Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
///ajd said:
The second bit also sounds plausible, and quite possibly likely to restrict what is possible on FMOL as you say. Contributions could be quite high - say 60-80% of now - is it based on GDP? - and we end up with SM membership but no say.
Do you think that's a good deal for the UK, and a "step forward" from being in the EU?
On the basis that despite Norway not having a formal say in matters they have had considerable influence over the drafting of directives, there may not be much practical difference. That would be a 'step sideways' rather than forward, but one which allows all parties to say they drove a hard bargain. Do you think that's a good deal for the UK, and a "step forward" from being in the EU?
hidetheelephants said:
///ajd said:
The second bit also sounds plausible, and quite possibly likely to restrict what is possible on FMOL as you say. Contributions could be quite high - say 60-80% of now - is it based on GDP? - and we end up with SM membership but no say.
Do you think that's a good deal for the UK, and a "step forward" from being in the EU?
On the basis that despite Norway not having a formal say in matters they have had considerable influence over the drafting of directives, there may not be much practical difference. That would be a 'step sideways' rather than forward, but one which allows all parties to say they drove a hard bargain. Do you think that's a good deal for the UK, and a "step forward" from being in the EU?
As a deal, it might look like
- it hardly affects immigration which politicians don't seem to really want to limit anyway. How did May's points based non-EU scheme cut numbers?
- nearly the same cost (Norway pays €109/capita, UK €137/capita)
- little influence on regulation - we'd have a veto, but only on ourselves - we couldn't stop any EU regulation in the SM, just decide not to adopt it ourselves. They'd still have to apply to anything we'd want to export to the EU - which is just under half.
It certainly would be a hard bargain.
///ajd said:
- little influence on regulation - we'd have a veto, but only on ourselves - we couldn't stop any EU regulation in the SM, just decide not to adopt it ourselves. They'd still have to apply to anything we'd want to export to the EU - which is just under half.
Just under half of what we export, not of what we produce. 90% of UK firms don't export to the EU so wouldn't have to worry about it. Anything we export to anywhere has to meet the local regulations so what's the difference?///ajd said:
- little influence on regulation - we'd have a veto, but only on ourselves - we couldn't stop any EU regulation in the SM, just decide not to adopt it ourselves. They'd still have to apply to anything we'd want to export to the EU - which is just under half.
Genuine Question - how many EU regulations have we managed to stop on our own over the last 40 years ? Just curious.On the last point, well we've been round that loop before and it's no different from exporting to any country regardless of EU membership or not. If you want to sell in a country you have to meet their rules & we've been doing that for years. For example, we have no control over what legislation the USA enforces and yet we do significant business with them.
b2hbm said:
Genuine Question - how many EU regulations have we managed to stop on our own over the last 40 years ? Just curious.
On the last point, well we've been round that loop before and it's no different from exporting to any country regardless of EU membership or not. If you want to sell in a country you have to meet their rules & we've been doing that for years. For example, we have no control over what legislation the USA enforces and yet we do significant business with them.
I'm not sure that's quite correct. Safe Harbour is a recent example where the EU challenged American legislation and they backed down, to an extent. We had the situation where databases were being moved to the European mainland, the UK being avoided because of the threat of the vote. There will be a further challenge to its replacement, the Privacy Shield. Whether we will be able to avail ourselves of the PS depends on whether the Americans will let us.On the last point, well we've been round that loop before and it's no different from exporting to any country regardless of EU membership or not. If you want to sell in a country you have to meet their rules & we've been doing that for years. For example, we have no control over what legislation the USA enforces and yet we do significant business with them.
I think every country will ask for agreements on trade, rather than put up mere demands. There will be long negotiations, in fact they'll be ongoing. Currently we can trade under the EU trade agreements but these will, I assume, come to an end either when we leave or when we activate A50.
So we do have a certain degree of control over the USA and we can't just present a container full of Cadbury's and expect a country to accept it with agreements, all which will have to be agreed on, or hopefully prior to, leaving.
I get the point about the EU block and negotiations as a member state with the US, but I'm not sure that equates to having control over what the US does.
Countries as strong as the USA tend to do what they want to in the end, we may divert the path slightly but ultimately, if they want to do something, like Russia and China, they will.
However I was thinking more along the lines of engineering standards though, even down to simple things like the plug you need to put on a kettle for example. It was interesting to watch Dyson explain his take on the EU as an exporter and manufacturer and how the single market is not as simple as it sounds.
As an aside (and slightly unfair because you didn't make the initial statement) in your research have you come across how many EU regs has the UK blocked successfully ? I'm genuinely curious on that one. Farage claimed none which I find hard to believe despite being a "Leaver".
Countries as strong as the USA tend to do what they want to in the end, we may divert the path slightly but ultimately, if they want to do something, like Russia and China, they will.
However I was thinking more along the lines of engineering standards though, even down to simple things like the plug you need to put on a kettle for example. It was interesting to watch Dyson explain his take on the EU as an exporter and manufacturer and how the single market is not as simple as it sounds.
As an aside (and slightly unfair because you didn't make the initial statement) in your research have you come across how many EU regs has the UK blocked successfully ? I'm genuinely curious on that one. Farage claimed none which I find hard to believe despite being a "Leaver".
Hugo a Gogo said:
various ways forward include, but would not be restricted to
stay in EU
vs
leave altogether
vs
stay in single market, keep FoM, but leave EU proper
vs
stay in single market, no FoM
vs
some other model
Yes let's put that out there to help the situation, surely the first one shouldn't be on the list, that question's been answered. stay in EU
vs
leave altogether
vs
stay in single market, keep FoM, but leave EU proper
vs
stay in single market, no FoM
vs
some other model
Or maybe you mean that this should have been the original referendum, in which case it's so ridiculously biased it's unbeleivable. I lost count of how many times I heard that the EU needed reform but we should stay in it so maybe it should look more like this:
stay in EU as is
vs
stay in the EU as long as reforms proposed by David Cameron are all sanctioned by the EU
vs
stay in the EU as long as reforms proposed by Tim Farron are all sanctioned by the EU
vs
stay in the EU as long as reforms proposed by Jeremy Corbyn are all sanctioned by the EU
vs
stay in the EU as long as reforms proposed by Natalie Bennett are all sanctioned by the EU
vs
leave altogether
vs
stay in single market, keep FoM, but leave EU proper
vs
stay in single market, no FoM
vs
some other model
Hugo a Gogo said:
all remainers wanted to stay in the EU, no? that's kind of the definition
Yes absolutely, in the same way tht all leavers wanted to leave, also kind of the definition.And to your original question, I agree with others many leavers wanted different things, there is no majority view but, admittedly to a lesser extent, many remainers also wanted different things as per my examples above.
Monkeylegend said:
A lot of people thought the original exit vote was unlikely 
Only the deluded. Anyone speaking to the people on the streets outside on London could easily pick up on the sentiment.Smith is unlikely to beat Corbyn and with either as leader Labour stand little chance of getting elected. Combination of poor leadership, threats of going against the Brexit will of a large number of supporters, a strong SNP and a Tory government seen to be doing ok will see to it.
CaptainSlow said:
Monkeylegend said:
A lot of people thought the original exit vote was unlikely
Only the deluded. Anyone speaking to the people on the streets outside on London could easily pick up on the sentiment.Smith is unlikely to beat Corbyn and with either as leader Labour stand little chance of getting elected. Combination of poor leadership, threats of going against the Brexit will of a large number of supporters, a strong SNP and a Tory government seen to be doing ok will see to it.
Monkeylegend said:
Not done and dusted yet if Owen Smith has his way.
The man talks sense (on this matter!)LDs take the same stance.
Hopefully they will be in a position of power to stop this nonsense, or at least enough to make the Conservatives have to follow suit, which is probably on the cards anyway
Jimboka said:
Monkeylegend said:
Not done and dusted yet if Owen Smith has his way.
The man talks sense (on this matter!)LDs take the same stance.
Hopefully they will be in a position of power to stop this nonsense, or at least enough to make the Conservatives have to follow suit, which is probably on the cards anyway
It's time for Remainers to get real about Brexit
First three paragraphs from above link said:
Ok remainers, we get it. You REALLY don't want to leave the EU. The problem is, the majority of the country doesn't agree with you and there is scant evidence to suggest they have changed their minds. And if you're objective and fair minded you know full well it is nothing to do with bigotry or xenophobia. It's about something more profound.
I know what genuine xenophobia looks like. I am pleased and proud to say that it is rare. Some may express politically dubious views but most people are decent and when challenged they will capitulate to good sense. The notion that the UK is suddenly a hotbed of racism is completely bogus.
There's a real message in the final verdict. Remainers are aghast that regions which receive the most in EU funding turned out in high numbers to reject the EU. What does that tell you? If you take that to mean working class people are thick and voted against their own interests and that media bias meant that the message of economists didn't get through then actually it's you who's a bit thick.
I know what genuine xenophobia looks like. I am pleased and proud to say that it is rare. Some may express politically dubious views but most people are decent and when challenged they will capitulate to good sense. The notion that the UK is suddenly a hotbed of racism is completely bogus.
There's a real message in the final verdict. Remainers are aghast that regions which receive the most in EU funding turned out in high numbers to reject the EU. What does that tell you? If you take that to mean working class people are thick and voted against their own interests and that media bias meant that the message of economists didn't get through then actually it's you who's a bit thick.
Jimboka said:
Monkeylegend said:
Not done and dusted yet if Owen Smith has his way.
The man talks sense (on this matter!)LDs take the same stance.
Hopefully they will be in a position of power to stop this nonsense, or at least enough to make the Conservatives have to follow suit, which is probably on the cards anyway
el stovey said:
Jimboka said:
Monkeylegend said:
Not done and dusted yet if Owen Smith has his way.
The man talks sense (on this matter!)LDs take the same stance.
Hopefully they will be in a position of power to stop this nonsense, or at least enough to make the Conservatives have to follow suit, which is probably on the cards anyway
el stovey said:
May is again hinting at delaying article 50 further, this time until after other European countries general elections next year.
Anything's possible of course, but so far I haven't actually seen a direct reference to the PM hinting this. I've seen those from the Remain camp calling for a delay and using the elections in Europe as a reason, I've seen the Express saying Merkel wants us to wait until she's been re-elected but nothing from May herself. But whatever happens with the German or French governments is irrelevant because our negotiations are with the EU appointed team rather than individual states. And if we trigger in early 2017 an EU team will be in place well before the election dates. It makes a nice headline but the logic doesn't add up.
However, "never say never" so have you seen a link quoting to Theresa May saying this ?
And in other news, the EU appear to be getting ready to do without us following the recent mini-summit with France, Germany & Italy. The next EU shindig in September is only the 27 nations, the UK is not invited. If you recall, the PM declined the Council presidency for 2017 on the basis that it wasn't sensible as we would be in negotiations to leave.
There's going to be a lot of egg-on-face if we suddenly turn round and say "sorry chaps, we didn't mean it". Plus of course Jeremy Corbyn as the next PM in 2020.....
b2hbm said:
Anything's possible of course, but so far I haven't actually seen a direct reference to the PM hinting this. I've seen those from the Remain camp calling for a delay and using the elections in Europe as a reason, I've seen the Express saying Merkel wants us to wait until she's been re-elected but nothing from May herself.
But whatever happens with the German or French governments is irrelevant because our negotiations are with the EU appointed team rather than individual states. And if we trigger in early 2017 an EU team will be in place well before the election dates. It makes a nice headline but the logic doesn't add up.
However, "never say never" so have you seen a link quoting to Theresa May saying this ?
And in other news, the EU appear to be getting ready to do without us following the recent mini-summit with France, Germany & Italy. The next EU shindig in September is only the 27 nations, the UK is not invited. If you recall, the PM declined the Council presidency for 2017 on the basis that it wasn't sensible as we would be in negotiations to leave.
There's going to be a lot of egg-on-face if we suddenly turn round and say "sorry chaps, we didn't mean it". Plus of course Jeremy Corbyn as the next PM in 2020.....
No one said a u turn wouldn't be embarrassing. Of course it would. But a good proportion of 48% think the whole thing is a cringeworthy shambles anyway, so horses for courses. Embarrassment shouldn't stop us making the right decision.But whatever happens with the German or French governments is irrelevant because our negotiations are with the EU appointed team rather than individual states. And if we trigger in early 2017 an EU team will be in place well before the election dates. It makes a nice headline but the logic doesn't add up.
However, "never say never" so have you seen a link quoting to Theresa May saying this ?
And in other news, the EU appear to be getting ready to do without us following the recent mini-summit with France, Germany & Italy. The next EU shindig in September is only the 27 nations, the UK is not invited. If you recall, the PM declined the Council presidency for 2017 on the basis that it wasn't sensible as we would be in negotiations to leave.
There's going to be a lot of egg-on-face if we suddenly turn round and say "sorry chaps, we didn't mean it". Plus of course Jeremy Corbyn as the next PM in 2020.....
The negotiations will need some stability with key players so german and french elections should be a consideration from our point of view, let alone theirs. We hardly want to press art 50 thinking hollande and merkel will give us one thing, then find two new govts with a different view. It might be in our interests to wait.
b2hbm said:
But whatever happens with the German or French governments is irrelevant because our negotiations are with the EU appointed team rather than individual states. ..
I doubt it. The serious negotiations will be with the council, they will instruct the functionaires (sp?) from the commission.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff