"apart from, so far, punitively bad deals the EU are prepared to offer."

there's only one way to read that, why don't you just fess up and admit you swallowed some anti-EU propaganda?

Because they have suggested 2 rather decent deals as the options.

Are you seriously suggesting that the electorate vote on a Norway type deal?

Apart from a few technocrats I doubt anyone  can really grasp all the details that would involve.It would be like lambs to the slaughter on both sides.Gets you nowhere.

It's not lying as such, So far as I can tell it's a truthful account of how he understands the world and expects the future to play out. It's wrong IMO but it isn't intended to deceive.

jk

Which is your favorite of these two deals ?

Maybe it's just a rubbish deal.

Exactly.  It's a blatant, wilful lie.  He's not stupid and clearly capable of reading so he knows it's false.  If we leave without agreement we will no longer be part to a trade deal with the EU, unlike all these countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

EU principles mean that two deals have tacitly been on the table all along; Norway or Canada.

May discarded these sensible options with her stupid red lines.

If that's what's agreed, the best deal our well informed elected representatives can negotiate on our behalf then absolutely.

We don't need to understand all the details, we need a reasonable idea of what our future looks like for either option on the paper then we need a decision. It gets us a decision parliament can't and wont make in the public interest when push comes to shove. That lack of leadership leaves open the possibility the process is hijacked by extremists or fails completely for lack of action.

jk

"No deal means being in the same position as any other country completely outside the EU."

You could equally claim it's a blatant, wilful, lie, because the UK does not have the climate for growing dates, unlike the following countries .......

Well I could but

a) it would be equally false because as with trade agreements with the EU, many other countries grow dates.

b) it would be irrelevant.

Next stupid comment?

We're not talking about a box of Quality Street!

It's complex and I'm ambivalent. Some days I think an FTA would be best for the country in the long run..... but not for the same reasons as the Brexiteers.

After you.

So, just to clarify, you have been caught telling blatant lies, presumably because you think some people will still be convinced by such brexiter bullshit, and rather than standing back from them, you resort to childish dust throwing.    I think that says a lot about you.

Didn't take long.

Ffs you really are being a tool.

I, for one, am planning my escape from this sinking ship

I'm interested in your answer to the question further up. When you say "no deal" do you mean "no trade deal", "no withdrawal bill (but a number of bilateral deals to cover citizenship, importing radioactive isotopes, aviation, intelligence sharing etc" or "no deal at all on anything". 

The reason i ask is that it gets blurred in these discussions and the implications of each are very different.  

Anybody with political nous on either side can rip apart the Norway or Canadian  deal for the UK. It simply is not a bespoke UK deal which reflects UK 's position in all areas within Europe ranging from defence, security, economics etc .It is a non starter for it to be branded as a Norway or Canada type deal to go to the electorate as such. Being good enough for Norway is not good enough for us. Even I can say that as a remainer.

Except we won't have any trade deals as we will have to renegotiate them all (Read Section 3 of Article 50) which will take time. So what do we do in april?

What do all the countries who trade with us do?

We might be misunderstanding each other, I understand the value of window dressing as well as most but it doesn't change the basic facts of the matter, Norway has good market access and little freedom, Canada the opposite, we have a choice between those, yes we may expect to do a little better but not much however much fuss is eventually made over the immaculate tailoring of the deal to our specific needs.

Jk

I've seen you ask that question and have it answered several times before. 

This is a Brexit thread on UKC - you weren’t expecting anything new or original were you?

The same as other countries without a trade deal.

I completed another order for Germany today and expect to continue to do so in April.

The only words I have for you would get me banned...

I’d put the probability of having a trade deal by March at 0%. We’ll either have the withdrawal deal - with transition - or no deal. And if no deal, not sure what kind of side deals we’ll be able to put in place for non-trade elements.

I completed an order for stock from Germany last week. It is for a corrosive material. It was simplicity itself. An email was all it took and the next thing that I will know is a lorry will arrive with a couple of pallets for me.

I fully expect to be able to make another order after Brexit but I am 100% it will be much more complex, more expensive and take longer. I remember when we imported stuff from Canada and America, the tariffs, the fees etc, the delays at Customs until forms were filled and the aforementioned tarifs and fees were paid.

And we have not even mentioned the fact that the product will almost certainly cost more due to a further weakening of the £.

And you want this for what reason?

So we agree.

Well kind of, I think we will continue trading but at much greater cost both in cash terms and time. Do you agree about that?

Who knows ?  I hope not.  So do my customers across Europe.

You know it will cost more. But you are prepared to accept this. For what reason?

Your customers across Europe aren’t hoping for anything. If you price yourself out they’ll just buy elsewhere.

So are you. We have no choice. But if the Pound falls my products will cost less.

Unless any of your inputs are purchased in other currencies.

 if the Pound falls my products will cost less.

Err, sorry I did not vote to accept this, that is the whole point. You did, I didn't.

You said that you had placed an order in Germany, if the £ falls then this will cost you more. Do you accept this. yes or no?

You did not read my post correctly.

I am selling to Germany. If the Pound falls my products cost them less.

What is your product? (Not important, but mention of it leaves us wondering.)

I shouldn’t be surprised by now, but strangely I still am. How can you so staggering ignorant of reality? This is simply untrue.

But do you have to buy any raw materials or components from outside the U.K? If so then surely in your wished for, devalued pound world, they will cost more so you will have to charge more to cover your costs?

Perhaps your product is intellectual?

Electronic instrumentation.

If you are going to call me "staggeringly ignorant". You might say why you think that.

The statement you made is staggeringly ignorant. It’s obvious from my post why.

I think I'm starting to understand your motivations for Brexit now.

You believe you're in a rare position of being able to export without having to significantly import. You believe there's little risk of any trained staff of yours leaving in search of similar jobs that won't pay in the new, relatively worthless GBP (indeed their options for doing so will be severely curtailed.) And as a result you think you will be one of the very small number of people who could personally gain from Brexit.

Good luck continuing to try to get others (i.e. almost all other UK citizens, who overwhelmingly set to lose out substantially) to help you achieve your personal business goals at the expense of the entire nation.

I know you're not daft so I shouldn't have to point this out but for some reason your denial of reality irks me.

If your products cost less abroad (before any tariffs and new compliance costs are factored in at least) because the pound falls the money you get from them is worth less because what you spend it on: imported stock and tools, imported food, imported energy, holidays etc cost more. You name it, almost everything these days be it service or good has some cross border element at some point in its delivery, that all costs you more. Your living standard falls or you have to work more and sell more to maintain your living standard.

Meanwhile all around you the big employers are already cutting shifts (JL), scheduling line closures (BMW), warning of delayed and diverted investment (Nissan and Honda) and this is knocking on into their suppliers who will also be cutting shifts then soon jobs. This is before disruptive border chaos comes, before tariffs hit competitiveness. Those folk dependant on that ecosystem will be going out less, buying cheaper and less frequently, delaying home moves or investment, slowly at first then more quickly as the contagion spreads there will be less money and more competition for work in your region.

All this for what?

jk

I  shouldn't be surprised by now .....No

but strangely I still am .....No

How can you be so staggeringly ignorant of reality .....No

This is simply untrue. ....No

You have not said why my post is staggeringly  ignorant, or even why it's untrue.

Yes, it is simply untrue. You said leaving the EU with no deal puts us in the position of every other country outside the EU, I'll offer the most obvious example of Norway to counter that. I shouldn't have to, it's a statement so obviously false Trump would blush delivering it let alone still defending it a day later.

Leaving the EU without any deal leaves us with no trade deals with any other nation anywhere, we don't even yet have our own WTO schedule. That puts us in a position comparable with only Mauritania (having no international trade deals of any note). Mauritania's economy is however while small, largely circular, ours isn't for now at least.

jk

Your niche like me. I sell capital equipment..93% exported.. I sell into Germany (amongst others) most is outside EU. The Germans then ship it to Tunisia with various forms that allow free trade between Tunisia and Germany. Do you have anything like that?

Have you weighed up all the origination documentation you are going to have to put together. Assume let us say you get a Rockwell component which is manufactured in China, you are going to have to work through your entire instrument assembly and declare %'s based on tarrif codes.

Must admit I have yet to come across somebody who is a niche manufacturer and exports who is pro leaving .

No. Usually based in the country where it is bought.

Why do you consider trade deals so important ?

Thats an intriguing arrangement - do Germany have a specific trade deal with Tunisia which is different from other common market members? if so this would appear interesting.

No, its just part of the one between Tunisia and the EU. 

ok, Its not quite phrased like that in Neilh's post!

Depends how you want to read it......all trade deals applicable to EU countries are common to all EU member countries. I would have thought that much had become clear over the past couple of years.

And my point on origination?I assume alot of your electronic components are actually manufactured in the Far East and then your value is in putting it all together.

Have you worked this through?

yes it is - which is why I was surprised - I think you can tell that from the words i use in the post, but perhaps not.

and a number of others bordering the EU...

Component value is very small, Cpu 50p etc. Lots of labour, machining, and 3D printing. Make almost everything, including PCB etching.

They are important because they facilitate more and cheaper trade, we are a trading nation, I work for an exporter, we import almost all our parts.

More to the point because a significant and rapid negative change to the openness of our trading environment will result in a significant negative impact on our economy which is highly adapted to that environment. That will result in a deterioration in my living standard and my opportunities. For what?

jk

But do you know the % Origin from your HTS code? Does it allow say 10% under WTO rules?

Can you physically prove it? So let us say at some stage in the future your instrument is stopped at the German border for a customs check ( more likely to be France or Holland) and customs turn round to you and ask you to prove the %...can you do it. Have you the documentation to back it up?

Do you know if you are subject to dual -use rules on HTS? This relates to export controls.

Component value may be small but high in value.

As Neilh says the prospect of extra work is awful. But really it shouldn't be necessary unless the EU wants it to be.

I don't consider trade deals to be hugely important and my post read not outside the EU , but completely outside the EU, to mean no trade deals either. So it was not untrue as you claim.

Translation: the rules shouldn’t apply to us because we’re special.

In the light of your casual approach this may be interesting:

https://threadreaderapp.com/user/NicoleSykes_

Yes we are special. We already comply in every way. The purpose of the EU is to aid European integration. Not to act as a profit making members club.

It is the way Free Trade and more importantly WTO rules apply.Nothing to do with the EU which is working in your favour as an SME to simplify things.

Sure, if brexit turns out to be a really f****g stupid and costly idea it'll all be the big bad EU's fault, not yours for failing to understand or consider what you were voting for.

Sorry, what?

You wrote:

That is demonstrably untrue. Those countries all of them bar one have some bilateral deals or are part of larger blocs, their economies are adapted to those conditions. Leaving the EU without a deal means we will have none, down from 50 odd overnight. We'll hardly notice...

jk

This from that site seems the most likely outcome:

from @nicktolhurst:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1040226051866218496.html

tl:dr we'll leave under a Checkers deal modified to conform to EU governance and almost everything for almost everyone will be just a bit shitter than it already is. Scotland and NI will leave the union if they've got any sense. London won't suffer as much as everyone else.

He also thinks anti EU sentiment will become a defining feature of English politics, I don't see this happening.

It is not untrue. My post meant the same as any country without any trade deals. If there are no such countries that still does not make it untrue.

The British state has been oriented towards making profits for, what, 400 years? Being part of a group that makes us richer - meaning better to pay for health care, education, environment, etc - seems a worthy goal to me.

The point of the link is to highlight the concerns other businesses have right now. If you don’t have those concerns... well maybe you’re justified.

So now you're arguing your patently absurd statement is true because there is one country without any trade deals, a position that has shifted in the last few posts, a position bearing little relation to the clear meaning of the single sentence we're discussing. I'm embarrassed for you, I feel bad that I have to point out that this is total absurdist nonsense.

There are no countries that have overnight gone from having 50+ significant FTA to none, doing so would utterly devastate our economy.

Why am I bothering. It's like reasoning with a snake evangelist except the snakes don't actually bite that many of them and there is no brexit antivenom.

jk

There. Fixed that for you.

And aid integration is what it does. But why should it change the way in implements common rules agreed by all 28 members just because 1 no longer wants to abide by the rules, where the other 27 do? 

Boris will probably argue that was what the bus was about, "£350m for the NHS" that's probably how much we're going to sell it for.

I was merely asked by Stevieb what my definition of no deal was.

I tried to give him a straightforward answer.

What should I have said ?

This is the question I was getting at further up thread too. Your answer didn't really clarify. There seem to be 3 different definitions of no deal. 

A withdrawal deal but a future agreement without a trade deal

No withdrawal deal but a number of side deals on specific topics (citizenship, air travel etc)

No withdrawal deal at all

This might well have more to do with it than either of those, as it could well hit the main Brexit-pushers where it hurts most (which of course is nothing to do with the state or health of the nation):

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidan...

This is the worst option for me. If we push for no deal as a way to get out of the financial settlement, we're pushing negotiations into very hostile territory which puts any kind of side deals at risk. I hope that it is a bit of negotiation pantomime because the implications of taking that approach seriously are massive. I say that as someone who thinks an orderly transition to a situation where there is no trade deal between UK and EU would be disruptive and bad but probably not the end of the world.

I meant no withdrawal deal. Obviously agreement would have to happen on air travel.

That is in answer to your question and to stevieb's question. Not necessarily what I think is a good idea.

OK thanks + understood.

The success or failure of that approach seems to me to be completely dependent on the EU's willingness to do side deals on key areas like citizens rights, aviation, intelligence sharing, etc all in the context of the UK pulling out of negotiations because we don't want to pay the brexit bill or sign up to the backstop.