I didn't and I'd vote remain again if we could unilaterally repeal Article 50.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I didn't and I'd vote remain again if we could unilaterally repeal Article 50.
I think if we negotiate in good faith rather than trying fling shit at each other, things can get worked out. My ideal scenario would be an FTA that ports alot of EFTA trade and travel provisions, but removes regulatory alignment and final removes European courts as the final appellate courts. We can have a customs agreement with EU without them stipulating who we set tariffs for and who we don't.
It doesn't really benefit the EU to give us a particularly good, generous deal though because it sets a precedent for other countries being able to leave. Might be shite for us, but then we were fully aware of that when we opted to leave.
Sorry but I only see shit and lack of actual options from one side in the negotiations. Hint: it's the ones floundering around about to throw their leader under the bus.
I'll defer to others more knowledgable on this, but your ideal scenario sounds like a paradox fantasy to me. How exactly would that satisfy the "take back control" people? And why would the EU put up with a removal of regulatory alignment and tariff alignment while still giving the benefits of free trade?
Yep, this too.
For some, it's just about 'winning' now, no matter the consequences but you can't just label all leave voters in the same way. Some may have had valid reasons to want to vote that way, some may have been tricked by all the bullshit that flew around at the time.
Were people really aware that it would be sh*te for us though. I think a lot thought it was going to be great for them after leaving. It is very easy to fool some people.
Not sure I can take people like that serious any more in 2018. Respect his military career but he has shown his feathers.
That’s the ideal scenario for the UK alright. You won’t get your ideal scenario, though. That’s not how negotiating works. You’ll have to compromise and settle for a scenario that isn’t ideal. And - almost certainly- is worse than your current scenario. The madness of Brexit in a nutshell.
Indeed.
Also, isn't it funny that whenever someone pro-Brexit is asked to provide a solution to the border issue their response is usually to keep a customs agreement + <all the extra stuff we want that we don't have now>.
I mean, surely, surely they knew when they voted to leave that voting to leave means leaving the customs union? Yet... they want to stay in it in some form.
Almost as if when they voted to leave they didn't really know what it was or the implications? No?
A frictionless border is impossible without CU/SM. The UK are either in or out. If the UK has a border with friction they are in deep trouble. It is not a small country with many border points, it is a relatively large country with few border points which Raab only seemed to realise last week. We're back to the cherry picking trying to take the bits that suit them and not the rest.
The agreement the UK have on the table is the best they're going to get. Then they'll start discussing a FTA agreement after March. If the deal is accepted the UK stay in the SM/CU until it's agreed that they can leave, ie when the NI issue is sorted. So until further notice the four freedoms would still apply and the ECJ. I don't see the UK accepting the withdrawal agreement and don't see the EU wanting to renegotiating it either. Basically two and half years wasted if this offer is not accepted. If the Uk leave with no deal in March there's no transition which should have been used to make progress on the new FTA.
agreed one of the better articles Ive seen on the issue as it does not have too much bluster in it - really does highlight that there isnt a clear way forward though
Has Britain got its Empire back yet?
I don't think it sets any precedent at all. If the EU is as great a project as you all seem to think it is, there is no need to create some kind of forceful deterrent against leaving.
Because they do it all the time with other nations?
Why not? What exactly are the EU losing by that scenario? The UK can't stay in the EU, and a deal which keeps us in the EU in all but name is not going to get any support. So what exactly are the EU aiming to acheive with this that doesn't effectively prove the criticisms tabled about them by Eurosceptics?
The average joe bloggs in the street wouldn’t have known the phrases “customs union” or “single market” never mind hard or soft brexit before they voted. People were led to this outcome. For such a decision with massive repercussions, its really disgusting how it went down
Well, this is Theresa May's (and partly the EU's too) fault IMO. A frictionless border is only impossible if there is no customs arrangement, and for some reason, you seem to think the European Customs Union is the only such arrangement possible. I disagree. If the EU are so eager to set an example of the UK, then I think a no deal scenario might play out in the short term. There are things we can do unilateraly to prevent major changes to the Ireland/NI situation until a comprehensive FTA is agreed.
Not yet - but on the 29th of march we are going to start rounding up Africans to sell to trump and send our gunboats to start shelling china till they agree to sell our opium again.
Mogg is printing the overpriced Make Britian and Empire Again, union jack (MBEA) caps right now
There are still border controls on goods in the Canada FTA I’m afraid. There is an element of regulatory alignment in the Canada deal, but it’s not full alignment, hence border controls remain.
Also, financial services are not included.
That's the next project. They'll demand the Empire back, or else they'll leave the Commonwealth (Comexit).
It's not about a deterrent against leaving, it's about being consequent and not wanting EU members to think that if they leave the EU you can keep all the benefits of being in the EU. Having your cake and eating it...
The EU is far from perfect and as far as I can tell nobody is debating that. However, the whole Brexit debate should have been about whether Britain are better off outside or inside the EU. Clearly Britain will be worse off outside the EU no matter what deal might or might not be struck. The whole Leave referendum campaign was a farce. That fantastic deal the Brexiteers were selling during the referendum campaign was a total fantasy. The British public has been fooled right from the start of the referendum campaign. People like Boris Johnston shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Westminster.
As said before it is not just the CU, also the SM as well. This has nothing to do with setting an example of the UK, there is nothing the UK can do unilaterally. This is international law. If there's no deal it is for the duration, not just short term, until the UK reapply to join the EU but no deal means a border, there's no escape from that.
Also the withdrawal agreement is not the same as a trade agreement.They are entirely separate other than the declaration of what both sides declare what they think the future relationship may look like. Discussions will only start after the UK has left.
I only asked that, now seemingly in vain, as you couldn't seem to grasp the answer of your follow-up question despite quoting it.
They don't want to be reliant on NATO due to the influence USA, and whoever their president may be, has over it and want something in house instead.
I personally think that having a European Army is a bad idea just because of the humongous funding required to keep something like that ticking. At the moment USA foots the bill quite nicely paying almost 3x the amount that the other members so they should stick to being freeloaders from a cost perspective.
You can't have a customs union without regulatory alignment. You think the EU are going to let our unregulated goods into the single market without controls?
Speaking as a manufacturer who sells to the UK and Europe, removing reglatory alignment means more costs to consumers and more bearaucracy, and makes British businesses less competitive. And don't tell me about the wonders of the rest if the world, we already trade with companies in Australia etc. but the distances and differences in culture and market means the volumes are tiny. The USA meanwhile are too protectionist to even sell my product into.
Multiply that across other SMEs in the UK and its a stupid plan.
Speaking as a manufacturer who sells to the UK and Europe, removing reglatory alignment means more costs to consumers and more bearaucracy, and makes British businesses less competitive. And don't tell me about the wonders of the rest if the world, we already trade with companies in Australia etc. but the distances and differences in culture and market means the volumes are tiny. The USA meanwhile are too protectionist to even sell my product into.
Multiply that across other SMEs in the UK and its a stupid plan.
The caps will be made my under aged children in Bangledesh btw.
Sure, read up for what I said was my preferred solution.
Ha, this is patently not true. But I'm starting to feel like we're not going anywhere here. There is no international law that states you can't have agreements not named the European Customs Union, my International Law classes at uni were about four years ago but I'm pretty sure I remember that at least!
Was reading up on the story about Ulster Farmers backing the deal. The DUP response? "You don't know what you're talking about..."
Doesn't quite fit the 'the people are smarter than you think' narrative Brexiteers have been banging on about for the last two years.
Makes sense though. Any farmers in Britain or N.Ireland voting for Brexit were literally voting to fcuk themselves over and have poorer living (never mind the rest of us).
Doesn't quite fit the 'the people are smarter than you think' narrative Brexiteers have been banging on about for the last two years.
Makes sense though. Any farmers in Britain or N.Ireland voting for Brexit were literally voting to fcuk themselves over and have poorer living (never mind the rest of us).
I'm not talking about the EU customs union. I'm talking about the treaty and that under WTO rules the UK has to have a border, both are incompatible. If the UK didn't include NI then there wouldn't be that problem but if the UK were under WTO rules there would be a border.
Although there's a FTA between the EU and Canada, there is a still a border. The border exists on the perimeter of the EU CU.
Any country outside that perimeter will still have a border between them and if the UK leave the EU CU then there will be a border between them and every other country unless they join another CU and there would then be no border between them and the other members of that CU.
Last edited:
well they had better get busy... Im sure we will need millons of caps in time for the brexit festival
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/europe/brexit-festival-intl/index.html
My point exactly. One of them, anyway, out here in the real world away from Have Your Cake and Eat It Land.
This doesn’t make any sense though. The EU is a great project that only works because it’s members contribute in a variety of ways towards the result. You can’t just say you want all the benefits but don’t want to contribute. That’s the only ‘forceful deterrent’ here, that if you leave you’re not going to have all the nice things you had while you were a member.
Yes, all I saw was a picture of a cake.
ahhh reminds me of the good old days of brexit negotiations
Ironically just noticed this in the old article
"The notes appear to suggest that a transitional arrangement - which would allow the UK continued access to the single market after Brexit while it negotiates a new trade deal - is also unlikely."
2 years old and pretty accurate - yup its looking unlikley
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38134859
Last edited:
The irony is people not understanding basic ideas. Like the fact my post has nothing to do with changing people's minds but identifying the folly of their choice and the reasoning behind it. Now there is irony for you.
Indeed.
The truth of the matter is that apart from on trade and employment 99% of the laws that govern a country in the EU are past by that countries parliament. Even immigration we had the right under EU law to deport anybody that doesn't contribute to the economy even if they come from an EU country we just didn't enact that part of the free movement agreement.
When it comes to trade and employment any trade agreement we make with any country with an economy bigger than our's will be subject to conditions that they place upon us. For example the US just insisted that Mexico pay the workers of any company exporting goods to the US a living wage. What ever country or block that we deal with, if they are bigger than us, they will make us agree to things that we don't want to. The one that has been prevalent on this thread is America making us purchase substandard Chlorinated Chicken.
You can't tell me that this level of hatred and vitriol towards the EU across the general population ever existed before 2016. From barely giving a toss the country has now been whipped into a frenzy.
Never trust a Lib Dem, just ask the students.
Maybe a second referendum should be single transferable vote, do you want Brexit with the deal, Brexit without the deal, or Remain?
Assuming the EU are willing to clarify what Remain would entail of course.
Assuming the EU are willing to clarify what Remain would entail of course.
No thatd be too bias towards remain from a polling perspective. You could have a 40 percent vote for remain and 30 each for the leave options and then remain wins despite 60% voting to leave.
Only way it could work would be 2 seperate votes imo, one for leave / remain. Another saying given we choose to leave, would you prefer the deal / no deal