How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

The independent helpfully declined to provide a link to the BMG poll, so I had to find it for myself.

BMG said:

Whilst the Remain lead may be eye-catching, as is the case with all polls that show one side narrowly “out-in-front”, at this stage readers should treat the results with caution. The narrow Remain lead is within the poll’s margin of error, +/- 2.5 percentage points, where we can be confident that that the actual results falls. This means that, as for most polling results published at this time, both sides are effectively “neck and neck”. Indeed, statistically speaking it is entirely possible, from these results, that Leave is slightly ahead.

The poll also shows little evidence of “buyer’s remorse” among Leave supporters. 96% of those that reported voting Leave in 2016, would still vote for the UK’s EU exit. Likewise, 95% of those who voted to Remain, still support the UK staying inside the EU.

Oh dear.

It's plus or minus. Not just plus. So the other end of the "confident" range is 44.5: 55.5.

amusingduck said:

As for your second 'source'

PM said:

Turning points are easy to spot in retrospect, but can be hard to detect at the time. For this reason, the statement that follows is tentative, not definite; but if it turns out to be true, the implications for Britain’s future are profound.

Here goes: public opinion, especially working-class opinion, may have started to move against Brexit. The trend is not certain; and even if the recent shift is real, it may not last. However, the latest YouGov poll for the Times suggests that, for the first time since last year’s referendum, buyers’ remorse could be setting in.

Yep, that is pretty concrete, factual evidence that "the will of the people has shifted". 5 points to you.

How would you expect a pollster to express itself? Seems pretty standard stuff to me.

Got any current surveys that point the other way?

[London424]

mx5nut said:

superlightr said:

Its like thinking we can't legislate for ourselves without the EU? How strange. How sad to be so frightened that we cant think and do things for ourselves again. Which incidentally we set up many standards and requirements to protect the consumer and workers way before any EU or EEC was set up.

We absolutely can.

But it makes sense to keep consistent standards with our nearest and most powerful neighbours.

And since they're not likely to adopt our standards once we're out, we'll have to adopt theirs.

We'll just no longer have any say in how they are set.

Oops.

Except the UK will take a place on the Global teams that determine the standards, rather than the EU doing it on our behalf. So in reality the UK will have a larger steer in pushing the direction of the standards.

[paul789]

I have a question for the Brexiteers - how worried are you about the capability of the government & civil service and their capacity to get this over the line, manage the short term pain and help realise the long term benefits of Brexit?

I long ago accepted that Breixt would happen, but I really fail to see that we have the right people at the top to get this done. Am I wrong?

[Digga]

paul789 said:

I have a question for the Brexiteers - how worried are you about the capability of the government & civil service and their capacity to get this over the line, manage the short term pain and help realise the long term benefits of Brexit?

I long ago accepted that Breixt would happen, but I really fail to see that we have the right people at the top to get this done. Am I wrong?

In truth, only marginally more confident in this than putting my faith in the EU continuing to dictate proceedings here. It is not quite Hobson's choice, but not far off.

[mx5nut]

Digga said:

mx5nut said:

Digga said:

ORD said:

So, in summary:

(1) Immigration (the one thing posters on here insist was not an issue for them).

It is crassly simplistic to conflate control of borders with allowing and enabling (or, conversely preventing) immigration.

I'm happy to allow immigration, I just think it fairly clear we've recently had neither measurement nor control of who is entering the UK and why.

That was a failing of our own government - fixing that would have been a lot simpler than leaving the EU!

To an extent I do agree, but there were elements which being in the EU robbed us of control. The EU's mismanagement of their greater borders has also exposed us to various hazards.

Unfortunately leaving won't fix that - except to remove our voice in changing it.

[SantaBarbara]

paul789 said:

I have a question for the Brexiteers - how worried are you about the capability of the government & civil service and their capacity to get this over the line, manage the short term pain and help realise the long term benefits of Brexit?

I long ago accepted that Breixt would happen, but I really fail to see that we have the right people at the top to get this done. Am I wrong?

David Cameron was not the right person, agreed, but he has departed from the scene now.

[ORD]

In short, then, massive risk and uncertain and probably small upside. Not rational decision-making.

I am afraid that I really do think the big point is immigration and people are unwilling to just state in concrete and clear terms that they dont want much EU immigration. "Control of borders" is a euphemism.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being anti-immigration. I think there are coherent reasons to oppose the levels of immigration that we have seen. But people are very shy to talk about it.

[Digga]

mx5nut said:

Digga said:

mx5nut said:

Digga said:

ORD said:

So, in summary:

(1) Immigration (the one thing posters on here insist was not an issue for them).

It is crassly simplistic to conflate control of borders with allowing and enabling (or, conversely preventing) immigration.

I'm happy to allow immigration, I just think it fairly clear we've recently had neither measurement nor control of who is entering the UK and why.

That was a failing of our own government - fixing that would have been a lot simpler than leaving the EU!

To an extent I do agree, but there were elements which being in the EU robbed us of control. The EU's mismanagement of their greater borders has also exposed us to various hazards.

Unfortunately leaving won't fix that - except to remove our voice in changing it.

Not sure anyone's altering the EU's dogmatic approach. Just look at the conflict between the EU and Poland, Hungary and other nations. Look at what's just happened in Austria, look at Merkel's attitudes, because she is hugely influential.

[mx5nut]

paul789 said:

I have a question for the Brexiteers - how worried are you about the capability of the government & civil service and their capacity to get this over the line, manage the short term pain and help realise the long term benefits of Brexit?

I long ago accepted that Breixt would happen, but I really fail to see that we have the right people at the top to get this done. Am I wrong?

Personally I'd be a lot more positive about the whole idea if I thought the people we had in charge of managing the process were in the slightest bit competent.

[Funkycoldribena]

Cameron
Osbourne
Sourbry
Clarke
Campbell
Blair
Izzard
Geldof

I mean, seriously, taking out economics, immigration, everything, doesn't that tell you enough?

[Sway]

Greg66 said:

ORD said:

Digga said:

1. Greater control over borders.
2. Fewer layers of politicians to pay for and be answerable to (although I always thought politicians were supposed to be answerable to the electorate, but it never quite works out that way).
3. Reduced risk of being dragging into/asked to fund future Euro-based catastrophe

We can still be European, still trade, still play nice and be friendly with the EU, but we're just not in it. You know, like Switzerland.

So, in summary:

(1) Immigration (the one thing posters on here insist was not an issue for them).

(2) Save a few quid on EU politicians.

(3) A probably fair point about uncoupling slightly, but not a huge reduction in risk. If the EU goes under, we are going down too.

Does all that justify a huge reduction in GDP, increase in tax, etc? I really dont see it. I am sorry, but I dont think most of the reasons can be genuine. I think it is almost all about immigration and/or some vague 'control" point that I dont entirely understand (see the poster above who appears to be an anarchist).

But if point 3 means EU-based, then it's just a variant of point 2 (or point 2 is a variant of point 3; either way the point is not paying money to the EU, however it chooses to spend it).

I thought Digga's point 3 might be Euro (the currency) based catastrophe. In which case if we are post Brexit to be the global player that Brexiteers think we will be, I would have thought our London banks will be no less exposed to Euro-based catastrophe than they are now.

Either way, he's still short of a third point

Target2 implosion - very different from previous crises...

Yes, we'll be impacted. However, unlike the period from 2008-now, we won't be on the hook for an uplift in our subscriptions purely because we haven't fked our economy as much as the continent, whilst they've sniped about how incorrect our approach is...

[Robertj21a]

mx5nut said:

We absolutely can.

But it makes sense to keep consistent standards with our nearest and most powerful neighbours.

And since they're not likely to adopt our standards once we're out, we'll have to adopt theirs.

We'll just no longer have any say in how they are set.

Oops.

Good heavens, you really are terribly biased aren't you.

We have no need for us to adopt 'their' standards, we'll be free to adopt whatever standards suit the UK. Inevitably, some will be close to, or identical to, those in the EU, but some standards may prove to be closer to the USA, China, India or Peru (!) - who cares, the issue is what is best for the UK, not which country is our nearest neighbour.

[mx5nut]

Funkycoldribena said:

Cameron
Osbourne
Sourbry
Clarke
Campbell
Blair
Izzard
Geldof

I mean, seriously, taking out economics, immigration, everything, doesn't that tell you enough?

Farage
Hopkins
Trump


Yep, if we're going this way, I think that tells me plenty

[Digga]

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

ORD said:

Digga said:

1. Greater control over borders.
2. Fewer layers of politicians to pay for and be answerable to (although I always thought politicians were supposed to be answerable to the electorate, but it never quite works out that way).
3. Reduced risk of being dragging into/asked to fund future Euro-based catastrophe

We can still be European, still trade, still play nice and be friendly with the EU, but we're just not in it. You know, like Switzerland.

So, in summary:

(1) Immigration (the one thing posters on here insist was not an issue for them).

(2) Save a few quid on EU politicians.

(3) A probably fair point about uncoupling slightly, but not a huge reduction in risk. If the EU goes under, we are going down too.

Does all that justify a huge reduction in GDP, increase in tax, etc? I really dont see it. I am sorry, but I dont think most of the reasons can be genuine. I think it is almost all about immigration and/or some vague 'control" point that I dont entirely understand (see the poster above who appears to be an anarchist).

But if point 3 means EU-based, then it's just a variant of point 2 (or point 2 is a variant of point 3; either way the point is not paying money to the EU, however it chooses to spend it).

I thought Digga's point 3 might be Euro (the currency) based catastrophe. In which case if we are post Brexit to be the global player that Brexiteers think we will be, I would have thought our London banks will be no less exposed to Euro-based catastrophe than they are now.

Either way, he's still short of a third point

Target2 implosion - very different from previous crises...

Yes, we'll be impacted. However, unlike the period from 2008-now, we won't be on the hook for an uplift in our subscriptions purely because we haven't fked our economy as much as the continent, whilst they've sniped about how incorrect our approach is...

Exactly; when target 2 problems culminate, CoL will do well precisely because we have no ties.

[mx5nut]

Robertj21a said:

Good heavens, you really are terribly biased aren't you.

We have no need for us to adopt 'their' standards, we'll be free to adopt whatever standards suit the UK. Inevitably, some will be close to, or identical to, those in the EU, but some standards may prove to be closer to the USA, China, India or Peru (!) - who cares, the issue is what is best for the UK, not which country is our nearest neighbour.

I suppose importing and exporting more with Peru and less across the channel would be more efficient and best for the UK. I'm convinced.

I wonder how we'll ensure that any goods coming across our borders with the EU match or exceed Peruvian, American, Chinese or American standards, though, without border checks...

[Sway]

mx5nut said:

Robertj21a said:

Good heavens, you really are terribly biased aren't you.

We have no need for us to adopt 'their' standards, we'll be free to adopt whatever standards suit the UK. Inevitably, some will be close to, or identical to, those in the EU, but some standards may prove to be closer to the USA, China, India or Peru (!) - who cares, the issue is what is best for the UK, not which country is our nearest neighbour.

I suppose importing and exporting more with Peru and less across the channel would be more efficient and best for the UK. I'm convinced.

I wonder how we'll ensure that any goods coming across our borders with the EU match or exceed Peruvian, American, Chinese or American standards, though, without border checks...

Same as they do now, advanced certification submission, against audited internal verification processes.

You do realise no one 'checks' each shipment of cars to the US for confirmation of meeting the import standards? They do sampling yes, but the vast majority are self certified.

We do have rather a lot of Border Inspection Posts, and unlike one poster's claims in the last couple of days, moving goods from a port that doesn't have one to one is trivial at worst...

[Eddie Strohacker]

Digga said:

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

ORD said:

Digga said:

1. Greater control over borders.
2. Fewer layers of politicians to pay for and be answerable to (although I always thought politicians were supposed to be answerable to the electorate, but it never quite works out that way).
3. Reduced risk of being dragging into/asked to fund future Euro-based catastrophe

We can still be European, still trade, still play nice and be friendly with the EU, but we're just not in it. You know, like Switzerland.

So, in summary:

(1) Immigration (the one thing posters on here insist was not an issue for them).

(2) Save a few quid on EU politicians.

(3) A probably fair point about uncoupling slightly, but not a huge reduction in risk. If the EU goes under, we are going down too.

Does all that justify a huge reduction in GDP, increase in tax, etc? I really dont see it. I am sorry, but I dont think most of the reasons can be genuine. I think it is almost all about immigration and/or some vague 'control" point that I dont entirely understand (see the poster above who appears to be an anarchist).

But if point 3 means EU-based, then it's just a variant of point 2 (or point 2 is a variant of point 3; either way the point is not paying money to the EU, however it chooses to spend it).

I thought Digga's point 3 might be Euro (the currency) based catastrophe. In which case if we are post Brexit to be the global player that Brexiteers think we will be, I would have thought our London banks will be no less exposed to Euro-based catastrophe than they are now.

Either way, he's still short of a third point

Target2 implosion - very different from previous crises...

Yes, we'll be impacted. However, unlike the period from 2008-now, we won't be on the hook for an uplift in our subscriptions purely because we haven't fked our economy as much as the continent, whilst they've sniped about how incorrect our approach is...

Exactly; when target 2 problems culminate, CoL will do well precisely because we have no ties.

Except not exactly. The UK has no liability for future Eurozone bail outs & has not had any obligation since 2011.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML...

[sidicks]

ORD said:

In short, then, massive risk and uncertain and probably small upside. Not rational decision-making.

No, once again, that’s just your false understanding / misrepresentation. You also fail to accept that staying in is also massively risky / uncertain!

ORD said:

I am afraid that I really do think the big point is immigration and people are unwilling to just state in concrete and clear terms that they dont want much EU immigration. "Control of borders" is a euphemism.

Repeating the same nonsense is nonsense.

ORD said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with being anti-immigration. I think there are coherent reasons to oppose the levels of immigration that we have seen. But people are very shy to talk about it.

No, the majority of people aren’t ‘anti-immigration’. That’s still wrong.

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Except not exactly. The UK has no liability for future Eurozone bail outs & has not had any obligation since 2011.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML...

Except that's not the full picture is it Eddie?

Our membership fees are directly linked to relative performance of our economy compared to the rest of the EU. EZ goes tits up, and by default our fees do, which are then used to help bail out the crashed economies, as the ECB is an EU institution.

[Dr Jekyll]

ORD said:

Does all that justify a huge reduction in GDP, increase in tax, etc? I really dont see it. I am sorry, but I dont think most of the reasons can be genuine. I think it is almost all about immigration and/or some vague 'control" point that I dont entirely understand (see the poster above who appears to be an anarchist).

You are assuming the very point you are supposed to be trying to prove. Why should being able to trade freely with the world at large cause a reduction in GDP?

Even the most pessimistic projections which claim GDP would increase at a lower rate turn out to based on assumptions that the UK would continue EU tariffs to it's own detriment.