Brexit delayed

[Sandydragon]

Monumentally. I voted to remain, but I was badly torn as I have little love for the eu. I do think that we can be successful outside of the eu, but the lack of planning is a total disgrace. Cameron seems to have thought that the remain vote winning was a certainty. It is frankly irresponsible government not to plan for the what ifs. The longer we wait citing lack of skilled people and so forth the more incompetent we look.

Theoretically possible, but it definitely makes things extremely difficult, since now the UK has a high possibility of tariffs imposed on them by 8 of their top 10 trading partners, who are part of a massive trading bloc that makes up the single largest chunk of UK's foreign trade, who have basically flatly rejected any moves prior to Article 50 negotiations by the UK to sound out a possibility to be a non-member trading partner like Norway, who still have EU laws imposed upon them anyway, with no say in how said they are shaped - not to mention having to pay a membership fee.
Yeah, they've made it work and they're doing OK for themselves (for now, based on their oil and fishery industries), but it doesn't change the fact that they're still in a less advantageous position when trading with the EU. That's not to mention that the EU leadership has basically told them to get on with it already, and appear to be in an example-making mood, and have outright stated that the migration rules will remain as long as the UK wants to trade with the EU - which makes a mockery of the particularly xenophobic comments made by Brexiters doesn't it?

Xenophobia aside, I think I time, the U.K. Could be successful on its own. The reason I voted to remain was because I didn't think that the eventual success would be worth the intervening aggro caused by Brexit.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Monumentally. I voted to remain, but I was badly torn as I have little love for the eu. I do think that we can be successful outside of the eu, but the lack of planning is a total disgrace. Cameron seems to have thought that the remain vote winning was a certainty. It is frankly irresponsible government not to plan for the what ifs. The longer we wait citing lack of skilled people and so forth the more incompetent we look.

This is arrant nonsense. Which version of Brexit should they have prepared for? How exactly do you think it would look if the government had suddenly hired a shitload of trade negotiators at enormous expense before the vote? You really need to stop believing what the Mail tells you.

So how badly do you reckon this is going to get fucked up?

It already is.

Strangely, I don't read the mail.

Are you suggesting that the government should have basically not bothered with any prior planning on how to implement Brexit? That is arrant nonsense. At the best least, establish a department to take the issue forward and determine how to staff it. The details of Brexit can be worked out later.

Let me get this straight. You are suggest that they should have had a department of state dedicated to leaving the EU before the public decided to leave the EU? Are you serious? When do you say they should have deployed this masterstroke? On announcing the referendum? "Citizens of the UK we don't think you should leave the EU, there's no possible way we can know exactly what form of Brexit you might vote for or indeed that the EU will let us have, but we thought that this would be a good time to piss a shitload of money up the wall on preparing for these unknowable things that no two people agree about anyway. Cheers all"

They did the preparation they needed to. They prepared for the shitstorm in the financial markets and the immediate problems of the vote. It was not possible or sensible to prepare for anything else.

[Sandydragon]

Monumentally. I voted to remain, but I was badly torn as I have little love for the eu. I do think that we can be successful outside of the eu, but the lack of planning is a total disgrace. Cameron seems to have thought that the remain vote winning was a certainty. It is frankly irresponsible government not to plan for the what ifs. The longer we wait citing lack of skilled people and so forth the more incompetent we look.

I'm a bit split on the EU, there's a lot I like and admire about it, there are some annoying aspects of overreach, and there's some worse than annying aspects, but I'd have chosen to stay and seek reform. On the lack of action from the government I'd broadly say there should have been a lot more work done by the vote leave camp to set out what would be done and when, and what the actual aims of a leave vote were, as was they were able to suggest to the myriad leave positions they'd all get what they wanted which is palpably a nonsense and possibly a dangerous one. However with nothing but an ill defined pipe dream people did vote to leave and it is now clear the government has been caught on the hop, whether anyone can make hem pay for that at the next election is somewhat debatable, worryingly so even, but it's far from adequate let alone impressive.

The leavers should have poised a vision, and potentially a process. But for them, winning hate referendum seemed to be the end goal, the mechanics thereafter were just a blur. The government should have had a loan to keep markets and partners calm, as much as possible, by looking in control. Something like, we had considered this option. Here is the Brexit department that will coordinate t efforts and it wil,be staffed as follows. Here is the highly experienced civil servant who,will lead it. We will now develop the options for what Brexit will look like. Message being, don't panic, we are in control.

Instead, Cameron resigned, labour imploded, the lack of experienced negotiators become an immediate concern, and Boris buggered off to play cricket.

[Sandydragon]

This is arrant nonsense. Which version of Brexit should they have prepared for? How exactly do you think it would look if the government had suddenly hired a shitload of trade negotiators at enormous expense before the vote? You really need to stop believing what the Mail tells you.




It already is.

Strangely, I don't read the mail.

Are you suggesting that the government should have basically not bothered with any prior planning on how to implement Brexit? That is arrant nonsense. At the best least, establish a department to take the issue forward and determine how to staff it. The details of Brexit can be worked out later.

Let me get this straight. You are suggest that they should have had a department of state dedicated to leaving the EU before the public decided to leave the EU? Are you serious? When do you say they should have deployed this masterstroke? On announcing the referendum? "Citizens of the UK we don't think you should leave the EU, there's no possible way we can know exactly what form of Brexit you might vote for or indeed that the EU will let us have, but we thought that this would be a good time to piss a shitload of money up the wall on preparing for these unknowable things that no two people agree about anyway. Cheers all"

They did the preparation they needed to. They prepared for the shitstorm in the financial markets and the immediate problems of the vote. It was not possible or sensible to prepare for anything else.

Planning for, planning. At the very least work out what a part,ent might look like and how it might be staffed.

The only person who looked in control post Brexit was mark carney. The political leadership looked like their world had fallen apart and they were left in a void. Tell me how reassuring that is?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Strangely, I don't read the mail.

Are you suggesting that the government should have basically not bothered with any prior planning on how to implement Brexit? That is arrant nonsense. At the best least, establish a department to take the issue forward and determine how to staff it. The details of Brexit can be worked out later.

Let me get this straight. You are suggest that they should have had a department of state dedicated to leaving the EU before the public decided to leave the EU? Are you serious? When do you say they should have deployed this masterstroke? On announcing the referendum? "Citizens of the UK we don't think you should leave the EU, there's no possible way we can know exactly what form of Brexit you might vote for or indeed that the EU will let us have, but we thought that this would be a good time to piss a shitload of money up the wall on preparing for these unknowable things that no two people agree about anyway. Cheers all"

They did the preparation they needed to. They prepared for the shitstorm in the financial markets and the immediate problems of the vote. It was not possible or sensible to prepare for anything else.

Planning for, planning. At the very least work out what a part,ent might look like and how it might be staffed.

The only person who looked in control post Brexit was mark carney. The political leadership looked like their world had fallen apart and they were left in a void. Tell me how reassuring that is?

Within 24 hours they had a sub-department within the cabinet office working on how things were going to work out. Now you've rowed back from them having a department or doing any actual planning, what exactly is your complaint that enables you to claim that they were irresponsible?

[Len]

The arrogance and sense of superiority of the Bremainers shows no signs of abating. For the avoidance of doubt I voted to remain.

Equally as hilarious is the INVOKE ARTICLE 50 NOW gang.

And in fairness they rank pari passu with those saying let's just take our time without realising what that does to business investment, and what the consequences of that are to the economy over the next 15-20 years say.

I wasn't singling you out BTW. More pointing out the morons who think article 50 is a wee form they have to fill out and pop it in a letterbox and thats that.

[Sandydragon]

Let me get this straight. You are suggest that they should have had a department of state dedicated to leaving the EU before the public decided to leave the EU? Are you serious? When do you say they should have deployed this masterstroke? On announcing the referendum? "Citizens of the UK we don't think you should leave the EU, there's no possible way we can know exactly what form of Brexit you might vote for or indeed that the EU will let us have, but we thought that this would be a good time to piss a shitload of money up the wall on preparing for these unknowable things that no two people agree about anyway. Cheers all"

They did the preparation they needed to. They prepared for the shitstorm in the financial markets and the immediate problems of the vote. It was not possible or sensible to prepare for anything else.

Planning for, planning. At the very least work out what a part,ent might look like and how it might be staffed.

The only person who looked in control post Brexit was mark carney. The political leadership looked like their world had fallen apart and they were left in a void. Tell me how reassuring that is?

Within 24 hours they had a sub-department within the cabinet office working on how things were going to work out. Now you've rowed back from them having a department or doing any actual planning, what exactly is your complaint that enables you to claim that they were irresponsible?

My second point was the bare minimum, not what I would have liked. Within 24 hours was too late, that work could have been done before. Within 24 hours, the nature of brevet was no clear than before the referendum, at least in terms of what people wanted.

Perhaps I would have liked to have seen a greater degree of confidence that the government had a plan and was ready to implement it, by which I don't mean the fine detail of Brexit but rather how they were going to approach the intervening period where there would be massive uncertainty.

[Digby]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/li ... 1473331526

Some interesting thoughts. Nick Clegg's I believe, though that could be wrong.

[Mellsblue]

So, May claims that article 50 will be triggered in March. Let the fun begin.

[Sandydragon]

So, May claims that article 50 will be triggered in March. Let the fun begin.

An article bon Christopher Brooker in the telegraph today recommends soft Brexit with a Norway style EFTA membership. I can see the Tory right and UKIP supporting that.

[OptimisticJock]

I'm proud of my vote to leave. 2 nil up on referendums

[Mellsblue]

So, May claims that article 50 will be triggered in March. Let the fun begin.

An article bon Christopher Brooker in the telegraph today recommends soft Brexit with a Norway style EFTA membership. I can see the Tory right and UKIP supporting that.

I read somewhere over the last couple of days that an opinion poll had only 10ish% of Brexiteers supporting a full withdrawal from the EU/hard Brexit.

The noises that I hear, which I stress have been through a fairly long line of chinese whispers, are that the govt are hoping to retain freedom of movement in all but the unskilled manufacturing and services sector, as these are the sectors where resentment mainly exists, to retain access to the single market with a (probably hefty) contribution to the EU budget but remove any power of the EU executive, legislature and judiciary.

The ability to enforce freedom of movement in specific sectors will piggy back the EU's willingness to have freedom of movement only with a job offer. There will also be seasonal freedom of movement in agriculture. This freedom of movement in certain sectors will be dressed up as work permits but they'll be granted automatically and be valid for as long as they are employed in a freedom of movement sector.
There is also a desire to continue in intelligence, science and education cooperation, Erasmus Exchange Programme.
Basically, it'll be business as usual bar unskilled freedom of movement, and political and judicial subservience.

I think all but the nuttiest Brexiteers would be happy with that but will the EU powerbrokers.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

So, May claims that article 50 will be triggered in March. Let the fun begin.

An article bon Christopher Brooker in the telegraph today recommends soft Brexit with a Norway style EFTA membership. I can see the Tory right and UKIP supporting that.

I read somewhere over the last couple of days that an opinion poll had only 10ish% of Brexiteers supporting a full withdrawal from the EU/hard Brexit.

The noises that I hear, which I stress have been through a fairly long line of chinese whispers, are that the govt are hoping to retain freedom of movement in all but the unskilled manufacturing and services sector, as these are the sectors where resentment mainly exists, to retain access to the single market with a (probably hefty) contribution to the EU budget but remove any power of the EU executive, legislature and judiciary.

The ability to enforce freedom of movement in specific sectors will piggy back the EU's willingness to have freedom of movement only with a job offer. There will also be seasonal freedom of movement in agriculture. This freedom of movement in certain sectors will be dressed up as work permits but they'll be granted automatically and be valid for as long as they are employed in a freedom of movement sector.
There is also a desire to continue in intelligence, science and education cooperation, Erasmus Exchange Programme.
Basically, it'll be business as usual bar unskilled freedom of movement, and political and judicial subservience.

I think all but the nuttiest Brexiteers would be happy with that but will the EU powerbrokers.

If they have any access to the Single Market then the ECJ is going to have to adjudicate on the trade disputes.

Free movemnet for most europeans will infuriate most of the anti-immigration supporters of Brexit which is most of them.

A heftycontribution to the EU will see protesting in the streets.


All in all this looks a much much worse deal than we currently have. Any sane political party that promises to abandon negotiations or put the deal to the public in a straight in/out in these terms choice (having checked with the rest of Europe that they'll keep us on our current terms and with European Lawyers that triggering article 50 can in effect be withdrawn) will get my vote.

[Mellsblue]

An article bon Christopher Brooker in the telegraph today recommends soft Brexit with a Norway style EFTA membership. I can see the Tory right and UKIP supporting that.

I read somewhere over the last couple of days that an opinion poll had only 10ish% of Brexiteers supporting a full withdrawal from the EU/hard Brexit.

The noises that I hear, which I stress have been through a fairly long line of chinese whispers, are that the govt are hoping to retain freedom of movement in all but the unskilled manufacturing and services sector, as these are the sectors where resentment mainly exists, to retain access to the single market with a (probably hefty) contribution to the EU budget but remove any power of the EU executive, legislature and judiciary.

The ability to enforce freedom of movement in specific sectors will piggy back the EU's willingness to have freedom of movement only with a job offer. There will also be seasonal freedom of movement in agriculture. This freedom of movement in certain sectors will be dressed up as work permits but they'll be granted automatically and be valid for as long as they are employed in a freedom of movement sector.
There is also a desire to continue in intelligence, science and education cooperation, Erasmus Exchange Programme.
Basically, it'll be business as usual bar unskilled freedom of movement, and political and judicial subservience.

I think all but the nuttiest Brexiteers would be happy with that but will the EU powerbrokers.

If they have any access to the Single Market then the ECJ is going to have to adjudicate on the trade disputes.

Free movemnet for most europeans will infuriate most of the anti-immigration supporters of Brexit which is most of them.

A heftycontribution to the EU will see protesting in the streets.


All in all this looks a much much worse deal than we currently have. Any sane political party that promises to abandon negotiations or put the deal to the public in a straight in/out in these terms choice (having checked with the rest of Europe that they'll keep us on our current terms and with European Lawyers that triggering article 50 can in effect be withdrawn) will get my vote.

The ECJ would need to yes but it wouldn't have any say over domestic law. Which, I think, is the major Brexiteer problem.

I'm not so sure. The vast majority of those opposed on free movement grounds were either working class who blamed immigrants for their inability of get a min wage job or grumpy old people who yearn for spam and rations. This'll solve the issue for most of the working class demographic, if they've remained engaged enough to even know. You'll never make the grumpy old idiots happy. Even if we hard Brexit they'll find something to moan about whilst spending their gold plated pensions. So, **** them.

A ££££ contribution will be difficult to sell. 'Hefty' was my contribution/opinion.

I think it's close to the best we can expect. It addresses two big Brexit issues:

Freedom of movement in the demographic who most hate it (most middle class want to keep freedom of movement)
and
EU political and judicial control on domestic issues.

I suppose you'd try and sell contributions as £1 spent leads to an extra £2 on GDP (figures plucked from my imagination). However, I think we all know the Brexit and rational, factual debate are not natural bed fellows.

This also allows us to keep mutually beneficial relationships, such as the Erasmus Program, which nobody wants to lose.

It'll also allow us to strike free trade deals outside the EU.

Hell, it wouldn't please even close to a majority but then no deal will. However, if you think we'll come out of negotiations with an agreement that a Remainer (which I'm 99.9% certain you are) thinks is better than our current deal then you've had too much wine with Sunday lunch.

[Donny osmond]

I'm proud of my vote to leave. 2 nil up on referendums

Good man. I'm on a score draw at the moment, next one's the winner.

[Len]

Fuck em. Shit thing to say but I hope theres mass unemployment in manufacturing sectors and they see their products being made in Europe and ironically can't move to where the employment is because of the loss of freedom of movement.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I read somewhere over the last couple of days that an opinion poll had only 10ish% of Brexiteers supporting a full withdrawal from the EU/hard Brexit.

The noises that I hear, which I stress have been through a fairly long line of chinese whispers, are that the govt are hoping to retain freedom of movement in all but the unskilled manufacturing and services sector, as these are the sectors where resentment mainly exists, to retain access to the single market with a (probably hefty) contribution to the EU budget but remove any power of the EU executive, legislature and judiciary.

The ability to enforce freedom of movement in specific sectors will piggy back the EU's willingness to have freedom of movement only with a job offer. There will also be seasonal freedom of movement in agriculture. This freedom of movement in certain sectors will be dressed up as work permits but they'll be granted automatically and be valid for as long as they are employed in a freedom of movement sector.
There is also a desire to continue in intelligence, science and education cooperation, Erasmus Exchange Programme.
Basically, it'll be business as usual bar unskilled freedom of movement, and political and judicial subservience.

I think all but the nuttiest Brexiteers would be happy with that but will the EU powerbrokers.

If they have any access to the Single Market then the ECJ is going to have to adjudicate on the trade disputes.

Free movemnet for most europeans will infuriate most of the anti-immigration supporters of Brexit which is most of them.

A heftycontribution to the EU will see protesting in the streets.


All in all this looks a much much worse deal than we currently have. Any sane political party that promises to abandon negotiations or put the deal to the public in a straight in/out in these terms choice (having checked with the rest of Europe that they'll keep us on our current terms and with European Lawyers that triggering article 50 can in effect be withdrawn) will get my vote.

1. The ECJ would need to yes but it wouldn't have any say over domestic law. Which, I think, is the major Brexiteer problem.

2. I'm not so sure. The vast majority of those opposed on free movement grounds were either working class who blamed immigrants for their inability of get a min wage job or grumpy old people who yearn for spam and rations. This'll solve the issue for most of the working class demographic, if they've remained engaged enough to even know. You'll never make the grumpy old idiots happy. Even if we hard Brexit they'll find something to moan about whilst spending their gold plated pensions. So, **** them.

3. A ££££ contribution will be difficult to sell. 'Hefty' was my contribution/opinion.

4. I think it's close to the best we can expect. It addresses two big Brexit issues:

4A.Freedom of movement in the demographic who most hate it (most middle class want to keep freedom of movement)
and
4B. EU political and judicial control on domestic issues.

I suppose you'd try and sell contributions as £1 spent leads to an extra £2 on GDP (figures plucked from my imagination). However, I think we all know the Brexit and rational, factual debate are not natural bed fellows.

5.This also allows us to keep mutually beneficial relationships, such as the Erasmus Program, which nobody wants to lose.

It'll also allow us to strike free trade deals outside the EU.

Hell, it wouldn't please even close to a majority but then no deal will. However, if you think we'll come out of negotiations with an agreement that a Remainer (which I'm 99.9% certain you are) thinks is better than our current deal then you've had too much wine with Sunday lunch.

1. That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ECJ currently does and would do. It currently adjudicates on the meanings of the European treaties and gives effect to the single market. It has no standalone role in domestic law or government. It would contimue to adjudicate on the meaning of treaty that we would sign and give effect to the parts of the single market that we're still part of. That means it will still have to fine the UK if we, for example, sign up to a single market but give state aid to a company that is supposed to be part of that single market.
2. well we can agree to differ. I don't think they were particularly resentful of their inability to get a min wage job (there are loads of those around actually) I think they just didn't like furriners. The fall out post referendum tends to suggest I'm right.
3. Any financial contribution would be impossible to sell. There are still fuckwits who think that there's £350m to come back
4. I think it's way beyond the best we can expect. There's zero chance that we'll be allowed to determine for ourselves what the single market rules are. Even if we go for the Swiss model of not being in the single market but signing up to bits of trade deals we desperately need the financial sector to have access to their market and they have every incentive to prevent that. About the only industry where there is mutual benefit in tariff free trade is the car industry - well maybe booze as well.
4A. I don't think it does fix it and in any event the idea that the Leave supporters will countenance visa free travel which suits the middle classes - polish builders and plumbers - is fanciful.
4B. We'll actually have less political control over business in that anyone trading into the eu will have to abide by regulations we have no part in framing. They will definitely dress up protectionism under "safety" concerns.
5. Things like the Erasmus programme are pissing around the edges of the monumental clusterfuck that leaving the EU is going to be.

[Sandydragon]

The sad thing about this mass protest is that it so easily could have been avoided. The immigration issues were a real problem in some areas; if central government had helped out with additional resources for those areas the problem probably wouldn't have come to dominate the debate in the way it did.

Whether we could trigger Article 50 and then un-trigger it is an intriguing question. Gut instinct is that it wouldn't be allowed although thats my view on how the politics would play out, not the finer points of law.

Perhaps a lesson for the future on referendums in the UK is that there needs to be a higher margin of success than just 50% plus 1 vote? Or perhaps there needs to be more homework done on what is actually being proposed.

[Mellsblue]

If they have any access to the Single Market then the ECJ is going to have to adjudicate on the trade disputes.

Free movemnet for most europeans will infuriate most of the anti-immigration supporters of Brexit which is most of them.

A heftycontribution to the EU will see protesting in the streets.


All in all this looks a much much worse deal than we currently have. Any sane political party that promises to abandon negotiations or put the deal to the public in a straight in/out in these terms choice (having checked with the rest of Europe that they'll keep us on our current terms and with European Lawyers that triggering article 50 can in effect be withdrawn) will get my vote.

1. The ECJ would need to yes but it wouldn't have any say over domestic law. Which, I think, is the major Brexiteer problem.

2. I'm not so sure. The vast majority of those opposed on free movement grounds were either working class who blamed immigrants for their inability of get a min wage job or grumpy old people who yearn for spam and rations. This'll solve the issue for most of the working class demographic, if they've remained engaged enough to even know. You'll never make the grumpy old idiots happy. Even if we hard Brexit they'll find something to moan about whilst spending their gold plated pensions. So, **** them.

3. A ££££ contribution will be difficult to sell. 'Hefty' was my contribution/opinion.

4. I think it's close to the best we can expect. It addresses two big Brexit issues:

4A.Freedom of movement in the demographic who most hate it (most middle class want to keep freedom of movement)
and
4B. EU political and judicial control on domestic issues.

I suppose you'd try and sell contributions as £1 spent leads to an extra £2 on GDP (figures plucked from my imagination). However, I think we all know the Brexit and rational, factual debate are not natural bed fellows.

5.This also allows us to keep mutually beneficial relationships, such as the Erasmus Program, which nobody wants to lose.

It'll also allow us to strike free trade deals outside the EU.

Hell, it wouldn't please even close to a majority but then no deal will. However, if you think we'll come out of negotiations with an agreement that a Remainer (which I'm 99.9% certain you are) thinks is better than our current deal then you've had too much wine with Sunday lunch.

1. That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ECJ currently does and would do. It currently adjudicates on the meanings of the European treaties and gives effect to the single market. It has no standalone role in domestic law or government. It would contimue to adjudicate on the meaning of treaty that we would sign and give effect to the parts of the single market that we're still part of. That means it will still have to fine the UK if we, for example, sign up to a single market but give state aid to a company that is supposed to be part of that single market.
2. well we can agree to differ. I don't think they were particularly resentful of their inability to get a min wage job (there are loads of those around actually) I think they just didn't like furriners. The fall out post referendum tends to suggest I'm right.
3. Any financial contribution would be impossible to sell. There are still fuckwits who think that there's £350m to come back
4. I think it's way beyond the best we can expect. There's zero chance that we'll be allowed to determine for ourselves what the single market rules are. Even if we go for the Swiss model of not being in the single market but signing up to bits of trade deals we desperately need the financial sector to have access to their market and they have every incentive to prevent that. About the only industry where there is mutual benefit in tariff free trade is the car industry - well maybe booze as well.
4A. I don't think it does fix it and in any event the idea that the Leave supporters will countenance visa free travel which suits the middle classes - polish builders and plumbers - is fanciful.
4B. We'll actually have less political control over business in that anyone trading into the eu will have to abide by regulations we have no part in framing. They will definitely dress up protectionism under "safety" concerns.
5. Things like the Erasmus programme are pissing around the edges of the monumental clusterfuck that leaving the EU is going to be.

1. Fair enough, I have to admit the workings of the ECJ don't particular bother me so I haven't researched in depth their precise role. However, if you tell the average Brexiteer we'll be allowed to deport the next Abu Hamza you might get away with it.

2. There might be plenty of min wage jobs where you are, which I guess is London/Home Counties, but there isn't elsewhere and it's a major issue. There will of course be those who just hate foreigners but 'stealing jobs' is a big driver of that in places where employment is already high.

3. Agreed, but again you come back the point that you're going to piss the vast majority of people off whatever deal you get. Why can't you piss of the hard Brexiteers.

4. Mostly agree. Depends if the EU decide to chop their noses off to spite their face. Our hand is a lot stronger than Switzerland's.

4a. Again, good luck to them. Let's piss them off. If they want affordable house they'll need the polish builders to enable enough to be built to control prices. However, remember that with freedom of movement in the certain sectors, all EU citizens will need a permit. It's just in some sectors those permits will have an incredibly low bar. The bar will basically be, does the company want to employ a EU citizen.

4b. Agreed, but I don't get this argument. You don't have control over rules and regulations of any foreign market you sell in to. Its the best you'll get from Brexit.

5. True, but they are very important to some people.

My basic argument is that the country has voted for Brexit and you won't get a deal that'll please even a third of the population. So, why not accept you're going to piss people off and get the best deal for the country. There's no way, other than status quo at Labour, May will be able to put together a Brexit deal that will translate in to a Con majority in 2020. However, you can try and tailor a deal that suits the different demographics. I'm not sure why everyone is seeing everything in black and white, wholly in or wholly out of each EU institution.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

On 1 the ECJ has nothing to do with whether we deport terrorists. Absolutely nothing.

On 4. It's not a question of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They export less as a percentage to us than we do to them. We may be in a stronger position than Switzerland but we're still in a very very weak position.

May will pick the line that keeps her party together and wards off any resurgence of UKIP. That very much is not the best for Britain. It will be a hard Brexit. The best for Britain having been fucking idiots and voted to leave is to go Norwegian.

[Mellsblue]

On 1 the ECJ has nothing to do with whether we deport terrorists. Absolutely nothing.

On 4. It's not a question of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They export less as a percentage to us than we do to them. We may be in a stronger position than Switzerland but we're still in a very very weak position.

May will pick the line that keeps her party together and wards off any resurgence of UKIP. That very much is not the best for Britain. It will be a hard Brexit. The best for Britain having been fucking idiots and voted to leave is to go Norwegian.

1. I got that but as I say most working class and grumpy old Brexiteers aren't bothered/don't know about European judicial interference beyond things such as deportation so ECJ interference in trade matters won't register.

2. They still export an awful lot to us. It will hurt them if tariffs are put up and most of their economies are more fragile than ours.

3. May will have to take her party with her if she wants any of her other policies to get through parliament. The majority of Conservative MPs are pro-Europe and she has a majority of 12........
I can't see how you propose the Norwegian model as the best route having said the rumours I heard won't wash with the masses. The Norwegian model would cause more up roar than what we've been discussing.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

On 1 the ECJ has nothing to do with whether we deport terrorists. Absolutely nothing.

On 4. It's not a question of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They export less as a percentage to us than we do to them. We may be in a stronger position than Switzerland but we're still in a very very weak position.

May will pick the line that keeps her party together and wards off any resurgence of UKIP. That very much is not the best for Britain. It will be a hard Brexit. The best for Britain having been fucking idiots and voted to leave is to go Norwegian.

1. I got that but as I say most working class and grumpy old Brexiteers aren't bothered/don't know about European judicial interference beyond things such as deportation so ECJ interference in trade matters won't register.

2. They still export an awful lot to us. It will hurt them if tariffs are put up and most of their economies are more fragile than ours.

3. May will have to take her party with her if she wants any of her other policies to get through parliament. The majority of Conservative MPs are pro-Europe and she has a majority of 12........
I can't see how you propose the Norwegian model as the best route having said the rumours I heard won't wash with the masses. The Norwegian model would cause more up roar than what we've been discussing.

Norwegian model is best for the country. Hence why I say that there's zero chance they'll do what's best for the country.

[Digby]

2. They still export an awful lot to us. It will hurt them if tariffs are put up and most of their economies are more fragile than ours.

In many ways 'they' don't export that much to us, not on balance. The Germans do, but they're not they in this, and although they will have a lot of influence there are going to be lots of 'they' eager to see a shift in the balance of their trade with the UK. We do import a lot of food, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say we'll still want food.

[Mellsblue]

2. They still export an awful lot to us. It will hurt them if tariffs are put up and most of their economies are more fragile than ours.

In many ways 'they' don't export that much to us, not on balance. The Germans do, but they're not they in this, and although they will have a lot of influence there are going to be lots of 'they' eager to see a shift in the balance of their trade with the UK. We do import a lot of food, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say we'll still want food.

From the figures I could quickly find, Germany accounts for approx 25% of EU imports in to the UK and approx 20% of EU GDP. So, though the ze Germans may export proportionately slightly more to the UK than the rest of the EU, 75% of the exports are still from the rest of the EU. This equates to roughly £17 billion a month.
Yes, we'll still need food but there's a lot of other places in the world that produce food that will suddenly become a lot more competitive.

[Digby]

2. They still export an awful lot to us. It will hurt them if tariffs are put up and most of their economies are more fragile than ours.

In many ways 'they' don't export that much to us, not on balance. The Germans do, but they're not they in this, and although they will have a lot of influence there are going to be lots of 'they' eager to see a shift in the balance of their trade with the UK. We do import a lot of food, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say we'll still want food.

From the figures I could quickly find, Germany accounts for approx 25% of EU imports in to the UK and approx 20% of EU GDP. So, though the ze Germans may export proportionately slightly more to the UK than the rest of the EU, 75% of the exports are still from the rest of the EU. This equates to roughly £17 billion a month.
Yes, we'll still need food but there's a lot of other places in the world that produce food that will suddenly become a lot more competitive.

Yes, but Germany is the main country with a balance of trade in their favour (if we ignore food, and again I think we'll still want the food)

We keep hearing because 'they' sell so much to us 'they' will be keen to deal, but really an awful lot of 'they' who can hamper and even veto deals specifically don't have a current balance which skews in their favour. So either for the most part 'they' may actually be keen to strike a new deal which does skew in their perceived favour or if 'they' don't want something from us then 'they' will want something from the Germans, and the Germans want the status quo but they'll only trade away so much for that.