Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[mcfc1632]

The weirdest result of this referendum is the constant suggestion by some remainers that we can leave the EU without changing a thing. Stay in the single market the customs union and the free movement of people. That isn't leaving the EU that's staying in it and pretending that we have had a Brexit referendum.

As bluishswede - clearly a pro-EU poster - so eloquently put it recently:

"The single market is the four freedoms - the freedom to provide services across the EU, the freedom to move capital across the EU, the freedom to provide goods across the EU and the freedom of movement of citizens to take up employment across the EU. These are defined in their geographical extent by a common border for trade- the customs union."

That is abundantly clear, as was his clarity on what this means occurred in the UK on 23/06/16, that:

"The UK voted to leave the customs union in a referendum on June 23 of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for goods in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for services in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for capital in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single area for movement of people in a referendum on 23 June last year."

It follows, as you say, that all this deluded babble we hear from Farron, Blair, Mandelson et al - and of course the usual suspects on here - about remaining in the Single market, is well, simply deluded babble.

Of course they know it means that we would not have actually left the EU and that is of course what they want - essentially, IMO, they are straight-forward lying when they say bollocks like - leaving the single market was not on the ballot paper, etc. - as bluishswede clearly demonstrates - oh yes it was!!!

 

[Metal Biker]

As bluishswede - clearly a pro-EU poster - so eloquently put it recently:

"The single market is the four freedoms - the freedom to provide services across the EU, the freedom to move capital across the EU, the freedom to provide goods across the EU and the freedom of movement of citizens to take up employment across the EU. These are defined in their geographical extent by a common border for trade- the customs union."

That is abundantly clear, as was his clarity on what this means occurred in the UK on 23/06/16, that:

"The UK voted to leave the customs union in a referendum on June 23 of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for goods in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for services in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for capital in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single area for movement of people in a referendum on 23 June last year."

It follows, as you say, that all this deluded babble we hear from Farron, Blair, Mandelson et all - and of course the usual suspects on here - about remaining in the Single market, is well, simply deluded babble.

Of course they know it means that we would not have actually left the EU and that is of course what they want - essentially, IMO, they are straight-forward lying when they say bollocks like - leaving the single market was not on the ballot paper, etc. - as bluishswede clearly demonstrates - oh yes it was!!!

The only argument of the more vocal remainers that I would entertain is having a referendum on whether or not we want to trade with the EU if it means accepting these stipulations.

Our political and economic partnership ended on the 23/6/16, so we're out of the single market. The discussion we all expected to have (yet some remainers failed to understand) was if we still wanted to trade with the EU after we leave. That's why I get irritated whenever I hear the terms hard and soft brexit because there is no such thing.

The only thing to discuss with the EU is trading with the EU via acceptance of their requirements or to sack them off completely and for that, given the number of people opposed to NOT trading with the EU, a referendum being called wouldn't be uncalled for in my opinion given the EU's stance on migration being a part of trade (for some reason) does go against what some people voted to leave the EU in the first place. But it would have to be absolutely clear that no avenues for political association, EU influence over our own sovereign rights could ever or would ever interfere in the future. The EU would be trading with the UK as they would Canada, China or the USA, and I doubt either of those countries would suddenly allow the EU to dictate to them about their migration policy just because they are trading with them.

 

[Len Rum]

The only argument of the more vocal remainers that I would entertain is having a referendum on whether or not we want to trade with the EU if it means accepting these stipulations.

Our political and economic partnership ended on the 23/6/16, so we're out of the single market. The discussion we all expected to have (yet some remainers failed to understand) was if we still wanted to trade with the EU after we leave. That's why I get irritated whenever I hear the terms hard and soft brexit because there is no such thing.

The only thing to discuss with the EU is trading with the EU via acceptance of their requirements or to sack them off completely and for that, given the number of people opposed to NOT trading with the EU, a referendum being called wouldn't be uncalled for in my opinion given the EU's stance on migration being a part of trade (for some reason) does go against what some people voted to leave the EU in the first place. But it would have to be absolutely clear that no avenues for political association, EU influence over our own sovereign rights could ever or would ever interfere in the future. The EU would be trading with the UK as they would Canada, China or the USA, and I doubt either of those countries would suddenly allow the EU to dictate to them about their migration policy just because they are trading with them.

Take Canada's deal - it's limited in it's scope particularly on services ( 80% of our exports), alsoUK would still have to comply with bureaucratic procedures regarding rules of origin.
So if we want a limited deal of this nature we could maybe get one without agreeing other things like immigration,ECJ, financial contributions.
But if we want a more comprehensive deal then the EU will want concessions from us in those areas. The more comprehensive the deal the more concessions, and that's the difference.

 

[Metal Biker]

Take Canada's deal - it's limited in it's scope particularly on services ( 80% of our exports), alsoUK would still have to comply with bureaucratic procedures regarding rules of origin.
So if we want a limited deal of this nature we could maybe get one without agreeing other things like immigration,ECJ, financial contributions.
But if we want a more comprehensive deal then the EU will want concessions from us in those areas. The more comprehensive the deal the more concessions, and that's the difference.

Personally i'd be satisfied with a Canada type deal but i'm also aware that that scenario would not be acceptible to many who voted to remain. I don't believe in the "have cake and eat it" mantra that has been bandied about by some. I'm firmly accepting that in order to trade with the EU fully to get the "benefits" we were used to, we'd have to abide by their laws and regulations regarding trade. To some who voted leave, that scenario would be unacceptible so if they called for a referendum on that, i'd have little argument against it, so long as it didn't mean us rejecting a Canada type deal outright as "not being good enough" as I feel any public referendum regarding trading with the EU should be on whether we are prepared to accept an EU's "four points" trade agreement, rather than debating every deal that was presented to us as being 'unacceptible'.

 

[Len Rum]

Personally i'd be satisfied with a Canada type deal but i'm also aware that that scenario would not be acceptible to many who voted to remain. I don't believe in the "have cake and eat it" mantra that has been bandied about by some. I'm firmly accepting that in order to trade with the EU fully to get the "benefits" we were used to, we'd have to abide by their laws and regulations regarding trade. To some who voted leave, that scenario would be unacceptible so if they called for a referendum on that, i'd have little argument against it, so long as it didn't mean us rejecting a Canada type deal outright as "not being good enough" as I feel any public referendum regarding trading with the EU should be on whether we are prepared to accept an EU's "four points" trade agreement, rather than debating every deal that was presented to us as being 'unacceptible'.

We'll probably end up with a limited FTA ( Canada plus), but have to agree a large part of Mick Barnier's Bill, pay an annual wedge to the EU, agree EU citizens rights and accept ECJ on trade and economic issues ( or maybe a lesser ECJ).

 

[mcfc1632]

We'll probably end up with a limited FTA ( Canada plus), but have to agree a large part of Mick Barnier's Bill, pay an annual wedge to the EU, agree EU citizens rights and accept ECJ on trade and economic issues ( or maybe a lesser ECJ).

I think that you are very close on the first bit.

The rest depends on the strength of our negotiating position at the start and throughout the next year.

We should all therefore support a strong position

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

A lot of that just sounds like ranting, but trying to pick out some points:

1. "She is an unelected leader............" well you must be delighted that she called an election then - She will either be gone or she will be an elected leader

2. "............she has a worthless hand, Europe hold all the aces and will royally screw us." Well fair play then - if she gets anything more than us being totally screwed I am sure that you will be right up there at the front applauding???

3. "That anybody from a working class background should vote Tory is a fucking disgrace." - They should respect your views - should you not respect theirs?

4. "You only have to look to the 80's to see what Maggie was trying to do to the working class,"....?? What is that to do with the UK's current situation???

I think that makes sense of it?? Or as much as is possible??

Haha owned! as my teenage daughter would say.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

The weirdest result of this referendum is the constant suggestion by some remainers that we can leave the EU without changing a thing. Stay in the single market the customs union and the free movement of people. That isn't leaving the EU that's staying in it and pretending that we have had a Brexit referendum.

Ala wee tim farron

 

[smudgedj]

Labour manifesto has leaked. With ref. to Brexit Labour will rule out a "no deal" Brexit - sooooooo 'Give us the deal that we want or we wont leave' The guy is a genius.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Labour manifesto has leaked. With ref. to Brexit Labour will rule out a "no deal" Brexit - sooooooo 'Give us the deal that we want or we wont leave' The guy is a genius.

He has clearly never negotiated a thing in his life. Clueless.