So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woody2]

1 hour ago, pongo said:

Britain did not vote on that govt’s interpretation of what Brexit means. It voted only to leave the EU.That was the only question asked. Nothing else.

It can mean practically anything. 

dear remoaner,

it was very clearly stated that the vote was to leave the eu, the single market and the customs union

signed

winner

[Lost Login]

7 hours ago, woody2 said:

it is not upto remoaners to go against the will of the people for political gain, mp's that disregard the voters that put them there should not stand again, parliament asked the people and now should get on with the job......

So you are against parliamentary democracy then as MP's are voted in at General Elections and it is then up to the elected MP's to make decisions and to stand or fall by those decisions. You expect that MPs should blindly follow what voters want. If that is the case then there is no real point in the UK having elected politicians.

Whilst the UK is a parliamentary democracy it should be down to MPs make decisions and to do what they believe is right. That is the basis on which they have been elected. An advisory referendum, which ever way it came down, should not usurp the decision making off elected members of parliament.

If you believe that the view of majority should be followed then presumably you accept Donald Trump should be following the policies of Hilary Clinton as she won the popular vote. 

[pongo]

7 minutes ago, woody2 said:

it was very clearly stated that the vote was to leave the eu, the single market and the customs union

The referendum question however did not ask that. Look - no mention of the things you imagine Britain was really voting for. It's all in your head:

And more importantly your literalist position is silly and meaningless. Since Britain could perfectly well leave all 3 yet simultaneously sign up for more or less the same under any other name.

[Lost Login]

7 hours ago, mojomonkey said:

I do agree that the MPs should get on with Brexit, if that's what the majority wanted then that's what should happen. The problem is obviously that MPs, Government and Civil Service didn't have a clue what Brexit entails.

Elected members of parliament should make decisions on the basis of the information that is put before them. That is why they are elected and that is why presently the UK has a parliamentary democracy.

If they just followed what the majority wanted then the UK would presumably have a much worse deficit as the majority if asked would probably be in favour of lower taxes, no tax and duty on petrol and alcohol, etc.  I accept that elected representatives should take into consideration the views of the people but they also have to consider other information and facts that they have to hand 

[Lost Login]

23 minutes ago, woody2 said:

dear remoaner,

it was very clearly stated that the vote was to leave the eu, the single market and the customs union

signed

winner

No it did not. There was no vote about the single market or the customs union. As part of Brexit the UK Government could decide that having left the EU it would formally sign up to remain part of the single market or the customs union, pay a large amount for the privilege, accept the jurisdiction of the EU courts etc and still it would be complying with the outcome of the referendum. I appreciate that is unlikely to be the case but any anything from leaving the EU with no agreements and being totally isolationist to leaving and having basically identical rules to the present but just not formally being part of the EU would meet the outcome of the referendum.

At the time of the election I had no idea if leaving the EU would be a good idea or not as simply neither side honestly set out the facts etc. One side spread fear, the other fantasy.

I still have no real idea if it might be good for the UK in the medium or long term as 18 months in there is still no clear indication of what the position will be post the EU leaving. The UK are still hoping for a "deep and special relationship" Does that translate as being totally shafted? How the average man in the street can have a clue about whether economically leaving the EU will be good or bad for the UK when the UK Govt still have no idea of what will be in place post Brexit I have no idea.  The problem with project fantasy is that the definition fantasy is "the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things". Eighteen months on it seems no more likely that the promised impossible or improbable things will result from Brexit. For the sake of the UK I hope they do.   

[woody2]

before the referendum both sides stated that the vote was to leave the eu, the single market and the customs union-fact

bbcdp even has a little clip of them stating it

#sorelosers

[Lost Login]

13 hours ago, woody2 said:

before the referendum both sides stated that the vote was to leave the eu, the single market and the customs union-fact

bbcdp even has a little clip of them stating it

#sorelosers

Project fantasy also said that leaving the single market and customs union wold almost have no effect as the EU would be so desperate to trade with the UK that the UK would be able to continue to have single market access and be part of the customs union.

The general argument of Project Fantasy was that if the UK voted leave the UK would gain control over borders, stop having to pay the EU and be able to enter beneficial agreements with other countries but otherwise such was the importance of the UK to the EU everything else would remain the same. If that could be achieved that would an absolutely brilliant outcome.

Project Fear on the other hand appeared to argue that if the UK voted leave everything would fall of the cliff. Neither positions were especially truthful.

Do I think the referendum should be re-run. No or certainly not at this stage but if it becomes clear that the UK Govt can not achieve an agreement that in the main loses the bad parts of the EU and retains the good then I think it maybe appropriate to put the proposed final agreement to the vote as the voters are a lot more informed now and will have many more facts available to them. It seems odd that a matter should not be reconsidered once substantial new information becomes available. It may still result in Brexit as now the UK has stated it is leaving if it wanted to re-join it would do so having lost the concessions negotiated in the past e.g. the rebate, but the voters would at least be making a much more informed decision.

That leavers are not confident that the UK voters would still vote to leave is evident in their refusal to consider an further vote on the matter. If they were confident of the same or similar outcome they would not care. Ultimately what is required as soon as possible is it to be set out what the future relationship will be. The EU have been clear in that they state in will be either the Canadian or Norway model unless neither is signed up to. The UK are still waffling about negotiating a deep and special agreement. Once we know in broad terms what the relationship will be going forward then I will have a better view on whether Brexit is a good idea. Leaving on WTO terms I don't think is, getting something close to that promised by Project Fantasy would be. Where the UK end up on that line I have no idea.

[woody2]

eu trade makes up next to nothing of uk gdp, trade would continue anyway...

germany has already said it wants a free trade agreement with the uk

its game over for the remoans........

[pongo]

The UK currently does business with the rest of the world as part of the EU. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lesser deals and agreements covering specific aspects are going to need to be negotiated internationally. One country at a time. Insurance, for example. Individually renegotiating 40 years of agreements will take years and will cost a fortune. Even to identify all of the agreements which will be needed per industry, per country.

Edited December 31, 2017 by pongo

[woody2]

9 minutes ago, pongo said:

The UK currently does business with the rest of the world as part of the EU. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lesser deals and agreements covering specific aspects are going to need to be negotiated internationally. One country at a time. Insurance, for example. Individually renegotiating 40 years of agreements will take years and will cost a fortune. Even to identify all of the agreements which will be needed per industry, per country.

and the eu themselves want these "quotas" to continue until the uk can do its own deals

the last thing the eu wants is the uk buying more from outside the eu....

more fake fabrication......

next......

[Manximus Aururaneus]

30 minutes ago, pongo said:

The UK currently does business with the rest of the world as part of the EU. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lesser deals and agreements covering specific aspects are going to need to be negotiated internationally. One country at a time. Insurance, for example. Individually renegotiating 40 years of agreements will take years and will cost a fortune. Even to identify all of the agreements which will be needed per industry, per country.

That is so exciting!

Thousands of deals to be negotiated internationally - yum, yum. Years and years of gainful employment for young people who want to learn to be entrepreneurial again. International travel, languages to be learned, business terminology to be mastered, commercial law to be digested, deals to be struck, hands to be shook, profits to be made.

Eyes lifted to new horizons along China's new silk road rather than Junkers Junk shop. Universities teaching commercial Mandarin as an alternative to Ancient Greek. Gradually moving our economy into expanding Asia instead of contracting Europe. 

A new 'Sonya' (RIP) to take over the Bull & Bear pub now that it has re-located from Central Hong Kong to Wan Chai. 2% on every roll of silk that exits China in return for turning a blind eye to the Opium. Expansion not contraction, Optimism not Pessimism.

Oh, how refreshing! 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Manximus Aururaneus

[pongo]

@Manximus Aururaneus

That all sounds very happy clappy and unrealistic TBH. More likely a huge shortage of Civil Servants and expensive lawyers. Just to get back to where Britain is today.

And this is not simply about trade agreements. It’s about technicals. 

22 minutes ago, woody2 said:

and the eu themselves want these "quotas" to continue until the uk can do its own deals

Not sure why you are focused on quotas since this is often simply about technical and legal agreements. But how could the UK continue to be covered by EU agreements with other countries unless as part of the EU? For decades. The agreements would all need re writing to say “and UK”.

And where those agreements specifically relate to trade it makes no difference what the EU wants. Those other countries will, in some cases at least, want a better deal from the UK. A negotiation at least. It is simplistic to believe otherwise. Even Liam Fox (even Liam Fox - the most simplistic of optimistic happy clappers) has had to concede this.

Edited December 31, 2017 by pongo

[woody2]

that is what the eu has proposed we will know more at the end of march....

tesco boss during the lettucegate affair was rather surprised that importing salad from california was cheaper even with the eu tariffs on imports than the rip-off single market.....

 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

1 hour ago, pongo said:

@Manximus Aururaneus

That all sounds very happy clappy and unrealistic TBH. More likely a huge shortage of Civil Servants and expensive lawyers. Just to get back to where Britain is today.

And this is not simply about trade agreements. It’s about technicals. 

 

Actually, it's not about either trade agreements or technicals - it's about the future of our Country.

It's about the example we want to set our youngsters - do we want them to be enthusiastic, hopeful, willing to learn, pround of their country and subsequently proud of what they have achieved for themselves and each other. Do we want them to be outward looking, adventurous, willing to calculate, minimise, but then accept risk - but then benefit from the rewards?

Or do we want them to think that the earth consists only of a flat European plain, ruled by unelected, un-sackable bureaucrats, and if you dare to venture beyond Poland or Greece you will fall outside of their jurisdiction and hence fall off the end of the earth. There are 195 countries in the world - there are even 50 countries in Europe alone. You give far more weight to the EU than it can possibly warrant - 27 countries (over half of whom are barely financially viable) is not the power block that you make it out to be - you have been duped by unelected bureaucrats.

If you personally are unable to see beyond the tactical, then leave the strategic to others - but either way stop moaning and scare-mongering and either come up with some positives or at least have the good grace to step aside and let others get on with it.

Along with Blair, Mandelson, Clegg and the Kinnocks you have made your point - you don't like the result and wish it had been different - but it wasn't, and you add nothing to the debate about our future by harking back to the bureaucratic past.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Manximus Aururaneus

[Barrie Stevens]

How curious. All these people in a territory that is not in the EU pontificating?

Where I live we can see 24/7 the depth of our EU involvement what with the busy ports of Felixstowe, Harwich, Ipswich and even Colchester, Tilbury, the Thames gateway and of course the Tunnel.

It is a 24/7 never ending stream of foreign vehicles and the trains going by all of the time loaded with foreign containers.

Much of this is direct trade but even more has been transhipped from the major Continental EU ports. 

And herein lies the nub. The Single Market is not about "boxes" and "goods" it is about regulation and compliance of a uniform nature facilitating this cross border trade as if the borders were not there. It is not yet complete. Part of it is the passporting of financial, legal and commercial services which it seems the City will lose to some unknown degree.

Consequently, whatever trade deals the UK has with other non-EU countries there will remain the issue of those countries' agreements with the EU. Partly due to transhipment the trade deals must be back to back for goods and services entering the UK from the EU via elsewhere. Likewise, back to back arrangements for such as leaves the UK for the EU and which originated from outside of the EU.

Therefore I can see that at the end of the day and after an interim period the UK and IOM will end up with an arrangement much the same as now although not an EU member so we will not be part of any future Federation. That I think is a good thing as Federation would not suit us. We are not Continentals by nature and Gen de Gaulle always said "Non!" to us as he knew we would not fit in.

I fear that at the end of the day we will have caused all of this disruption and doubt for very little change other than of course pride. "We are not in the EU!"

We also have blue passports back but we did not have to comply anyway and from what I read the USA will dictate the style and digital content of the passports if we wish to keep our present privilege of not needing to obtain a visa from the Embassy as before.