[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

Seems from a quick skim of the bbc page that whilst most MPs seem to be intending to vote for A50, the remainers are preparing to push hard for a soft brexit. Certainly the best outlet for remainer sentiment, and should get good cross party support.

Berm Bandit - Member
I wonder in all this whether anyone has taken into account the probable influx of mainly elderly ex pats who are already starting to return to the UK from their previously comfortable retirements on the Cost Del Whatever? Looks very much like we will be swapping healthy working age contributors to the economy for less healthy persons with a much higher call on the welfare state.... I wonder what that will do for places to live?

Our ageing population is what its all about, the older you get, the more xenophobic and right wing you get

its also why the NHS is struggling so badly right now

I collect tumours from colorectal surgical resections (work not a hobby!) , this winter has been incredible for the number of operations cancelled due to lack of ICU beds

In my first year hear I averaged 1 sample every 2 weeks, over the last 6 months ive had 4 and none so far this year!

I don't really value sovereignty

Sovereignty is a two way street. The EU might stop the UK government doing exactly what it wants, but that could be a good thing as well as a bad one. I have little trust in UK govts, because I don't think our political process produces good *democratic* results, never mind results I personally agree with.

And I've been an economic migrant too. Often regret leaving Finland.

Certainly the best outlet for remainer sentiment, and should get good cross party support.

you didnt hear fox's barking statement to MPs then

he refused to read out the report his won department had produced that said WTO tarrifs of up to 30% were likely on some sectors, claiming the print was too small and he didnt have his glasses!

What do you mean by soft Brexit, mol?

What the Brexshiteers seem happy to ignore is the simple fact that deepening and liberalising trade by defintion means giving up degrees of sovereignty. This is a simple identify. You canno dy definition do both at the same time.

So to be a outwardly-facing global economy we have to be willing to give up sovereignty, that's how it works.

Enjoying (largely) the debate - keep dipping into it - people I have never heard of making brilliant contributions. Chi Omwurah is trying to proving me wrong there at the moment, but she is an exception so far.

[quote=igm ]Honest answer, ignoring the filth flying around (some of which I may have flung) -
Size of EU trading zone -v- Speed at which the UK might be able to set up UK-centric trade deals
Sovereignty -v- the stability that the EU (plus ECHR and NATO) have brought to Europe
Immigration of others -v- your right to emigrate (Auf Wiedersehen, Pet style)
Finally, club subs -v- benefits of being part of the club
There are a whole load of subsidiary issues, but where you lie on these issues pretty much leads to what you end up thinking.
For me, I don't really value sovereignty and immigration keeps my company going. And I like not having had a war with Germany or France for 70 years as opposed to the once every 30. On trade, I think we punch above our weight as a country but not as far as people think.
People will disagree on the answers, but I think those are the questions.

IGM I am not sure you have made any argument for brexit there have you?

"deepening and liberalising trade by defintion means giving up degrees of sovereignty"

How so? If two nations were to agree to mutually waive all import tarrifs, they would be liberalising trade without giving up and sovereignty.

[quote=wors ]Why and how is brexit a good idea
Depends what your thoughts on deeper integration into Europe is?

Does it? I just want to know what brexitters think that brexit will bring for them? Positive tangible benefits. Whats the plan? Hows it going to work?

[quote=outofbreath ]"deepening and liberalising trade by defintion means giving up degrees of sovereignty"
How so? If two nations were to agree to mutually waive all import tarrifs, they would be liberalising trade without giving up and sovereignty.

It means they have to agree on standards of goods. I am not sure how this affects sov, but they need to agree on what the quality and conditions of the goods will be to allow easy trade.

Does it? I just want to know what brexitters think that brexit will bring for them? Positive tangible benefits. Whats the plan? Hows it going to work?

its something like this....

[img] [/img]

Wow, some wonderful passion from Chris Bryant.

What do you mean by soft Brexit, mol?

Can we agree that the closer a deal is to Norway, the softer the brexit?

I have posted on this before.

Trying to solve our pension/ageing population cost issue issue by increasing migration is simply pouring more gas onto the fire. We solve those issues by saving more, by sacraficing lifestyle today. Tough love but the only solution.

More controverisally I believe with increasing use of technology/AI/robotics taking away traditional jobs the sustainable population of the UK is likely to be far lower than it is today.

"It means they have to agree on standards of goods. I am not sure how this affects sov, but they need to agree on what the quality and conditions of the goods will be to allow easy trade."

They don't, the goods have to meet the standards of the country that is buying. Neither side needs to change standards, they just manufacture export stuff to meet the other nations standards. Just as we do when we sell outside the EU.

Can we agree that the closer a deal is to Norway, the softer the brexit?

Yes, Norway is effectively a shadow member of the EU

outofbreath - Member

How so? If two nations were to agree to mutually waive all import tarrifs, they would be liberalising trade without giving up and sovereignty.

in very simplistic terms

but how does that affect patents, environmental impact, use of pesticides, animal welfare standards regulation of drugs etc etc
a body of some sort has to decide what regulations to follow

its a brexie fantasy and an insult to the electorate that all these concerns are ignored

5plusn8 - I don't think I'm best placed to make an argument for Brexit.

I think it is a silly idea dreamt up by very silly people who should know better. Now stop it, its silly. (Read that as the military officer from MPython)

There are concerns over lack of jobs and prospects I parts of the UK, but that is a UK not EU issue and is at least in part due to over concentration by Westminster on the south-east of England - probably.

"More controverisally I believe with increasing use of technology/AI/robotics taking away traditional jobs the sustainable population of the UK is likely to be far lower than it is today"

...and when the phosphates crisis kicks in we are going to find a large population a nightmare.

[quote=jambalaya ]I have posted on this before.
Trying to solve our pension/ageing population cost issue issue by increasing migration is simply pouring more gas onto the fire. We solve those issues by saving more, by sacraficing lifestyle today. Tough love but the only solution.
More controverisally I believe with increasing use of technology/AI/robotics taking away traditional jobs the sustainable population of the UK is likely to be far lower than it is today.

Ok so this is the reason for reducing immigration? Do you have numbers on this that kind of outlines why this economic theory works? IE what you have said is a statement of an idea but it doesnt show any of the maths, or anything tangible.
Can you explain a bit more?

[quote=outofbreath ]"It means they have to agree on standards of goods. I am not sure how this affects sov, but they need to agree on what the quality and conditions of the goods will be to allow easy trade."
They don't, the goods have to meet the standards of the country that is buying. Neither side needs to change standards, they just manufacture export stuff to meet the other nations standards. Just as we do when we sell outside the EU.

Ok so that will add a bit of cost/red tape to manufacturing and export/import etc?

@kimbers - the goods have to meet the standards of the country that is buying. Neither side needs to change standards, they just manufacture export stuff to meet the other nations standards. Just as we do when we sell outside the EU. ....and we're talking in general now, not about the UK so don't get emotive and try to relate it to the EU.

Actually Jamba has a point about robotics and AI. That's the problem Trump has resurrecting jobs in the rust belt, and we'll have it to.

[quote=igm ]5plusn8 - I don't think I'm best placed to make an argument for Brexit.

Ahh ok sorry, I asked for pro brexits to tell me why, no wonder your answer confused me.

"Ok so that will add a bit of cost/red tape to manufacturing and export/import etc?"

What's that got to do with Sovereignty?

Just as we do when we sell outside the EU

Serious question as I don't know - do many companies make two versions of a product, for EU and non-EU sale?

[quote=outofbreath ]"Ok so that will add a bit of cost/red tape to manufacturing and export/import etc?"
What's that got to do with Sovereignty?

I don't know, I haven't made any claims about sovereignty. I am just exploring the relative merits of this free trade idea. It seems the proposal is that to make trade easier, instead of having trade area standards harmonisation, each country can have it's own standards, but if it wants to trade with another country it may well have to manufacture a bit differently for those products and then meet inspection and customs requirements on import. Seems to add a bit of cost and red tape right?

Also needs educated customers who know the standards for each country unfortunately.

Also needs educated customers who know the standards for each country unfortunately.

Yes. mol. the Norway model of "access" is at the softer end. It comes with certain conditions.

Do you think that the majority of voters who chose to leave felt that FoM and contributions to the EU budget were important part of their decisions?

Neither side needs to change standards, they just manufacture export stuff to meet the other nations standards

So you're saying the country that buys the stuff we sell dictates to us the how we have to make it, interesting......

In order to increase trade you to agree to common/different standards, you have to remove your tariffs etc. These are all exercises in giving up sovereignty. It cannot be avoided unless you want to simply [s]play[/s] trade with yourself.

Its classic Brexshit BS - #fakecontrol

So you're saying the country that buys the stuff we sell dictates to us the how we have to make it, interesting......

yes, clearly

So you're saying the country that buys the stuff we sell dictates to us the how we have to make it, interesting......

Serious question as I don't know - do many companies make two versions of a product, for EU and non-EU sale?

I can only speak for one set of (complex) products but in practice you can usually build one product that meets the standards of all the countries you export to.

But yes, I'm sure there are conflicting standards where if you want address both markets you have to make a slightly different product for each market.

But it's not just different specs - there are different fashions and different preferences. Each market is slightly different a product that sells well in Germany might not sell well in Italy.

These are all exercises in giving up sovereignty.

I'm still at a loss as to why this is giving up sovereignty, we just discuss and agree on a harmonised standard? Which bit of this is giving up sovereignty?

Serious question as I don't know - do many companies make two versions of a product, for EU and non-EU sale?

I don't know, I haven't made any claims about sovereignty. I am just exploring the relative merits of this free trade idea. It seems the proposal is that to make trade easier, instead of having trade area standards harmonisation, each country can have it's own standards, but if it wants to trade with another country it may well have to manufacture a bit differently for those products and then meet inspection and customs requirements on import. Seems to add a bit of cost and red tape right?

We seem to have moved off sovereignty but since you ask: No, in my example there is no additional cost or red tape when two countries mutually waive import duties.

And presumably when you have a FTA or trade under the WTO rules you have an independent arbiter who resolves disputes and you've given up sovereignty there.......

In order to increase trade you to agree to common/different standards, you have to remove your tariffs etc. These are all exercises in giving up sovereignty. It cannot be avoided unless you want to simply play trade with yourself.

Nope, mutually waiving tarrifs isn't giving up sovereignty.

You give up your control/elements of control over the issue - not suggesting this is a bad or good thing - it just is.

Its like marriage/relationships - to gain from them, you inevitably make compromises. You are stronger for doing so.

And presumably when you have a FTA or trade under the WTO rules you have an independent arbiter who resolves disputes and you've given up sovereignty there

I've no idea - but since you never had authority over that in the first place you can't have given up anything.

No, in my example there is no additional cost or red tape when two countries mutually waive import duties.

What about the cost of making a product to a different standard, and the cost of inspection to ensure the product meets the other countries standard? How is that paid for? And it is extra red tape in that now we have to understand a different set of rules for each target export country?
We may have to invest in additional equipment/manufacturing methods for each market place we sell in to?

Regardless of whether we're in the EU or not, the UK has chronically poor productivity compared to other western economies as well as an acute shortage of technical skills, dominated by an ageing workforce demographic and dependence on imported skills. In many technical skills we have a structural deficit in the region of 50,000 jobs/year that can't be filled - half of the skilled workforce in some sectors will retire in the next 10 years. We no longer have the capability to manage our own major infrastructure projects without significant numbers of highly skilled Poles, Slovaks etc. Any notion that we can simply grow our economy into highly competitive export markets is a fallacy when you don't have the workforce to deliver it - something sadly those in Government are ignoring.

And now we're discovering dependence, independence and interdependence.
Bit late but that's life.

You give up your control/elements of control over the issue

Control over what issue? There's no control given up at all.

What abiut the cost of making a product to a different standard, and the cost of inspection to ensure the product meets the other countries standard?

That's not changed by mutually waiving tariffs.

Control over what issue? There's no control given up at all.

Well if there is no tariff you cannot control how much comes n, it is free trade right, so they might be cheaper and sell much more into our market place than we sell out?

Control over what issue? There's no control given up at all.

Please give us some examples then of product standards that don't require surrendering some control.

That's not changed by mutually waiving tariffs.

Of course it is, in the EU there is one standard, one manufacturing method for any particular product - if I am making products for many markets, just because there is no import tariff doesn't mean I can suddenly waive the extra manufacturing cost and red tape of making a diff product and inspecting it?

FYI outofbreath, I am neutral, I just want to understand the issues, so appreciate your effort in explaining them.

Hes not explaining them, hes just saying you dont give up control with no examples

WTO 'rules require minimum standards on labour laws
patent protection
environmental standards etc etc

Any disputes have be settled under the WTOs own set of regulations

Oh god, what have i started????

Kimbers and 5plus8, I don't think either of you have understood my example. It was the simplest deal I could think of so I can't make it any simpler and since I only offered it to explore if Sovereignty always had to be traded away in a trade deal, and that question has been answered to my satisfaction, there's not much benefit in continuing down this rat hole. Sorry!

Kimbers and 5plus8, I don't think either of you have understood my example. It was the simplest deal I could think of so I can't make it any simpler and since I only offered it to explore if Sovereignty always had to be traded away in a trade deal, and that question has been answered to my satisfaction, there's not much benefit in continuing down this rat hole. Sorry!

Listen I think we agree about sovereignty, I dont see the loss of sov in a trade deal either way, but I just want you to explain how making products to different standards to suit diff markets doesn't cost more than only having to make it to a single standard. I am sure you have an explanation. Please don't give up.

We don't "lose" sovereignty by being in the EU, we *share* sovereignty.

To follow my marriage analogy, that is wonderfully romantic captain... 😉

Of course it costs more to produce products for different markets with different standards.
Just think of electrical products, they need different plugs, and you also need to have your instructions translated etc...

Of course it costs more to produce products for different markets with different standards.
Just think of electrical products, they need different plugs, and you also need to have your instructions translated etc...

Indeed, although the translation thing is a one off, I can see you would need an importer or agent in the target country to handle warranties etc. Many EU companies doing all that direct now. (Eg YT, Canyon etc)

Still might not be the end of the world, I just want to know why doing trade this way is better than harmonised standards, either way according to outofbreath there is no loss of sovereignty so that's not the issue. For example he said zero tarrif = no loss of sov, that by his definition is the same as the current EU arrangement.

teamhurtmore - Member
Oh god, what have i started????

You are David Cameron and I claim my [s]£5[/s] €5

That's not changed by mutually waiving tariffs.

Mutual? If you're trading with economies much larger than yours, you take what you're given to a large extent. Seen the tariff arrangement Switzerland negotiated with China? That's hardly mutual, is it?

And what are we likely to get from the US? Cheap, shitty meat, whether we like it or not, and a farming industry with options: a) reduce standards or b) suffer. Hooray for control, hooray for sovereignty.

Bob Young, chief economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation, made it crystal clear that any US trade deal struck by Theresa May would be contingent on the UK public stomaching imports of US foods that it has previously rejected: beef from cattle implanted with growth hormones, chlorine-washed chicken, and unlabelled genetically modified (GM) foods.

We'll be calling the shots alright, we're the 7th largest economy in the world...

Whatever the arguments about health and standards, it must be noted that US meat is actually delicious.

unlike their chocolate

"Mutual? If you're trading with economies much larger than yours, you take what you're given to a large extent."

See my reply to Kimbers and 5plus8.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38819185

Great............

Mutual? If you're trading with economies much larger than yours, you take what you're given to a large extent."

See my reply to Kimbers and 5plus8.

What did they say about this I am confused again?

"Mutual? If you're trading with economies much larger than yours, you take what you're given to a large extent."

See my reply to Kimbers and 5plus8.

Which reply about this? I cam confused.

ummm sorry...

You are David Cameron and I claim my £5 €5

I've already tried that, THM is a bad payer.

Nah, you just couldn't afford my rate of interest.

[i]Whatever the arguments about health and standards, it must be noted that US meat is actually delicious. [/I]

A bit like much processed food, just don't look at the ingredients now method to 'create' it...

"Whatever the arguments about health and standards, it must be noted that US meat is actually delicious."

The only US foodstuff I regularly buy in the UK is Californian Merlot or Cab Sauv. Seems OK to me.

teamhurtmore - Member
Nah, you just couldn't afford my rate of interest.

Depends on the currencies involved and how fast the exchange rates move.

US cheese and butter is pretty disappointing.

Never yet seen any convincing sausages for sale.

The conditions that cattle are reared in are pretty grim.

Forget about lamb.

Anyone else seen the "he's lying to you footage"?

😀

At what point will it dawn on Corbyn what he's done - when the Speaker says "it's a Govt win" maybe?

So are UKIP going to be done for fraud? Suspect it's not a criminal charge in that sense but it would be nice to see Farage in an EU jail.

milleboy - Member
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38819185

Great............

I refer you to my prediction a few pages back where I called this 🙂

the economy etc is just a smokescreen- we're debating it here endlessly but HMG aren't fussed- the objectives are:

-keep UKIP in check by changes to immigration
-get us out of the ECJ

....and of the two, the latter is the most important to them.

I've no idea

You've convinced me of that.

....and of the two, the latter is the most important to them.

Most important to [b]her[/b]. Many Tory MPs have other priorities, hence May keeping them at a distance.

At what point will it dawn on Corbyn what he's done - when the Speaker says "it's a Govt win" maybe?

The minor parties are the opposition now.

During the debate earlier, former Chancellor George Osborne said the government had chosen "not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation, they have prioritised immigration control", while the EU's priority would be to "maintain the integrity of the remaining 27 members of the European Union".

He predicted the talks with the EU would be bitter, and a trade-off between "access and money".

Mr Osborne said he had "passionately" campaigned for a Remain vote in the EU referendum and had sacrificed his position in government for the cause.

But he said for Parliament not to allow Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to be invoked would "alienate people who already feel alienated" and could cause a "deep constitutional crisis".

What this misses is, that parliament will "alienate people who already feel alienated" either way. The idea that all the Remain voters somehow feel they have economic stability, and control over the industries and cultures around them, is fantasy. Once A50 is triggered, a lot of alienated people will feel even more alienated, facing a future with fewer freedoms, fewer rights, and less control over their own lives.

Anyone else seen the "he's lying to you" footage?

As we're going to be shafted by the politicians.

The SO needs a new passport, odds on it being junk in circa two years and her having to pay for a replacement. How about my driving licence, i guess that will be junk as well and i will have to pay for a new one! Couldn't expect the Brexiters to stump up the costs for their actions.

In same boat. Passport runs out between two trips so my hand is forced.

Shame, I wanted to hold out for a blue Passport!!

#takebritainbacktothe70s