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

It probably looks like

The UK is ready to set out its vision of how it wants financial services to operate after Brexit and favours an ambitious “mutual recognition” of regulations to preserve the City of London’s access to the EU.

Three senior figures briefed on Brexit discussions in the cabinet said that the government will back the proposal, which is also favoured by Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor.

One said: “They are going down the route of mutual recognition.” Another person close to the discussions called the preferred option a “dynamic reciprocal mutual recognition model”. The Treasury declined to comment.

Philip Hammond, chancellor, is expected to endorse the idea in a speech that could come as early as next week. His allies cautioned, however, that a final decision on a preferred model has not yet been taken.

Under Britain’s proposal, the UK and the EU would recognise each other’s regulatory and supervisory regimes and would have aligned rules at the point of Brexit, with a mechanism that would monitor any divergence.

This has been our plan A, plan B and plan C for about 12 months or more

Miles Celic, TheCityUK
A dispute resolution mechanism would also be established to calibrate market access or impose other conditions — for example higher capital requirements — if one side was seen to be breaking the spirit of the agreement.

The idea is likely to be welcomed by Britain’s financial services firms and is favoured by cabinet ministers because it would allow the UK to set its own rules to meet commonly agreed objectives such as consumer protection and financial stability.

Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK lobbying group, said: “This has been our plan A, plan B and plan C for about 12 months or more.”

The proposal was developed by the International Regulatory Strategy Group, an industry body that consulted widely across the EU, as an alternative to the EU’s “equivalence” regime that applies to third countries.

But the idea is unlikely to win favour in Brussels and Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has repeatedly said that the UK will not be able to negotiate special access arrangements to the single market for financial services.

Theresa May, who will discuss Brexit with German chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin on Friday, has said she wants to include financial services in a free trade deal. One ally of Mrs May said: “Obviously our future relationship is a matter for negotiation.”

According to the FT

we have to deal with what is in front of us not what we wish was in front of us.

So my thought process is to think what does the proposal mean versus the alternative (as Barnier pretends) not what we have now

That's not entirely true though... what we have now is a valid option.

More importantly I believe is to compare what we have now with what we are likely to get and even what we might be lucky to get but with some actual detail.

This IMHO should have been done before any referendum (but it wasn't) so what we have its lots of crazy speculation.

This isn't simply financial although I think that is a big part. I'm happy we assess exactly what not being in the EU means as far as our Sovereignty... but the reality not the hyperbole. Are we really going to abolish EU laws on seatbelt testing or bike-locks (or any of the others) etc. and develop our own? And if we do who will we sell to?

Steve - unfortunately we voted on whether we wanted to continue with what we had now and the answer was “no thank you”.

So as interesting as the comparison with now may be it’s of little practical relevance

But I am pleased that sensible solutions are being proposed now and I expect the same principles to be applied across different industries - broad regulatory equivalence

bit to messy for the monochrome gang but in line with the realities of the real world

Like anywhere else we will adapt our standards to suit our target markets. Some remainers like to pretend that this is a new concept. It isn’t. It’s a old as the hills.

Steve – unfortunately we voted on whether we wanted to continue with what we had now and the answer was “no thank you”.

Which is rather meaningless given it didn't include what we are changing to.

It's pretty much like saying "Yes I want a lower unit cost for leccy" without being told what other charges I will have to pay or the conditions.

Obviously we'd all like a lower per kWh charge if everything else stays the same... but it won't stay the same. I might inly be able to use it certain hours, the standing charge will go up, I might have to get gas from them as well... etc. etc.

Before I vote on my lower per unit charge with my account details I want to know the conditions, otherwise its an uninformed vote.

.

THM - we had a referendum which had no guidance in the legislation as to what would happen (probably because they’d never have got a binding referendum through parliament), which we were then told during the campaign was binding.  That’s a democratic fail straight off.

The referendum result was “Mmm, not really sure, as but more out than in on balance” - I mean 1.9% swing for goodness sake - but while “in” was reasonable defined (I agree it would have changed over the years, but the UK would have had its say in that), “out” was completely undefined - some folk seeing it as a libertarian wet dream, others as a chance to roll back international capitalism (square those two), while for others it was all about the wrong sort of immigrants - sorry taking control of our borders. (Turns out we all like the right sort of immigrants we just don’t necessarily agree on what the right sort are).

Democracy was poorly served by that referendum and the lunatic fringe of the leave movement killing a remainer  MP didn’t help.  Brexies can improve their standing in my eyes by condemning that event - something they were slow to do at the time preferring to talk about how she occasionally helped Muslims.

The Brexy dominated press then turned on anyone and everyone who even hinted that 100% of Britons weren’t behind leaving.  MPs, judges, lords and private citizens were bullied in a really nasty way.

There has been plenty of democratic process and precious little democracy throughout this.

Now as we’re starting to understand what leave means the people have turned against leaving - only just I agree, but they have.  But that can’t be acknowledged, can it.

Anyway, looking at possible silver linings, I’m considering buying an apartment in the Alps, and there’s a good chance that Brexit might cause the prices in the more anglophone resorts to fall a bit.  It’s an ill wind and all.

a final decision on a preferred model has not yet been taken

So another "possible" idea. Well, actually a restating of a possible idea. Wake me up when the government is actually making a proposal…

No we did not and it was made clear that the result would be respected. We really need to stop making stuff up about this

We had a referendum on membership of the EU. Very clear

We know what that entails - benefits, core foundations etc, compromises. google is your friend

We chose to give that up - narrowly admittedly

If people chose not to read what membership entails or if we did a bad job at presenting the cost-benefit analysts that that’s their/our fault

Its simply not true to pretend that we did not know what would happen. That’s a false as the lies the Brexshiteers used in the first place

If you believe that voting to give up membership of the EU and what this entails is meaningless then I cannot help. Sorry!

You are grossly and unhelpfully oversimplifying the situation THM.

You have to understand that.  Ok so we're leaving.  Fine.  So what's our new world situation going to be? Is it going to be what people want?

“But that can’t be acknowledged, can it.”

Especially not by remainers such as Hurty, who happily changed their colours when they thought they’d worked out how to make a bob or two out of leaving.

Being such a fan of democracy and all, he seems very set against the idea of a second referendum. I have no idea why he wishes to deny the people the right to confirm their decision once the details are known. It’s almost like he’s not such a fan of democracy after all. Sad.

Cough

as opposed to blatantly lying about it?

we had a referendum which had no guidance in the legislation as to what would happen (probably because they’d never have got a binding referendum through parliament), which we were then told during the campaign was binding. That’s a democratic fail straight off.

Traitor. Oh, no, sorry, I meant "correct".

The rest of your post also made complete sense to me.

The only thing I'd disagree on, is the Leave vote could well have been higher if it was not for the murder of an MP. The Leave campaign was on a roll at that point (partly for the reasons you mention), and the halt in campaigning probably slowed down their progress.

“Its simply not true to pretend that we did not know what would happen.“

Horseshit. We still don’t, largely. And you know that as well as anyone else.

“as opposed to blatantly lying about it?”

You couldn’t lie straight in bed, mate.

Abuse won’t change the facts zokes but you carry on regardless. Leopards and all...

Its simply not true to pretend that we did not know what would happen.

Essentially your argument is we have voted to go on a holiday so therefore we all know what we are doing. the fact no one has said where to or how we get there [and we are still arguing about these] is irrelevant as we do know what we are doing.
I can see the logic in your position but its quite a weak argument. If we knew what we had voted for we would be doing it without this level of uncertainty.

I do agree there will be a deal as no one does fudges like the EU- they are not the DUP after all- I am less sure the tory party is willing to pay the price required though.

PS thanks for actually debating

“Leopards and all…”

They rarely change their spots. I know. You’ve always been an unpleasant troll. It seems likely you want to continue being one.

And for you to whinge about abuse, well, that’s just about the most hypocritical thing anyone has said in all >1000 pages of this thread.

Crack right on mate, we’re all laughing.

QED

Abuse won’t change the facts zokes but you carry on regardless. Leopards and all…

THM - we still don't know if we're getting soft or hard brexit.

You can't pretend this is simple.

But that can’t be acknowledged, can it.

Of course it can't, because it is wishful thinking. As someone who knows what he is talking about says

Detecting a shift in public opinion on Brexit – in either direction – is, it seems, very hard to do.

We had a referendum on membership of the EU. Very clear

We know what that entails – benefits, core foundations etc, compromises. google is your friend

It completely misses what the alternatives entail.

If we want a trade deal with say India we have to compromise on what THEY want...
Lots of "we can have a deal with" are floated but what does that "deal" entail?

Sure we have EU core foundations ... one of which is free movement but what is the alternative? As Theresa found out in India there isn't one that doesn't involve Indian people being able to come to the UK and do British jobs...

We can of course ask for free movement for British people going to India to work... but overall is that better than EU people and a right to work in the EU?

The point is until we have these deals then there is no defined alternative.
We have a current market with the EU ... it has some core foundations and compromise but so will EVERY trade deal.

Until we know what those are it's pure speculation vs a reasonably defined path staying put. As IGM say's not without uncertainty but more certain than "we will have trade deals under WTO"

THM – we still don’t know if we’re getting soft or hard brexit.

You can’t pretend this is simple.

We don't even know what a soft or hard Brexit ACTUALLY mean.
Even if we had a choice of No Exit, Soft or Hard ... what do those options really mean.

A hard Brexit means nothing unless we have deals agreed and in place... we can't just expect to get preferential deals because other countries feel sorry for us.

What exactly is a soft brexit? There must be 100 different flavours...

Admittedly a no Brexit isn't 100% certain but we have far more idea than a soft and almost infinitely more than a hard.

We can only ever vote for a direction of travel, no one can guarantee an "end state", the referendum clearly did that and now it is up to the government to see what can be secured.

“and now it is up to the government to see what can be secured.”

So it’s that bad. Cripes.

THM - if you think I’m making something up then feel free to be specific.  I don’t think anything I said is incorrect, though clearly it comes from a pro-EU point of view.

However show me where I’m actually wrong and I’ll say sorry.

The legislation, which I have read, was gloriously quiet on what would happen.

I accept that during the campaign (by which I mean all the statements and sssertions outside the legislation) they said the result would be respected (I said binding but who’s counting). Interesting concept though given if there was to be a “result” the legislation should have said how that result would be defined, say 50%+1 or 2/3s majority - it didn’t.

Now am I incorrect on either of those points?

That making things up outside the legislation is bad democracy.

The rest of my rant follows from there.

Any financial deal will require more than d'accord and einverstanden. 27 countries to please, fat chance.

Nice selective quoting of John Curtice (a man for whom I have some respect), Mefty. Doesn’t entirely reflect the rest of the article does it now.

As an aside, a previous holder of John Curtice’s position as Professor of Politics at Strathclyde was my father.

now it is up to the government to see what can be secured

So why should such a dramatic change in the future of our country be planned in secret by such a small group of people?

Here you go. My father, 1974, with a handheld swingometer - you don’t get the handhelds anymore.

https://goo.gl/images/pcBCq9

Correct mol - but the ideas of soft and hard Brexit are pretty meaningless anyway

IGM you first poInt was the one that I disagreed with.

The only countries that have full access to the single market are member states. The single market entails the free movement of people, goods and services, and capital. These four pillars are secured through rules interpreted by the ECJ. All of this was/is well known or should be.  No excuses on any of this

We have rejected membership of the EU. We voted on that through a referendum, parliamentary votes and a GE where the two leading parties committed to honouring the result. A democratic process. Our side lost.

The only difficulty is that we want to maintain liberalised trade with the the EU (quite naturally and vice versa) while at the same time limiting FoM and the reach of the ECJ. We want to achieve this via a bespoke agreement. Again all of this was know pre, during and post the referendum.

What we also know is that there are obvious tensions in our chosen route. We also know how these relate to each of the existing trade deals and Jambas favourite but flawed option of WTO. Again all of this was available before the vote. It’s available now

Whaf we do not know is where each side will compromise in relation to the various points of tension. Each of the major parties disagree internally on these issues which is not really surprising. The monochrome gangs on either sides cling to extreme views and make the most noise doing so

In the meantime, grown ups negotiate, compromise and move on with much less noise. Today’s proposal re fin services is another good example

all anyone has to do is read - oh and ignore most of the media

So, contrary to popular nonsense this really is quite simple at least conceptually and there are no exuses other than laziness for claiming otherwise

Nice selective quoting of John Curtice (a man for whom I have some respect), Mefty. Doesn’t entirely reflect the rest of the article does it now.

As I quoted his conclusion, I think he thinks it does reflect the rest of the article.

😀

THM - was there special legislation that I didn’t see then or did they not on one hand authorise an advisory referendum while on the other hand state it was binding?

I struggle to see what you’re disagreeing with.  The rest of it would be far more sensible to disagree with.

Though I can see that if you accept the flawed from the start argument then it causes problems with the democratic will argument.

Mefty - within the conclusion it has a somewhat different meaning than your disingenuous selective quoting of it.

Context matters.

The thrust of that article is that it appears there is a shift, but Prof Curtice can’t prove it.  And that is where your quote fits.

But carry on.

Why is a vote to Leave the EU read to mean that "we" have to be limiting FoM? We could change our own rules on FoM without leaving the EU, and there are countries outside the EU that have more liberal rules on FoM than we do. We could leave the EU, and at the same time extend FoM rather than limit it, without any contradiction as regards the "result" of the referendum.

You just have to read IGM - I have quoted the specific passage umpteen times.

But you are mixing messages here, if I may say so. I was disagreeing with your first point about not knowing etc. That is simply untrue.

No we did not and it was made clear that the result would be respected.

There have been quite a few things over the last year that have been "perfectly clear" that have strangely turned out to be nothing of the sort...

Membership of the EU entails FoM. For some bizarre reason a lot of people don’t like it. So they voted against it. Hence we can’t be members. It’s not difficult.

Ditto the ECJ - remember what they said about taking back control.

But, we could stop being members, but then liberalise FoM as a non-member … even sign up to Schengnen. Nothing in your "clear" referendum question or result that excludes that option… and it would help to get us a close trading relationship with our neighbours.

Mefty – within the conclusion it has a somewhat different meaning than your disingenuous selective quoting of it.

No there isn't, you just can't accept reality, it is a pretty typical remainer flaw.

You just have to read IGM – I have quoted the specific passage umpteen times.

THM - I think if I may be so bold, you may have misread what I wrote.

I said there was no guidance in the legislation about what would happen. That was what I meant. There was no guidance, given in the legislation, that for example at 67% we would withdraw from EU membership.

i think that is correct.

We will be able to do what we like re FoM - correct. It will be our choice in future. Personally I am all in favour.

But that is a separate discussion. The question in hand is membership of the EU which requires FoM

Mefty 😂

There was very clear guidance that the result would be respected whatever the outcome. I have quoted it many times. But feel free to ignore this if it helps.

But, we could stop being members, but then liberalise FoM as a non-member … even sign up to Schengnen. Nothing in your “clear” referendum question or result that excludes that option… and it would help to get us a close trading relationship with our neighbours.

Yes

We could

Hurrah - you're starting to understand all this sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy thing at last, well done!

😀

No there isn’t, you just can’t accept reality, it is a pretty typical remainer flaw.

Now that is a bone-headed response if there ever was one!

Correct mol – but the ideas of soft and hard Brexit are pretty meaningless anyway

Well no - soft means staying in the EEA, hard means not.  Straightfoward.

As for a 'bespoke' deal - that tells us nothing.  We as a country have no idea what we're going to end up with because we were never told what our government wants.

You seem to be suggesting that there is only one possible solution that is the boundary between what the EU wants and what the UK Govt wants.  If that were true, we still have no idea where they want that boundary to be.  We're passengers, that's all.

As for parliamentary sovereignty - that's great if you have faith in your parliament.

Oh gosh, how erudite.

Hurrah – you’re starting to understand all this sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy thing at last, well done!

Yes, we could already change our own rules to make them tighter, without leaving the EU, but didn't with good reason. Likewise, on leaving the EU we could sign up to keep, or even extend FoM as part of our new relationship… and that would be entirely in keeping with the referendum result.

What we cannot sign up for, however, is [i]reciprocal[/i] freedom of movement.  So whilst we can let anyone in, we cannot expect the EU to do the same.  They too can do what they like.

FoM moves both ways did you not realise this?  Or do you not care?

Yes we could, take a look at Norway and Switzerland.

Nope mol

There a various options other than what I assume you mean by hard Brexshit ie WTO

each have different pros and cons hence your notion of soft versus hard is meaningless as I said or to use your language (I think) a gross oversimplification

Why do we need to look at Norway or Switzerland?

There was very clear guidance that the result would be respected whatever the outcome. I have quoted it many times. But feel free to ignore this if it helps.

I agree.

Given outside the legislation which did not indicate whether a 50%+1 or the more common 2/3s majority should be considered a winning result.  Nor whether we would withdraw if there was a winning leave result.

I appreciate you are not predisposed to accepting the flaw at the heart of it all but it’s there.

The decision to make the referendum binding should have been in the legislation and it wasn’t.

I may of course be wrong.

Oh gosh, how erudite.

I know. Brought to your level. Shameful and I apologise most wholeheartedly.

I would agree with you that it would have been better to have a more definitive and higher threshold and for this to have been legislated for. But it wasn’t. Tant pis.

THM - thank you. We are in agreement.

So, as the Brexit Cheerleaders won't outline a new relationship with the EU that they can try and find consensus for… why don't those of us who would rather we kept membership try and knock together heads and find a Leave to aim for…

I'll start…

• continued financial contributions towards shared institutions we can take part in… such as Euratom.
• UK:EU agreement for continued FOM, and open borders, Schengen like but with extensions to allow Ireland to be included, to promote trade and cooperation.
• The UK designed Single Market to include the UK for goods only and a (not services or agriculture or fisheries) customs agreement and CCP that allows the UK to seek new trade deals for the excluded industries.
• Additional Customs agreement for NI, including agriculture, with new customs border for agri goods at NI:rUK ports.

As for parliamentary sovereignty – that’s great if you have faith in your parliament.

Nothing stopping you voting for another one is there?

Damn this 'democracy' trap that we're all living in - without that we could all have exactly what we wanted.

Ninfan - ?

Hmm but what if the two possibilities are widely opposite?  Would it not be better to have some stuff decided outside the normal ideological flip flop?

Something to give more stability?  After all we don't have an effective second house in this country.

But likewise, YOU could vote for a different EU representative if you weren't happy.

Tant pis

That's basically your entire point isn't it?   Tough shit.

Ok, thanks for that.  Now should we discuss the issues?  Are there any issues? Or should we just give up and go back to our menial jobs letting the exalted ones tell us what's best for us?

See this whole sovereignty thing is purely nationalist.

Our current government is made up of representatives from all over the UK. People who aren't Welsh get to tell me what to do in Wales.  But this is ok, because I'm part of the UK, right?  So why is it NOT ok to get a little input from people from Norway or France?  It's because they are FOREIGN isn't it?  They are THEM not US?

Well over here, the English could easily be THEM too, couldn't they?

Have you tried google translate?

the more common 2/3s majority should be considered a winning result.

Nothing more common about 2/3 majorities in referendums the reverse is true.

Mefty, outline the relationship you think we should be trying to arrive it with the EU please… we need to know what we should be getting behind… only Jamba has had the grace to tell us his position. We need more than "not EU membership" if we're to support this bright new future ahead of us…

I think a trade deal is the right way to go as remaining in either the CU or the Single Market limits our ability to find our own way in the world and just guarantees a worse position than we have now - there is no potential for upside. Other than that I am pretty dovish on Freedom of Movement but think a compromise on Freedom of Movement of Labour would be a good compromise, though I am not convinced the government is willing to go that far. We have to maintain a border. Customs borders with NI without infrastructure other than ANPR etc, high thresholds and pre-clearance for trusted traders.

Have you tried google translate?

Did I mistranslate tant pis?

I think a trade deal is the right way to go as remaining in either the CU or the Single Market limits our ability to find our own way in the world

So.. why would 'our own way' be better than being linked to trade with our nearest neighbours?  Seems an awful lot of conjecture there, don't you think?

Ah… the "just pretend it isn't a customs border" solution…

our own way in the world

Which is where, with whom, under what terms?

Anyway, you seem quite close to Jamba on this… cut more ties with Europe to "maximise" freedom to chase new trade deals with nonEU/EAA countries… what do you think to the "no transition deal, persue an FTA after we've left" approach he seems to prefer…?

Slightly 😉

I think a trade deal is the right way to go as remaining in either the CU or the Single Market limits our ability to find our own way in the world

What proportion of UK peeps agree that we should Leave the Single Market, do we reckon… most polls show about 15%, yes? I'm sure that could be raised much higher, when the benefits of that decision vs the damaging effects are presented properly to the UK population… but could it be raised to anything like 50%?

Not really Jambas ideal falls flat against many of our goals including

1 Tariff free trade with Europe

2. Access to single market for services

3. Seamless and frictionless borders

4. Voluntary participation in EU programmes

Other FTA solutions vary against these goals

I was asking Mefty.

Kelvin why do you keep missing the elephant

the only countries that have full membership of the single market are EU member states. We have chosen not to be an EU member state. Ergo we have given up full membership of the single market

...it’s sitting in the middle of the room. Big ears and tusks

Bore off.

Why was that too hard to answer?

only member states have full membetship of the single market. We have chosen to give that membership up. The percentages were published

I didn't say "full membership", and nor did Mefty.

Please take your tedious trolling and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.