How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

inbetween said:
... The most critical failure of Brexit is not Brexit, it has been the consistent failure of the Tory Party to meet in the middle and to appraise all available options.
Click to expand...
Fixed.

Of course compromises were discussed. There were indicative votes in Parliament. Tory divisions meant none got a majority.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The compromise options never really existed for the UK though unfortunately, certainly in terms of EFTA or EEA membership, and this should really have been emphasised during the referendum debate. Had it been emphasised, then voters would probably have had a better understanding of where we would ultimately end up, which in my opinion was always going to be where we are currently, with a simple free trade agreement but without single market access and so on.

EFTA membership actually doesn’t relate to single market access, and EFTA is essentially a bit of a free trade relic now as it was essentially just a staging post for countries which ultimately went on to joining the EU outright. The UK would need to join the EEA if it wanted something close to full single market access, but again this is very unlikely as being an EEA member leaves you subject to new EU legislation, but without a vote on this legislation or any major influence on its formation. No large country would ever sign up to this situation, so this is really a non-starter.

Essentially, no existing organisation would suit the UK’s circumstances. The only real option for the UK is to try to come up with more bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but the EU presumably has little incentive to do this and the Northern Ireland protocol will be a constant distraction. So we are where we are, and again I think this really should have been emphasised during the referendum as it may have made the difference.
Click to expand...
Yes they did, the EU even suggested it to us as a solution to the Northern Ireland protocol but Teresa May thought she could 'negotiate' a better deal.

Yes it does, the EFTA has bilateral agreements in place with the EU that allows access to the single market, free movement of people but free from the political bloc elements the EU imposes on its members that were the primary causes of us wanting to leave it in the first place.

But the 'hard' brexiters didn't want it, they wanted full separation. Remainers didn't even bother entertaining the idea, they were too hard-lined to want to remain. Those seeking a compromise, the 'soft' brexit advocates, were lost in the discussion. Right now, rejoining the EFTA would be perfect and far outweighs the arguments to rejoin the EU as a full member.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The compromise options never really existed for the UK though unfortunately, certainly in terms of EFTA or EEA membership, and this should really have been emphasised during the referendum debate. Had it been emphasised, then voters would probably have had a better understanding of where we would ultimately end up, which in my opinion was always going to be where we are currently, with a simple free trade agreement but without single market access and so on.

EFTA membership actually doesn’t relate to single market access, and EFTA is essentially a bit of a free trade relic now as it was essentially just a staging post for countries which ultimately went on to joining the EU outright. The UK would need to join the EEA if it wanted something close to full single market access, but again this is very unlikely as being an EEA member leaves you subject to new EU legislation, but without a vote on this legislation or any major influence on its formation. No large country would ever sign up to this situation, so this is really a non-starter.

Essentially, no existing organisation would suit the UK’s circumstances. The only real option for the UK is to try to come up with more bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but the EU presumably has little incentive to do this and the Northern Ireland protocol will be a constant distraction. So we are where we are, and again I think this really should have been emphasised during the referendum as it may have made the difference.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it emphasised?

Remain: "Leaving would mean leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market"

Leave: "No-one is talking about leaving the Single Market." "We would still be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border." Even the bloviator admitted that was just a lie. Were people really stupid to not grasp what it meant, or just stupid enough to believe the Leave Lies ("enough of experts", "project fear", etc etc).
 
Metal Biker said:
Yes they did, the EU even suggested it to us as a solution to the Northern Ireland protocol but Teresa May thought she could 'negotiate' a better deal.

Yes it does, the EFTA has bilateral agreements in place with the EU that allows access to the single market, free movement of people but free from the political bloc elements the EU imposes on its members that were the primary causes of us wanting to leave it in the first place.

But the 'hard' brexiters didn't want it, they wanted full separation. Remainers didn't even bother entertaining the idea, they were too hard-lined to want to remain. Those seeking a compromise, the 'soft' brexit advocates, were lost in the discussion. Right now, rejoining the EFTA would be perfect and far outweighs the arguments to rejoin the EU as a full member.
Click to expand...
I'm not having that. Most people voting remain would have accepted a compromise, but May and the ERG came up with hard Brexit nonsense, and "No deal is better than a bad deal", threatened the GFA, and that just boosted the campaign for another referendum to do what the Irish had done earlier and realise what a daft thing they'd done. Brits are made of sterner stuff, and were prepared to stick to doing daft things.
 
If EFTA was a viable alternative, why did we leave it and join the European Economic Community in the first place?

Fantasy politics.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
If EFTA was a viable alternative, why did we leave it and join the European Economic Community in the first place?

Fantasy politics.
Click to expand...
It was always the most sensible solution as I was saying in 2016, it should have been an option to vote for rather than just vote leave.

I think if it wasn't for Maastricht we would have stayed in the EC and it wouldn't be up for debate.
 
Corky said:
It was always the most sensible solution as I was saying in 2016, it should have been an option to vote for rather than just vote leave.

I think if it wasn't for Maastricht we would have stayed in the EC and it wouldn't be up for debate.
Click to expand...

The most sensible option would have been to never have held the referendum at all.

The natural course was always going to be that Brexit was going to be as hard as possible.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
The most sensible option would have been to never have held the referendum at all.

The natural course was always going to be that Brexit was going to be as hard as possible.
Click to expand...
The only positive was most of Cameron and Osborne's 2015 plans were shelved by May etal, even though they passed the legislation most things that affected me badly required further regulations which were never passed.

If those 2 had been left in charge with their small government, big society plans, we would be in an alternative dystopia. People in reality voted to cut everything to the bone with them.
 
Metal Biker said:
Yes they did, the EU even suggested it to us as a solution to the Northern Ireland protocol but Teresa May thought she could 'negotiate' a better deal.

Yes it does, the EFTA has bilateral agreements in place with the EU that allows access to the single market, free movement of people but free from the political bloc elements the EU imposes on its members that were the primary causes of us wanting to leave it in the first place.

But the 'hard' brexiters didn't want it, they wanted full separation. Remainers didn't even bother entertaining the idea, they were too hard-lined to want to remain. Those seeking a compromise, the 'soft' brexit advocates, were lost in the discussion. Right now, rejoining the EFTA would be perfect and far outweighs the arguments to rejoin the EU as a full member.
Click to expand...
The EEA is the critical entity with regards to the single market.

The issue around influencing policy remains, however, regardless of the boundaries of the EEA and EFTA. Why would a large economy with a comparative advantage in key services industries sign up to an internal market with little to no influence over regulation and product standards, even while it maintains the budgetary funding? Which politician - of any party - is going to stand up and say ‘ok, we’ve had the referendum, but we’re still subject to all areas of EU law, freedom of movement, the budgetary funding, pretty much everything, but now we’ve got no say on any of these laws, and we simply have to do what the EU tells us’? It simply isn’t going to happen.

The political elements which refer to are in fact critical to successfully being in the single market, so I would argue that being in the EEA is a much worse outcome than simply being in the EU.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The EEA is the critical entity with regards to the single market.

The issue around influencing policy remains, however, regardless of the boundaries of the EEA and EFTA. Why would a large economy with a comparative advantage in key services industries sign up to an internal market with little to no influence over regulation and product standards, even while it maintains the budgetary funding? Which politician - of any party - is going to stand up and say ‘ok, we’ve had the referendum, but we’re still subject to all areas of EU law, freedom of movement, the budgetary funding, pretty much everything, but now we’ve got no say on any of these laws, and we simply have to do what the EU tells us’? It simply isn’t going to happen.

The political elements which refer to are in fact critical to successfully being in the single market, so I would argue that being in the EEA is a much worse outcome than simply being in the EU.
Click to expand...
Because many wanted access to the single market, but not be part of the customs union. We want to trade with our closest partners but also with others around the world. If we want access from this point going forward we must accept all EU laws anyway, must adopt the single currency, adopt Schengen, adopt the Eurozone, adopt the EU's debt repayments, become a full member. That is a much, much harder sell.

Being a member of the EFTA would grant us access to the single market, eradicate the Northern Ireland protocal and all its issues yet allow us the freedom to forge trade partnerships separate from Europe. Right now would you take EFTA membership over nothing at all? It baffles me that those who profess to love Europe aren't even willing to support or entertain the notion, dismiss it as folly, yet believe the country would be fully behind adopting the Euro and full membership instead. The EFTA answer has always been there, even recommended to us, yet it doesn't gain support from those who want exactly what it would provide.
 
Metal Biker said:
Because many wanted access to the single market, but not be part of the customs union. We want to trade with our closest partners but also with others around the world. If we want access from this point going forward we must accept all EU laws anyway, must adopt the single currency, adopt Schengen, adopt the Eurozone, adopt the EU's debt repayments, become a full member. That is a much, much harder sell.

Being a member of the EFTA would grant us access to the single market, eradicate the Northern Ireland protocal and all its issues yet allow us the freedom to forge trade partnerships separate from Europe. Right now would you take EFTA membership over nothing at all? It baffles me that those who profess to love Europe aren't even willing to support or entertain the notion, dismiss it as folly, yet believe the country would be fully behind adopting the Euro and full membership instead. The EFTA answer has always been there, even recommended to us, yet it doesn't gain support from those who want exactly what it would provide.
Click to expand...
What you’re suggesting may be better than the current reality, but my point really is that I can’t see any of the major parties advocating such a position given that the UK would be a rule taker rather than a rule maker with regard to the single market. EFTA membership would in my opinion be worse than what we had in the EU - as in the UK’s previous relationship with the EU - and that’s really why I can’t see either the Conservatives or Labour signing up to it. The issue of regulation and the lack of any formal influence would be the deal breaker, even if the UK’s actual ability to diverge from EU regulation is limited.

Also, I would argue that the potential to remain in the single market and pursue a substantially different trade policy from the EU with regard to significant third countries really is a bit of an illusion. If any large disparity did develop between the EU and UK’s trade agreements with the US or Japan, then UK-EU trade would be subject to enhanced checks, delays and extra customs declarations, and it could in fact prove counterproductive. At the very least, some form of NI protocol would need to be re-introduced to make sure that EU tariffs are applied in full to goods crossing the border in Ireland.
 
Brewster's millions said:
What you’re suggesting may be better than the current reality, but my point really is that I can’t see any of the major parties advocating such a position given that the UK would be a rule taker rather than a rule maker with regard to the single market. EFTA membership would in my opinion be worse than what we had in the EU - as in the UK’s previous relationship with the EU - and that’s really why I can’t see either the Conservatives or Labour signing up to it. The issue of regulation and the lack of any formal influence would be the deal breaker, even if the UK’s actual ability to diverge from EU regulation is limited.

Also, I would argue that the potential to remain in the single market and pursue a substantially different trade policy from the EU with regard to significant third countries really is a bit of an illusion. If any large disparity did develop between the EU and UK’s trade agreements with the US or Japan, then UK-EU trade would be subject to enhanced checks, delays and extra customs declarations, and it could in fact prove counterproductive. At the very least, some form of NI protocol would need to be re-introduced to make sure that EU tariffs are applied in full to goods crossing the border in Ireland.
Click to expand...
Since we're not going to go back into the EU with what arrangements we had (that the EU hated, don't forget) EFTA is the closest to that going forward. A full membership of the EU would also be worse than what we had, so pick your poison. I wanted out so we could rejoin the EFTA and move forward as it was clear the UK and EU both had differing ideas on our membership intentions for the future.

There is nothing to suggest that any future trade deals the UK would make would affect anything to do with N.Ireland and Ireland if we were an EFTA member as they have bilateral agreements regarding trade between those two regions. Only trade with non-EFTA members would be conduct to enhanced checks, but nothng would limit trade between N.Ireland/Ireland origin. You'd have to be rather silly to think you could move non-EU regulated US commerce though N.Ireland to Ireland through a future UK-US trade agreement via EFTA-EU trade agreements.

EFTA membership is about continuing our relationship with the EU and other European partners whilst not being restricted by the Customs Union, EU budget payments, European Parliament showcase or EU Commission.
 
Last edited:
Metal Biker said:
Since we're not going to go back into the EU with what arrangements we had (that the EU hated, don't forget) EFTA is the closest to that going forward. A full membership of the EU would also be worse than what we had, so pick your poison. I wanted out so we could rejoin the EFTA and move forward as it was clear the UK and EU both had differing ideas on our membership intentions for the future.

There is nothing to suggest that any future trade deals the UK would make would affect anything to do with N.Ireland and Ireland if we were an EFTA member as they have bilateral agreements regarding trade between those two regions. Only trade with non-EFTA members would be conduct to enhanced checks, but nothng would limit trade between N.Ireland/Ireland origin. You'd have to be rather silly to think you could move non-EU regulated US commerce though N.Ireland to Ireland through a future UK-US trade agreement via EFTA-EU trade agreements.

EFTA membership is about continuing our relationship with the EU and other European partners whilst not being restricted by the Customs Union, EU budget payments, European Parliament showcase or EU Commission.
Click to expand...
We can talk about EFTA til the cows come home, but it’s not going to happen for the reasons I outlined.

Also, the NI protocol and enhanced checks on EU-UK trade would be required in the circumstances I outlined. This is not a contentious issue.

Once the UK is outside of the EU customs union, and establishes different product standards and regulations with third countries, then enhanced checks would be required at the EU-UK border. For NI, this would either mean enhanced checks at the GB-NI border, or NI-RoI, which obviously can’t happen. So there would need to be a protocol governing this, which is exactly why they introduced it in the first place.
 
Brewster's millions said:
We can talk about EFTA til the cows come home, but it’s not going to happen for the reasons I outlined.

Also, the NI protocol and enhanced checks on EU-UK trade would be required in the circumstances I outlined. This is not a contentious issue.

Once the UK is outside of the EU customs union, and establishes different product standards and regulations with third countries, then enhanced checks would be required at the EU-UK border. For NI, this would either mean enhanced checks at the GB-NI border, or NI-RoI, which obviously can’t happen. So there would need to be a protocol governing this, which is exactly why they introduced it in the first place.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you believe it will happen isn't my reason for posting. It is fair to say those those wishing the EU to take us back on the same terms is non-sensical.

This is about sorting the issues now. It is a very, VERY hard sell to convince that adopting the Euro, taking on the EU debt and being part of the Eurozone is more beneficial than being an EFTA member and gaining access to the single market and freedom of movement, which is what the majority of remainers lamented losing.

As I said, EFTA membership is regarding matters of trade and commerce between the UK and the EU, along with the EFTA partners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top