Post-Brexit Thread

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

No leave to the majority was completely leave the EU and anything EU related pretty straightforward to be honest and that doesn't mean we turn our back on europe or have no dealings with them. It means we no longer pay a penny more into EU coffers and if we do agree to pay to access the single market you can be damn sure the EU will make the agreement in such a way that the fee goes up each year. But i understand that grasping the concept of life without the EU is foreign to some and the idea of trading globally with our attention more directed to true global trade rather then an ever decreasing trade with the EU. I guess i and most leave voters have more confidence in our nations ability to not just manage on the global stage but prosper greatly from it.

Leave EU means leave EU and we're all leavers now. But a vote to leave doesn't say anything about leaving the EEA or any subsequent agreements between the UK and EU. We can probably blame Cameron for some of this but we are where we are.
I appreciate that it would be nice from your perspective if a vote to leave had all the bolt-ons that you want it to have and mirrored your views. I regret to inform you it didn't.

By your definition not by mine and not by the majority and no matter how many times remain supporters try to tell us what the leave vote meant doesn't change the fact that most who voted to leave meant to leave anything and everything to do with the EU. We're not all leavers now at all or we wouldn't have so many trying to scupper it or get it so watered down it's pointless.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

No leave to the majority was completely leave the EU and anything EU related pretty straightforward to be honest and that doesn't mean we turn our back on europe or have no dealings with them. It means we no longer pay a penny more into EU coffers and if we do agree to pay to access the single market you can be damn sure the EU will make the agreement in such a way that the fee goes up each year. But i understand that grasping the concept of life without the EU is foreign to some and the idea of trading globally with our attention more directed to true global trade rather then an ever decreasing trade with the EU. I guess i and most leave voters have more confidence in our nations ability to not just manage on the global stage but prosper greatly from it.

But Europe is the biggest single trading bloc in the word. We should certainly do whatever is in our interests to continue doing well out of Europe. I understand that the EU upsets people that even once outside it some would rather not even deal with them to the extent they're willing to take a hit for the UK so long as it damages the EU more but the country has to come first Rizzy. (imo obviously)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Leave EU means leave EU and we're all leavers now. But a vote to leave doesn't say anything about leaving the EEA or any subsequent agreements between the UK and EU. We can probably blame Cameron for some of this but we are where we are.
I appreciate that it would be nice from your perspective if a vote to leave had all the bolt-ons that you want it to have and mirrored your views. I regret to inform you it didn't.

I assume you didn't read (or take in) the article I linked to earlier. Our membership of EEA is by virtue of EU membership, leave the EU EEA membership goes with it. No ifs, no buts it ceases to exist.

I strongly suggest other remoaners read the Chatham House article linked to as well, it may assist you in understanding what lies ahead and explain better the alternatives open to us. It would save you looking like idiots who can't accept the result of the referendum.

Originally Posted by pip08456

I assume you didn't read (or take in) the article I linked to earlier. Our membership of EEA is by virtue of EU membership, leave the EU EEA membership goes with it. No ifs, no buts it ceases to exist.

It would be an EEA-like agreement. We would still be out of the EU.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

It would be an EEA-like agreement. We would still be out of the EU.

An EEA-like agreement has to be negotiated seperately to Article 50 negotiations.

The only link at present is our membership of the EU. Leave one -you leave both.

Please take the time to read the article.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publica...it-negotiation

Our trade has been getting worse with the EU it's a stagnating market there are far more lucrative and dynamic opportunites outside of the EU and that's whats in the national interest. There are far more countries that don't have trade deals with the EU then have and quite a few are doing well economically our survival does not lie with the EU and it never has. Yes we will take a hit in the short to mid term but longterm our future is better out of the EU then in and that's not even touching on the number of serious problems the EU has hell even belgium the centre of the EU is in danger of slipping below their own euro currency criteria.

How many times have people on here and elsewhere moaned and complained about short term views and policies being the worst thing we can do and now look what happens when people take a longer view on an issue having their cake and eating it applies to many aspects of brexit at the minute.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I assume you didn't read (or take in) the article I linked to earlier. Our membership of EEA is by virtue of EU membership, leave the EU EEA membership goes with it. No ifs, no buts it ceases to exist.

I strongly suggest other remoaners read the Chatham House article linked to as well, it may assist you in understanding what lies ahead and explain better the alternatives open to us. It would save you looking like idiots who can't accept the result of the referendum.

I'm not a remoaner, I'm a leaver like the rest of the country.

The Chatham House article was great but please look at its age - it was written months before the recent discussions about Articles 127. Here's a reminder of these developments. http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-28/f...t-article-127/

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Our trade has been getting worse with the EU it's a stagnating market there are far more lucrative and dynamic opportunites outside of the EU and that's whats in the national interest. There are far more countries that don't have trade deals with the EU then have and quite a few are doing well economically our survival does not lie with the EU and it never has. Yes we will take a hit in the short to mid term but longterm our future is better out of the EU then in and that's not even touching on the number of serious problems the EU has hell even belgium the centre of the EU is in danger of slipping below their own euro currency criteria..

I think we should trade with them upon leaving the EU. It makes no sense to intentionally hinder ourselves just because some people want to take it further and not even deal with them. We should put that aside and do what's best for the UK, who cares if it helps the EU as well?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not a remoaner, I'm a leaver like the rest of the country.

The Chatham House article was great but please look at its age - it was written months before the recent discussions about Articles 127. Here's a reminder of these developments. http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-28/f...t-article-127/

I'll trump your Article 127 with Article 126.

Article 127 also faces a problem by reason of the provision just before it in the EEA agreement. Article 126 provides that the EEA comprises the EU members (which the UK will presumably not be after Brexit) and three specific EFTA members (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). Once the UK leaves the EU, it also departs from those listed in Article 126: the question is then whether it thereby departs from the EEA agreement as a whole, even though it is a separate signatory. And although Article 126 does not expressly say that it a closed list of EEA members, it does have the appearance of an exhaustive provision.

Where have i said we shouldn't trade with europe i never have and never would of course we will trade with europe we just shouldn't pay for it and if they impose tariffs so be it we will match them and given we import more then we export i don't see an issue. Take some of the tariffs and compensate any company's that have to pay trade tariffs to the EU so it doesn't cost us anything which our government will be able to do as we'd no longer be bound by EU rules. Nobody rational and sane has ever talked about turning our back on europe or having nothing to do with europe anymore what an utter load of rubbish.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think we should trade with them upon leaving the EU. It makes no sense to intentionally hinder ourselves just because some people want to take it further and not even deal with them. We should put that aside and do what's best for the UK, who cares if it helps the EU as well?

Good point. And no one has named the nations that we should now be dealing with. India told us where to go unless we increased student visas. China and Russia are impregnable. Theresa May said South Korea and then realised it had a free trade deal with the EU already! In the meantime, the EU is quietly negotiating a deal with Japan, population 127m.

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

I'll trump your Article 127 with Article 126.

lol, good call!

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Where have i said we shouldn't trade with europe i never have and never would of course we will trade with europe we just shouldn't pay for it and if they impose tariffs so be it we will match them and given we import more then we export i don't see an issue. Take some of the tariffs and compensate any company's that have to pay trade tariffs to the EU so it doesn't cost us anything which our government will be able to do as we'd no longer be bound by EU rules. Nobody rational and sane has ever talked about turning our back on europe or having nothing to do with europe anymore what an utter load of rubbish.

I think we should pay if the Government thinks that costs less than having tariffs or having less access to sell services etc.

How much should we pay for the privilege of trading with the EU and given there are dedicated teams working to take as many financial services as they can from london how much do we want to pay.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

How much should we pay for the privilege of trading with the EU and given there are dedicated teams working to take as many financial services as they can from london how much do we want to pay.

The financial services would stay here if they had assurances their access to Europe would continue. It would undercut the ability for France and Germany to take them. We shouldn't hold that against France or Germany btw, we would do the same thing.

No idea of how much we would pay. Not remotely qualified enough to put a value on it.

But let's say we're free from EU social chapter legislation, we have privileged access to the single market and we also control immigration? Isn't that an ideal scenario even with a fee?