Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
I don't understand what you're saying here. It's all a misunderstanding? There's no freedom of movement within the EU?

Within Schengen there is freedom of movement but it has nothing to do with borders, it's about citizenship rights. Just as an example, a EU resident doesn't have any FOM rights only a EU citizen has that right, that distinction should make it obvious that you have to control your borders to make that difference.

Edit: To caricature FOM within Schengen is like a three months automatic VISA for EU citizens.
 
There is, you just don't understand what it means. Brexiteers in a nutshell :lol:

Labels or terminology are not the issue. What matters is that an EU citizen can get on a train in Eastern Europe and 24 hours later get off a train anywhere in Western Europe. It's the fact that millions of EU citizens avail of that right that causes the problem.

Obfuscation and quibbling about FOM, Schengen etc. are irrelevant.
 
Labels or terminology are not the issue. What matters is that an EU citizen can get on a train in Eastern Europe and 24 hours later get off a train anywhere in Western Europe. It's the fact that millions of EU citizens avail of that right that causes the problem.

Obfuscation and quibbling about FOM, Schengen etc. are irrelevant.
So you want Visas again? That will be fun.
I don't want to spoil it for you, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Visa_exemptions
Everyone on a country either green or blue on that map can do that...
 
Labels or terminology are not the issue. What matters is that an EU citizen can get on a train in Eastern Europe and 24 hours later get off a train anywhere in Western Europe. It's the fact that millions of EU citizens avail of that right that causes the problem.

Obfuscation and quibbling about FOM, Schengen etc. are irrelevant.
OMG.
 
Why is the Schengen agreement even brought up that much in relation to the Brexit? Great Britain (and Ireland) were never part of it and reserved themselves the right to control their borders as they see fit. You wanna know what terrible consequences they suffered by not signing it? None. So much for the EU forcing GB under it´s dictatorship...
 
Why is the Schengen agreement even brought up that much in relation to the Brexit? Great Britain (and Ireland) were never part of it and reserved themselves the right to control their borders as they see fit. You wanna know what terrible consequences they suffered by not signing it? None. So much for the EU forcing GB under it´s dictatorship...
People either don't care enough, or don't have enough time to find the difference. Which is why politicians often tell half truths, give a misrepresentation of the situation or outright lie without it jeopardizing their jobs. The Schengen agreement is brought up to imply it's the same thing as freedom of movement and to imply that the EU controls nations borders and to make false promises about halting immigration. It, alongside arguments such as "different cultures" or "drain on society" are used to make (usually stupid) people feel superior to others and vote for regressive parties that make false promises. It's the reason why if you question these people about policy details they will be incapable of giving a coherent answer.
 
Freedom of movement =/= border control.

Also, the people which voted for Brexit are way to stupid to gasp that the UK was one of the countries which profitted the most from FOM....

Firstly I wouldn't be making points about how stupid people are until I could spell grasp and profited correctly in the sentence I accused them of being stupid in, that is for sure and I think it is who not which.

I don't care if we agree to continue with FOM post Brexit.

I don't care if we decide not to try to reduce the migration figures post Brexit either. Nor do I think such an effort would be very successful in its aim if we did.

I do think that it is the role of the nation state to decide how it tries to deal with the issue if it wishes to.

On the FOM point the remoaners are going to have to make up their minds about how important this principle and the rights instilled are.

If FOM is such a non issue then why would the EU be bothered about the UK trying to remove it? Why during the negotiations pre referendum did the EU countries not just say to Cameron of course you can suspend it for as long you want it is such a meaningless rule? Why would tariff free access to the single market be dependent on keeping it?

If you guys are correct I'm heartened that the negotiations on access will be easy as the removal of such a pesky little inconsequential rule would never be allowed to turn into a major obstacle compared to important matters like trade.
 
I don't understand what you're saying here. It's all a misunderstanding? There's no freedom of movement within the EU?

It is a misunderstanding of the terms of the debate in the UK.


FOM, Freedom of Movement is a short handed term for a long list of rights given to people in qualifying EU member states. Rather than list them all the tendency is to say Freedom of movement and everyone knows that you mean, rights to residency and to come and search for work etc.
 
Firstly I wouldn't be making points about how stupid people are until I could spell grasp and profited correctly in the sentence I accused them of being stupid in, that is for sure and I think it is who not which.

I don't care if we agree to continue with FOM post Brexit.

I don't care if we decide not to try to reduce the migration figures post Brexit either. Nor do I think such an effort would be very successful in its aim if we did.

I do think that it is the role of the nation state to decide how it tries to deal with the issue if it wishes to.

On the FOM point the remoaners are going to have to make up their minds about how important this principle and the rights instilled are.

If FOM is such a non issue then why would the EU be bothered about the UK trying to remove it? Why during the negotiations pre referendum did the EU countries not just say to Cameron of course you can suspend it for as long you want it is such a meaningless rule? Why would tariff free access to the single market be dependent on keeping it?

If you guys are correct I'm heartened that the negotiations on access will be easy as the removal of such a pesky little inconsequential rule would never be allowed to turn into a major obstacle compared to important matters like trade.

If you sign a contract you abide to it. If terms change then the contract needs to be renegotiated from scratch. The uk doesnt want fom which is fair enough. There again it must expect restrictions to the single market

I find it hilarious that british people cant understand that considering how obsessive they are in putting everything under contract. The last time i rented i had to agree under contract not to put a nail on the wall without the owner consent or else i risk being thrown out. I bet thats far less important then fom
 
Last edited:
If you sign a contract you abide to it. If terms change then the contract needs to be renegotiated from scratch. The uk doesnt want fom which is fair enough. There again it must expect restrictions to the single market

I find it hilarious that british people cant understand that considering how obsessive they are in putting everything under contract. The last time i rented i had to agree under contract not to put a nail on the wall without the owner consent or else i risk being thrown out. I bet thats far less important then fom

If everything you get from the contract is given freely to other parties without the FOM clause you would be mad to stay in the contract though wouldn't you if you disagreed with FOM clause.
 
If everything you get from the contract is given freely to other parties without the FOM clause you would be mad to stay in the contract though wouldn't you if you disagreed with FOM clause.

What do you mean by given freely to other parties?
 
If everything you get from the contract is given freely to other parties without the FOM clause you would be mad to stay in the contract though wouldn't you if you disagreed with FOM clause.

Which country is given unrestricted access to the single market without fom?
 
Which country is given unrestricted access to the single market without fom?

I could be wrong but people think about the CETA, there haven't been a lot of noise concerning FOM but that's because it was never a problem since it's already existent. I also think that people see fom has a right to reside in a country when it's just a right to move, you still need to register and abide to national rules to become a resident.
 
I could be wrong but people think about the CETA, there haven't been a lot of noise concerning FOM but that's because it was never a problem since it's already existent. I also think that people see fom has a right to reside in a country when it's just a right to move, you still need to register and abide to national rules to become a resident.

Well ceta is far from being unrestricted access to the single market

https://capx.co/the-canada-eu-trade-deal-is-no-model-for-brexit/
 
I'm pretty sure international treaties are not covered by contract law.

International treaties are far more complex. Changing international treaties are so complex than only an idiot would attempt that unless hes under heavy duress
 
I know and there are no visa and they lifted the visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania, there is a freedom to travel.

Canada wont have banking passporting either + tariffs will still apply on key farming areas
 
I'm pretty sure international treaties are not covered by contract law.

Treaties are laws, in the hierarchy they are between Constitutions and organic laws(laws that apply to the administration).
 
What heavy duress were the eu under for expansion? Or were they idiots?

Expansions don't modify the treaties and on the members can expand it, when you use "the EU" and "they" you kind of imply that it's not the action of the members. The institution that we call EU doesn't have the power of expansion.

If the UK was against the expansion, they could have done something about it.
 
Well ceta is far from being unrestricted access to the single market

https://capx.co/the-canada-eu-trade-deal-is-no-model-for-brexit/

No it isn't but it does remove most of the tariff barriers. Which at least dispels the often made point that we are going to see huge tariffs introduced when we leave the EU.

The non tariff barriers work both ways and we have never seen a trade deal made between two parties who have the exact same standards before and existing trade as large and beneficial to both parties as we are about to see with the UK and the EU over the next 2 years or so.

So the EU is going to have to make its mind up about whether you believe in free trade deals which remove barriers and create wealth and increase living standards or not. Post Brexit the UK will not be the ones looking to put in place barriers on trade between the UK and the EU even though our balance of trade is in deficit.

The larger point in the article you posted is that the EU doesn't really do free trade deals it just finds different forms of protectionism. You might think that is a good thing but it contradicts the whole ethos of the free market.Why have one at all if you believe protectionism is the way forward and if free trade is your prefered ethos then why the protectionism in deals with countries outside the EU?

Either way Britain will be free to make its own deals with the whole of the rest of the world starting soon.
 
Either way Britain will be free to make its own deals with the whole of the rest of the world starting soon.

Probably very shitty deals to get them done as quickly as possible I imagine...
Ip... yeah dont worry about that China we are cool
Privatise the NHS... whatever you say Mr trump.
Increased visa numbers... you got it India
Etc etc
 
Firstly I wouldn't be making points about how stupid people are until I could spell grasp and profited correctly in the sentence I accused them of being stupid in, that is for sure and I think it is who not which.

I don't care if we agree to continue with FOM post Brexit.

I don't care if we decide not to try to reduce the migration figures post Brexit either. Nor do I think such an effort would be very successful in its aim if we did.

I do think that it is the role of the nation state to decide how it tries to deal with the issue if it wishes to.

On the FOM point the remoaners are going to have to make up their minds about how important this principle and the rights instilled are.

If FOM is such a non issue then why would the EU be bothered about the UK trying to remove it? Why during the negotiations pre referendum did the EU countries not just say to Cameron of course you can suspend it for as long you want it is such a meaningless rule? Why would tariff free access to the single market be dependent on keeping it?

If you guys are correct I'm heartened that the negotiations on access will be easy as the removal of such a pesky little inconsequential rule would never be allowed to turn into a major obstacle compared to important matters like trade.

The second you write me a grammatically correct essay in German on a cellphone with English autocorrect, we can talk about the first sentence again.
What a sad way to attack a poster here.

And it's not a non issue, it's one of the fundamentals the free market in Europe is based on. It is a non issue for GB though and always was, because the country profited from it enormously. London as a financial powerhouse was so attractive to the world because there, you could employ both commonwealth and EU citizens with ease, it was one of the key advantages of Great Britian. This might change now and as you might have noticed, the banks have voiced their concerns (and plans) pretty clearly.

Why would it be dependent on keeping it? Because it's one of the 4 principial colums of the single market. The second you start giving out deals like that, it would be very damaging to the EU. Also, let's not forget here, the EU is far less dependent on GB than GB is on the EU. People tend to forget that. The second the UK decided to leave the EU, it suddenly became a very small fish trade wise.
 
No it isn't but it does remove most of the tariff barriers. Which at least dispels the often made point that we are going to see huge tariffs introduced when we leave the EU.

The non tariff barriers work both ways and we have never seen a trade deal made between two parties who have the exact same standards before and existing trade as large and beneficial to both parties as we are about to see with the UK and the EU over the next 2 years or so.

So the EU is going to have to make its mind up about whether you believe in free trade deals which remove barriers and create wealth and increase living standards or not. Post Brexit the UK will not be the ones looking to put in place barriers on trade between the UK and the EU even though our balance of trade is in deficit.

The larger point in the article you posted is that the EU doesn't really do free trade deals it just finds different forms of protectionism. You might think that is a good thing but it contradicts the whole ethos of the free market.Why have one at all if you believe protectionism is the way forward and if free trade is your prefered ethos then why the protectionism in deals with countries outside the EU?

Either way Britain will be free to make its own deals with the whole of the rest of the world starting soon.

Well, not really. On paper there's barely any difference between 98% and 100% of tariffs. But when you go to the nitty gritty of stuff you'll notice that there's a big difference

a- 25% of tariffs are already redundant. That's because the tariffs are so low than it doesn't really make a difference
b- Sensitive products are still under heavy tariffs (ex farming)
c- Harmonisation of rules is key. The EU might change the rules or state that the UK standards aren't up to the EU standards banning their products altogether.

Not to forget that CETA does not give Canada any financial passporting at all. Therefore it is nowhere near to an equivalent to unrestricted access to the single market.

Regarding who will be hurt the most, 13% of the UK GDP depends on the single market as opposed to just measly 3% of the EU GPD depends on the UK market. In matter of fact a looping 44% of UK exports go to the single market. Therefore its pretty evident whose got the shorter side of the stick.

Leavers love to remind people of how the UK will make free trade deals with the other countries. Its seems there's a free trade deal waiting to be signed with New Zealand. There again, these trade deals will never mimic what the single market give the UK, for two simple reasons

a- the distance between the EU countries and the UK is relatively short. For most UK products (ie those who are relatively cheap and the profit margin is small) a trade deal with a country at the other side of the world is meaningless because transportation costs will eat up most of the profit

b- unrestricted access to the single market allowed Europe's manufacturing system to become integrated with one another.For example a car can be assembled in a UK plant, with parts coming from Poland. who had been previously assembled in Romania using German expertise. That is something you can't mimic with New Zealand and Rest assured that its something EU politicians will make sure to include that among the 2% tariff list. I mean its in their interest to force UK based companies to move to Europe.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, Nafta, Asean, Union of South American countries, African union....these are all attempts meant to unite neighbouring regions and countries and build an integrated economy because in unity there's strength. Brexit defies logic. Its isolating a country in a world which is ganging up in regions. I've yet to think of one country who wants to burn bridges with the continent it is in. Not even the US had done that.

Giving the UK a soft Brexit would encourage other countries to leave the EU and would act as an incentive for the big guns (China or the US) to expect more out of any possible trade deal from the EU. After all the UK is a non EU member just as they are and if they can have the cake and eat it so can others. That's something the EU can't accept.

Ah and I almost forgot. Canada is a European ally. Not giving them a good deal would be translated to giving a big slap to a friend. Can you say the same about the UK? Especially after they managed to insult most of the EU countries and blaming most of their ills on their citizens
 
Leavers love to remind people of how the UK will make free trade deals with the other countries. Its seems there's a free trade deal waiting to be signed with New Zealand. There again, these trade deals will never mimic what the single market give the UK, for two simple reasons

a- the distance between the EU countries and the UK is relatively short. For most UK products (ie those who are relatively cheap and the profit margin is small) a trade deal with a country at the other side of the world is meaningless because transportation costs will eat up most of the profit

New Zealand appear eager to have a trade deal but official negotiations on a deal can only start when the UK have left, in the meantime the Uk will be taking part negotiating a deal on behalf of the EU with NZ. Australia seem keen as well.
Of course they're expecting freedom of movement, well at least they speak English. Swapping a consumer base of 450m for 4.5m in NZ seems good.

Have shipped to NZ and Australia, more so Australia, the Uk think the EU have standards to abide by, well welcome to Australia. Shipping times get longer all the time because of all the trans-shipments as transportation costs get more expensive
 
The second you write me a grammatically correct essay in German on a cellphone with English autocorrect, we can talk about the first sentence again.
What a sad way to attack a poster here.

The correct relative pronoun is which, so you were right, his punctuation isn't up to much either, made me chuckle.
 
Banks had to be bailed out all over Europe, not sure why you mention the eu


Still are being but that its all the UK's fault I bet.


Well, not really. On paper there's barely any difference between 98% and 100% of tariffs. But when you go to the nitty gritty of stuff you'll notice that there's a big difference

a- 25% of tariffs are already redundant. That's because the tariffs are so low than it doesn't really make a difference
b- Sensitive products are still under heavy tariffs (ex farming)
c- Harmonisation of rules is key. The EU might change the rules or state that the UK standards aren't up to the EU standards banning their products altogether.

Not to forget that CETA does not give Canada any financial passporting at all. Therefore it is nowhere near to an equivalent to unrestricted access to the single market.

Regarding who will be hurt the most, 13% of the UK GDP depends on the single market as opposed to just measly 3% of the EU GPD depends on the UK market. In matter of fact a looping 44% of UK exports go to the single market. Therefore its pretty evident whose got the shorter side of the stick.

Leavers love to remind people of how the UK will make free trade deals with the other countries. Its seems there's a free trade deal waiting to be signed with New Zealand. There again, these trade deals will never mimic what the single market give the UK, for two simple reasons

a- the distance between the EU countries and the UK is relatively short. For most UK products (ie those who are relatively cheap and the profit margin is small) a trade deal with a country at the other side of the world is meaningless because transportation costs will eat up most of the profit

b- unrestricted access to the single market allowed Europe's manufacturing system to become integrated with one another.For example a car can be assembled in a UK plant, with parts coming from Poland. who had been previously assembled in Romania using German expertise. That is something you can't mimic with New Zealand and Rest assured that its something EU politicians will make sure to include that among the 2% tariff list. I mean its in their interest to force UK based companies to move to Europe.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, Nafta, Asean, Union of South American countries, African union....these are all attempts meant to unite neighbouring regions and countries and build an integrated economy because in unity there's strength. Brexit defies logic. Its isolating a country in a world which is ganging up in regions. I've yet to think of one country who wants to burn bridges with the continent it is in. Not even the US had done that.

Giving the UK a soft Brexit would encourage other countries to leave the EU and would act as an incentive for the big guns (China or the US) to expect more out of any possible trade deal from the EU. After all the UK is a non EU member just as they are and if they can have the cake and eat it so can others. That's something the EU can't accept.

Ah and I almost forgot. Canada is a European ally. Not giving them a good deal would be translated to giving a big slap to a friend. Can you say the same about the UK? Especially after they managed to insult most of the EU countries and blaming most of their ills on their citizens


1,They could do that and the UK will reciprocate replacing exports to the EU with domestic alternatives for goods and services currently imported from the EU or cheaper alternatives from the rest of the world. 3% of the EU GDP is more than 13 percent of the UK GDP and of course we have a 68 billion in trade deficit extra to have a go at once the EU bans us. We can also save 8 billion a year in direct contributions.

You really think the EU will actually proposes this?

2,Well we are putting troops into Estonia as part of NATO so I guess the EU wants us to be, whether we remain so will depend on the EU and its stance over the next two years. It is going to be interesting to see whether they are actually as big a set of dicks as farage says they are and you assume them to be or whether now the vote is done common sense prevails.
 
1,They could do that and the UK will reciprocate replacing exports to the EU with domestic alternatives for goods and services currently imported from the EU or cheaper alternatives from the rest of the world

If it was cheaper elsewhere we'd already be using it. The only alternatives will be higher priced, so hurting those who the Brexiters pretend to give a shit about, the working class
 
1,They could do that and the UK will reciprocate replacing exports to the EU with domestic alternatives for goods and services currently imported from the EU or cheaper alternatives from the rest of the world. 3% of the EU GDP is more than 13 percent of the UK GDP and of course we have a 68 billion in trade deficit extra to have a go at once the EU bans us. We can also save 8 billion a year in direct contributions.

You really think the EU will actually proposes this?

2,Well we are putting troops into Estonia as part of NATO so I guess the EU wants us to be, whether we remain so will depend on the EU and its stance over the next two years. It is going to be interesting to see whether they are actually as big a set of dicks as farage says they are and you assume them to be or whether now the vote is done common sense prevails.

They probably will for a wide variety of reasons

a- For most EU countries the trade with the UK is negligible to virtually non existent. Some value FOM more then that trade while others will be salivating at the prospect of UK based businesses having to move to Europe while some might have an antipathy towards the UK. The UK politicians hasn't covered themselves in glory in the way it treated European countries and citizens. The temptation for getting some payback can't be taken out of the equation

b- As said, if the EU gives in to the UK then it paves the way for other countries to leave the union and it will increase the demands from the big guns who are also out of the EU (ie China, US etc). They will be wondering why the EU isn't giving them a similar deal and will be expecting a similar deal soon

c- The UK will still have to buy most of it products from the EU due to economy of scale and transportation costs.

Its not impossible to isolate 1 country however no country had ever managed to live completely cut out of the continent. As said 13% of the GDP is no joke
 
If it was cheaper elsewhere we'd already be using it. The only alternatives will be higher priced, so hurting those who the Brexiters pretend to give a shit about, the working class

Well thats not true, trade agreements are partly there to stop you importing cheaper stuff from outside of the agreement countries. There are cheaper options everywhere outside of the eu trade agreement.
 
Well thats not true, trade agreements are partly there to stop you importing cheaper stuff from outside of the agreement countries. There are cheaper options everywhere outside of the eu trade agreement.

What the..?
Have you ever tried to inform yourself how a market economy works? Or how GB trade works, how the EU works?
There is no part in the free market agreement which says "you have to buy stuff from the EU even if it is cheaper elsewhere".
That just a seriously dumb statement.
As @Mozza said, where there is something cheaper outside of the EU, it is already bought/used.
So in any case, even if there are only small tariffs, GB will lose. There is absolutely no denying that.
 
Talk about a special deal to accomodate the City. Well, that's the future of Boris and his pals sorted out.
 
They probably will for a wide variety of reasons

a- For most EU countries the trade with the UK is negligible to virtually non existent. Some value FOM more then that trade while others will be salivating at the prospect of UK based businesses having to move to Europe while some might have an antipathy towards the UK. The UK politicians hasn't covered themselves in glory in the way it treated European countries and citizens. The temptation for getting some payback can't be taken out of the equation

b- As said, if the EU gives in to the UK then it paves the way for other countries to leave the union and it will increase the demands from the big guns who are also out of the EU (ie China, US etc). They will be wondering why the EU isn't giving them a similar deal and will be expecting a similar deal soon

c- The UK will still have to buy most of it products from the EU due to economy of scale and transportation costs.

Its not impossible to isolate 1 country however no country had ever managed to live completely cut out of the continent. As said 13% of the GDP is no joke

Your argument falls down in the first sentence.
 
Your argument falls down in the first sentence.

Do you think that the all 27 countries depend heavily on the uk market? Even the German chief of industry is saying that it wouldnt be such a tragedy if a hard brexit occurs and you make a big chunk of your business with them
 
Do you think that the all 27 countries depend heavily on the uk market? Even the German chief of industry is saying that it wouldnt be such a tragedy if a hard brexit occurs and you make a big chunk of your business with them

They all depend on their ability to export to the UK, by varying degrees. Hard Brexit would hurt Germany.