Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Warnings over Brexit from the big powers

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Clearly the Treasury and the Foreign Office want us to stay in the Single Market.

    What I think you are missing, however, is that Theresa May cannot manage the Tory Party and stay as Prime Minister without stopping the free movement of labour. I think the FO and Treasury are in denial about that also.

    Which means only one thing (since the EU will never concede membership of the Single Market without free movement) a hard Brexit. No membership of the single market.

    The Establishment are in la la land. They are trying to negotiate the non negotiable.

    We will leave the Single Market at the end of all this. Nothing else is on offer for us.
    If we do leave the SM, there will be a huge economic crash, so I doubt you Leavers will feel so pleased with yourselves at the end of it, when you are jobless, there is little satisfaction in comforting yourself that you got rid of some Poles or Latvians.

    Anyway, the government clearly intend to obfuscate, as David Davies showed this evening, for a long time to come probably.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ion-leaving-eu

    I assume that's because they themselves find the situation irreconcilable, so they are playing a game of wait and see - once the economy turns down, they can safely announce Brexit to be broken and 'put it to Parliament' after all.

    It was disgusting listening to Davies, a lifelong defender of Parliamentary rights, going on about the referendum being a mandate that cannot be changed, 1% majority and all. :rolleyes:
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    If we do leave the SM, there will be a huge economic crash,
    We'll see about that, Chicken Little...

    I repeat, the Single Market is dead as far as the UK is concerned. Those wonderful former "partners" will punish us for having the temerity to break free from them.

    Even though it will damage them (they have a huge trade imbalance with the UK and their Eurozone is in deep, perhaps terminal trouble) they will not offer us membership terms to stay in the Single Market that we could accept with Brexit meaning Brexit.

    And even if they didn't seek to make an example of us (which some of them do), so dysfunctional is the EU as a decision making bloc that no agreement could be struck.

    A sensible organisation would arrive at a deal that benefited both parties. The EU?? Not a chance.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The mechanics just don't work. The government won't get a referendum result opposing invoking Article 50, and once they invoke Article 50 remaining in the EU on the old terms is subject to a veto of every memberstate in the EU. We are not going to vote back in on worse terms than we had on 22nd June 2016. So I see invoking Article 50 as irreversible regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.

    A real danger would be "EU through the backdoor" as Switzerland and Norway have. Both of these countries are in the situation they are in because pro-EU elites have tried to do as much as they possible could to join without violating the strict letter of referenda against joining. But May has explicitly said she is on guard against that possibility.

    To be honest the BBC's entire narrative on this issue feels like spin. Their idea - that May is trying to get back in by the back door - simply contradicts both her statements and her actions. I am sure there is a lot of confusion in the government right now as this is a complex undertaking that has not been well prepared for, but I see no real indication from this government that it intends to overturn the result by stealth.
    The probability that we will not initiate article 50 is very low however i was in the main referring to the post negotiation, pre-exit period (let's say negotiations conclude in the Autumn of 2018 with a departure date of April 2019 - logical since europe works on a 2014-2019 schedule) then at some point in that period parliament is going to have to ratify the agreement while repealing the 1972 act, it's at that point that i think there's the potential for a referendum to be forced (and people are fickle so that's a bad thing).

    Personally i hope that May calls an election in that early 2019 period, she'd win a new mandate to exit and get another 5 years since the country is not really going to turn to the Lib Dems en masse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The probability that we will not initiate article 50 is very low however i was in the main referring to the post negotiation, pre-exit period (let's say negotiations conclude in the Autumn of 2018 with a departure date of April 2019 - logical since europe works on a 2014-2019 schedule) then at some point in that period parliament is going to have to ratify the agreement while repealing the 1972 act, it's at that point that i think there's the potential for a referendum to be forced (and people are fickle so that's a bad thing).

    Personally i hope that May calls an election in that early 2019 period, she'd win a new mandate to exit and get another 5 years since the country is not really going to turn to the Lib Dems en masse.
    I think you're right on the money on that second point - effectively she will go to the country on her recommendations for EU withdrawal, thereby getting round Parliament, so to speak.

    There will be a prolonged tussle with the EU over the next couple of years with the Commission constantly demanding Article 50 and clarification and the Tories persisting in being evasive. Plus lots of leaks this way and that about the negotiating positions.

    As we aren't going to activate Article 50 for quite some time to come, effectively we are in fact staying in the EU for quite a while to come. That in itself means the Brexiters are going to get more and more fed up, as inward migration from the EU continues.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It was disgusting listening to Davies, a lifelong defender of Parliamentary rights, going on about the referendum being a mandate that cannot be changed, 1% majority and all. :rolleyes:
    This current parliament does not have a mandate to go against the referendum result.

    There would need to be a second referendum to overturn it. That is not on the cards as far as I can see, but even if it did happen what on earth makes you think it would go differently?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I think you're right on the money on that second point - effectively she will go to the country on her recommendations for EU withdrawal, thereby getting round Parliament, so to speak.

    There will be a prolonged tussle with the EU over the next couple of years with the Commission constantly demanding Article 50 and clarification and the Tories persisting in being evasive. Plus lots of leaks this way and that about the negotiating positions.

    As we aren't going to activate Article 50 for quite some time to come, effectively we are in fact staying in the EU for quite a while to come. That in itself means the Brexiters are going to get more and more fed up, as inward migration from the EU continues.
    I suspect we'll invoke article 50 during the spring of 2017 with the bulk of negotiations occurring during 2018.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I suspect we'll invoke article 50 during the spring of 2017 with the bulk of negotiations occurring during 2018.
    I think they will leave it longer, but we'll see.

    The negotiations will be dragged out, with lots of hints this way and that, to see how the economy/futures markets react to various scenarios.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    This current parliament does not have a mandate to go against the referendum result.

    There would need to be a second referendum to overturn it. That is not on the cards as far as I can see, but even if it did happen what on earth makes you think it would go differently?
    A second ref. would go differently if the economy has tipped downwards in the meantime. Also people are much better informed now, the Leave leaders having all admitted that they lied through their teeth during the first campaign.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gadero)
    Brexit won't touch the FTSE 100, most of those corporations are dollar earners and operate on a global basis. Think Unilever, Shell, BP, Diageo,British American Tobacco. These are global companies, it will be business as usual for them. It's in their benefit to stay in the UK, we can turn into a tax haven and do what ireland is doing for apple.

    The FTSE 250 may get hit, especially anyone exporting or importing into the EU, the EU will most likely tax us heavy on goods we buy from them. Though right now the EU needs us more than we need them, so there is always room for negotiation.

    I think brexit is a good thing, change is always good. The EU project has been a failure in my eyes, letting in poorer nations who can't deal with such a strong currency like the euro.
    What a proud moment for the Empire indeed.

    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Its funny you really believe Obama, wait till China/Russia/India make a trade deal with UK then USA/EU be panicking.
    Is that the way forward?I guess fair enough if you think so. It seems rather odd though to go with these partners rather than long standing allies.But whatever it takes to get ahead?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    It was not a "campaign of lies" nor filled with the "feral" and "demented", that's just hyperbolic nonsense. You're also forgetting that the remain campaign was ineffectual and weak, i.e. Corbyn embodied, and if it was not, perhaps that deciding 1 million would have voted the other way.

    This had nothing to do with political evil; it was simply a disconnection between people and both parties, and the highlighting of that via the referendum I am certainly glad about. It's the first time in a long time we've seen the tangible flaw of UK politics for the majority of the population.

    However, I agree we ought to have a second referendum, but only if it allows for us to choose on an immigration strategy with your vote, whether that it is exit or remain.
    But it was a "campaign of lies". That is exactly what impartial studies accused both sides of.

    You are indeed correct that Remain was weak in a sense. But personally I feel one should go for what's better. Not what was marketed better.
    (Original post by macromicro)
    That is a clear contradiction.The people aren't to blame - poor leadership is to blame. If I was leading a country and the people voted against me, I would not think "those morons have made a bad decision", I'd think "I've failed to convince the people and to properly manage the country". The media is the least of our worries compared to the massive divide between people and politics that this referendum exposed.
    Or someone just told a bunch of lies biased people wanted to hear?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    We'll see about that, Chicken Little...

    I repeat, the Single Market is dead as far as the UK is concerned. Those wonderful former "partners" will punish us for having the temerity to break free from them.

    Even though it will damage them (they have a huge trade imbalance with the UK and their Eurozone is in deep, perhaps terminal trouble) they will not offer us membership terms to stay in the Single Market that we could accept with Brexit meaning Brexit.

    And even if they didn't seek to make an example of us (which some of them do), so dysfunctional is the EU as a decision making bloc that no agreement could be struck.

    A sensible organisation would arrive at a deal that benefited both parties. The EU?? Not a chance.
    You were the ones leaving for selfish reasons. You were the ones stabbing the other "partner" in the back.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    What a proud moment for the Empire indeed.

    Is that the way forward?I guess fair enough if you think so. It seems rather odd though to go with these partners rather than long standing allies.But whatever it takes to get ahead?
    Well if they want trade deals before USA/EU then why should we reject? They already said they do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The mature and considered response from the Spectator is that the G20 is packed full of know-nothing foreigners and we should just leave that too.

    I'm not joking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But it was a "campaign of lies". That is exactly what impartial studies accused both sides of.
    The only actual lie I know of is the £350m to NHS spiel, which was debunked at the beginning of the year. But I think "campaign of lies" is purposely emotive language, spurred on by some having doubts over whether the UK can survive without EEA membership of some sort. I don't think it's been disproven that the UK couldn't go its own way like the US or China, i.e. have its cake and eat it too in terms of immigration and economy. Whether May can orchestrate such a mammoth task I'm not so sure about nor is this the biggest concern for many Remain voters who wanted to remain for the sake of unity and globalisation. I think the UK could manage on its own, but I'd rather it managed as part of the EU, something I think we could have achieved too, but, alas...

    (Original post by yudothis)
    You are indeed correct that Remain was weak in a sense. But personally I feel one should go for what's better. Not what was marketed better.
    How do people know what's better? The majority of the population are heavily influenced by the live debates, keynote speeches, newspaper articles, government/party websites, campaign tours of the UK. The average voter has a huge asymmetry of factual information and is constantly playing catch-up. To turn around and say, 'well you shouldn't have been influenced by what the leading parties campaigned with their millions of pounds in budgets, access to every avenue of media and every person of expertise' is ridiculous. And just to reiterate how weak Labour's campaign was: there is serious doubt over whether Corbyn himself voted remain!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Well if they want trade deals before USA/EU then why should we reject? They already said they do.
    As I said, you think it is a good think to get into bed with Russia/China? Just because something is offered, should it be taken?
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You were the ones leaving for selfish reasons. You were the ones stabbing the other "partner" in the back.
    I think you will find it was 52% of those who bothered to vote, actually.

    Amazing that you defend foreign countries acting against the interests of your own. (And their own, ironically). The extent with which you and the rest of the elite and establishment are out of touch with the will of our great country is staggering.

    That utter, shameful, disgusting and disgraceful lack of patriotism from your side of the debate was a major reason for the Brexit vote and is why you will lose a second referendum if it ever takes place.

    You think that globalisation and the EU is destroying the nation state and nationalism. You are wrong. The nation state is reemerging with a vengeance and per contra, nationalism will destroy the EU.

    We are watching history unfold before our eyes and you are on the wrong side of it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    As I said, you think it is a good think to get into bed with Russia/China? Just because something is offered, should it be taken?
    Pretty sure China don't allow free trade in services so although a deal with them would be great in terms of lower inflation and more service sector jobs, it would decimate our domestic industry while not doing much for our own strength. I'd probably say that we should free trade deals with countries that are net exporters of goods unless they are willing to abolish restrictions on services from us.

    A free trade deal with Russia would be more appetizing in that regard since they can export cheap minerals (lowering our cost of production) but are not really an industrial threat and would probably let us sell them services. Russia of course though is pretty much enemy number 1 right now though so politically i'd not go for it.

    The poster you replied to though seemed to think the EU would not grant us free trade though which was weird.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    I think you will find it was 52% of those who bothered to vote, actually.

    Amazing that you defend foreign countries acting against the interests of your own. (And their own, ironically). The extent with which you and the rest of the elite and establishment are out of touch with the will of our great country is staggering.

    That utter, shameful, disgusting and disgraceful lack of patriotism from your side of the debate was a major reason for the Brexit vote and is why you will lose a second referendum if it ever takes place.

    You think that globalisation and the EU is destroying the nation state and nationalism. You are wrong. The nation state is reemerging with a vengeance and per contra, nationalism will destroy the EU.

    We are watching history unfold before our eyes and you are on the wrong side of it.
    You Brits. Not you, generallee specifically. Why do people always think you means them, rather than a general you?

    Why would it be against their interest? If their primary aim is to show leaving isn't wanted or tolerated, it is very much in their interest to do this. Why do you assume I am British and that I am the "elite"? I think you will find that a country trying to become a tax haven is not really considered "great", other than maybe its own citizens.

    You seem to be confusing patriotism with nationalism and selfishness.

    Ah now you got it. And yes, that's what I think. Because the last time the western world generally held nationalistic views and countries were just out for themselves, that always ended so well right? Because Europe's history is one of peace and stability. Oh wait, that's only the last 70 years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The probability that we will not initiate article 50 is very low however i was in the main referring to the post negotiation, pre-exit period (let's say negotiations conclude in the Autumn of 2018 with a departure date of April 2019 - logical since europe works on a 2014-2019 schedule) then at some point in that period parliament is going to have to ratify the agreement while repealing the 1972 act, it's at that point that i think there's the potential for a referendum to be forced (and people are fickle so that's a bad thing).
    The problem is that once Article 50 is invoked we are on a one-way train to Brexit. To stop the process, we would need unanimous agreement of the other member states to let us stay on the old terms. Will they offer that? I doubt it. If they don't, then we are not voting to "Remain", we are voting to apply for readmission. I see very little chance that "apply for readmission" would win a referendum majority more or less regardless of how bad Brexit looks at the time. And the consequences of Brexit seem to have been greatly exaggerated anyway.

    Personally i hope that May calls an election in that early 2019 period, she'd win a new mandate to exit and get another 5 years since the country is not really going to turn to the Lib Dems en masse.
    Maybe, maybe not. Seems dangerous to me though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Pretty sure China don't allow free trade in services so although a deal with them would be great in terms of lower inflation and more service sector jobs, it would decimate our domestic industry while not doing much for our own strength. I'd probably say that we should free trade deals with countries that are net exporters of goods unless they are willing to abolish restrictions on services from us.

    A free trade deal with Russia would be more appetizing in that regard since they can export cheap minerals (lowering our cost of production) but are not really an industrial threat and would probably let us sell them services. Russia of course though is pretty much enemy number 1 right now though so politically i'd not go for it.

    The poster you replied to though seemed to think the EU would not grant us free trade though which was weird.
    Well that poster probably thinks Brexit means capping immigration, and part of free trade with the EU would be free movement of people. You think they somehow can achieve both?
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.