Brexit...

[Shy_Talk]

Seems some are banking on EU membership being a hot topic in forthcoming elections, and I strongly suspect a united states of europe would have been fought for much harder by British interests if British interests had a much more powerful say comparable with lets say the French for instance.

[Bailey]

I would have thought that EU deals might not have been in the best interests of the UK. Sure they wouldn't be bad deals but they may have more benefit to Germany or France than say the UK or Spain. At least being independent gives us that opportunity whereas being in the EU wouldn't.

 

The negotiations could go tits up and we are worse off but at least that was our mistake and not someone else's.

[holystove]

I would have thought that EU deals might not have been in the best interests of the UK. Sure they wouldn't be bad deals but they may have more benefit to Germany or France than say the UK or Spain. At least being independent gives us that opportunity whereas being in the EU wouldn't.

 

It's difficult for me to understand how you could say that the trade deals the EU negotiates are only to the benefit of France and Germany.

 

Even if those two countries always voted together in the Council, they still wouldn't get a majority without a lot of other member states supporting them. As I said in a previous post, the UK is so big, that they can basically block or enforce anything they want in the EU (which incidentally is why I was pro-Brexit on the 23rd of June 2016 - I no longer am right now). Also, the trade deals are negotiated by the Commission which isn't a French or German institution (the last time someone French or German headed it was 20 years ago) - only at the end do the member states get a say.

 

If we look at reality, you can see that for example the EU-South Korea deal of 2011 has increased UK-South Korea trade by a whopping 57%. Germany's trade increased by 50%. The Canada-EU deal was projected to increase UK-Canada trade by 29%.

 

It is a fact that through the EU the UK has access to a lot more markets (the EU has access to 50 markets .. countries like Canada and Australia only 15), and gets better trade deals (being the biggest economic bloc in the world gives you a lot of bargaining power; the Australia-South Korea trade deal eliminates tariffs 4 times slower than the EU was able to do in their South Korea deal; China just did a deal with Switzerland where China gets immediate access to the Swiss market but the Swiss have to wait 15 years for access to the Chinese Market; ...)

 

It's OK to want to go at it alone, but it's a near certainty that the UK will do worse than as a part of the EU. It's why I said that Davis and Fox and co shouldn't make the British public believe that on this issue, leaving the EU was beneficial.

Edited January 6, 2017 by holystove

[Bailey]

 

It's difficult for me to understand how you could say that the trade deals the EU negotiates are only to the benefit of France and Germany.

 

Even if those two countries always voted together in the Council, they still wouldn't get a majority without a lot of other member states supporting them. As I said in a previous post, the UK is so big, that they can basically block or enforce anything they want in the EU (which incidentally is why I was pro-Brexit on the 23rd of June 2016 - I no longer am right now). Also, the trade deals are negotiated by the Commission which isn't a French or German institution (the last time someone French or German headed it was 20 years ago) - only at the end do the member states get a say.

 

If we look at reality, you can see that for example the EU-South Korea deal of 2011 has increased UK-South Korea trade by a whopping 57%. Germany's trade increased by 50%. The Canada-EU deal was projected to increase UK-Canada trade by 29%.

 

It is a fact that through the EU the UK has access to a lot more markets (the EU has access to 50 markets .. countries like Canada and Australia only 15), and gets better trade deals (being the biggest economic bloc in the world gives you a lot of bargaining power; the Australia-South Korea trade deal eliminates tariffs 4 times slower than the EU was able to do in their South Korea deal; China just did a deal with Switzerland where China gets immediate access to the Swiss market but the Swiss have to wait 15 years for access to the Chinese Market; ...)

 

It's OK to want to go at it alone, but it's a near certainty that the UK will do worse than as a part of the EU. It's why I said that Davis and Fox and co shouldn't make the British public believe that on this issue, leaving the EU was beneficial.

That's not how I meant it. I mean to say that some EU deals will benefit some countries more than others within the EU, regardless of whether that is the UK, Germany or Andorra and therefore there is scope for the individual countries to get themselves more specific and beneficial deals for them.

 

In the examples you have used, if the UK was able to have done a deal on its own how do you know that they might not have been able to increase these percentages more than the EU deal provided? There is a good chance that it could have been less too but that's the chance you take.

 

There is also the argument that being part of the EU restricts the amount and extent of deals that we can have been involved in had we been seperate. Didn't one of the more recent deals around 10 years to complete (I think it might have been the Canadian deal)?

 

We are an important country on the world stage. Countries will want to do business with us, as we have heard since the referendum. The EU can also do all the huffing and puffing it wants but they know as well as us that doing business with us will bring more prosperity to their countries than not doing a deal would. That is one of the reasons why the EU pisses me off, because it's a bit of a boys club. They don't care if they spite their people just to make a point. If that's the stance the EU wants to take then we are better off out of it. It's the same with the security arguments. It's in no-one benefit for security information not to be shared between all countries let alone just the EU and yet we were all told at the time that this information wouldn't be shared anymore and that we were therefore more at threat of terrorism.

[Bailey]

The Canada deal took 7 years.

[holystove]

That's not how I meant it. I mean to say that some EU deals will benefit some countries more than others within the EU, regardless of whether that is the UK, Germany or Andorra and therefore there is scope for the individual countries to get themselves more specific and beneficial deals for them.

 

In light of trade-deals the differences in the German, Andorran, French, UK, .. economy are negligible. Tarrifs are usually lowered in a very general way (iirc the WTO prohibits being too specific). So the objectives of the UK, German, .. economies (being fairly similar) are pretty much all the same when negotiating a trade deal. I don't think there's anything to gain by going at it alone from that perspective.

 

 

 

In the examples you have used, if the UK was able to have done a deal on its own how do you know that they might not have been able to increase these percentages more than the EU deal provided? There is a good chance that it could have been less too but that's the chance you take.

 

There is also the argument that being part of the EU restricts the amount and extent of deals that we can have been involved in had we been seperate. Didn't one of the more recent deals around 10 years to complete (I think it might have been the Canadian deal)?

 

We are an important country on the world stage. Countries will want to do business with us, as we have heard since the referendum.

 

I can't say for certain that the UK wouldn't have gotten lower tariffs or better conditions as the UK hasn't had to negotiate its own trade deals for 40 years. I did include in my previous post examples of Canada and Australia who have only 15 trade deals (vs EU 50) and I used the example of the South Korea - Australia deal to indicate that Australia got a much worse deal than EU countries as a bloc.

 

Sure the UK is an important country. But I do think the situation of Australia/Canada and the UK are very comparable. UK economy is 1/9 the size of US economy, 1/8 the size of the EU minus UK economy, 1/4 the size of Chinese economy. Australia and Canada are 1/10 - 1/11 - 1/5 US - EU - China). So you can look at those two countries as good examples of the type of trade deals that the UK will get, not only with the US/EU/China but also with other nations.

 

The Canada deal took 7 years which is actually pretty good for a comprehensive trade deal. If you read interviews about that deal, negotiators on the Canadian and EU side congratulate each other on the positive way the negotiations were done. One of the reasons it did take 7 yaers is because of internal Canadian structures (where provinces had to give approval etc) rather than the EU holding things back. Only at the end did the Walloons make some trouble but that didn't last long. In most trade deals the national parliaments of member states don't have to give final approval.. this time it was an idea by Juncker to increase the understanding of the importance of the EU in every day lives of Europeans, which almost backfired because of some walloon populists who saw political gain in being difficult.

 

 

 

 

The EU can also do all the huffing and puffing it wants but they know as well as us that doing business with us will bring more prosperity to their countries than not doing a deal would. That is one of the reasons why the EU pisses me off, because it's a bit of a boys club. They don't care if they spite their people just to make a point. If that's the stance the EU wants to take then we are better off out of it. It's the same with the security arguments. It's in no-one benefit for security information not to be shared between all countries let alone just the EU and yet we were all told at the time that this information wouldn't be shared anymore and that we were therefore more at threat of terrorism.

 

From this side of the channel Europeans see a PM who makes speeches where she places border-control ahead of the economy, and very negative reporting on other member states in the tabloids.

Here the reporting is that the UK uses the threat of withholding security information, and just today it was reported the UK will not help out EU-NATO members when threatened by Russia or whatever even though the UK and France have the only two real armies in Europe.

 

It's just media, and media-whoring politicians, creating headlines. Much of the cooperation between European countries concerning security, like the European Arrest Warant for example, is regulated under international law (not supranational law of the EU).

 

How is the Tory leadership less of a boys club than the EU? My view is that the hardline brexiteers are willing to hurt their own economy just to weaken the EU, regardless of the damage it will do to their own "ordinary, decent people".

But as I said, that's OK if you value curbing immigration above all. I just object to claims that Brexit will "benefit" the UK in matters of trade.

[Bailey]

 

In light of trade-deals the differences in the German, Andorran, French, UK, .. economy are negligible. Tarrifs are usually lowered in a very general way (iirc the WTO prohibits being too specific). So the objectives of the UK, German, .. economies (being fairly similar) are pretty much all the same when negotiating a trade deal. I don't think there's anything to gain by going at it alone from that perspective.

 

 

I can't say for certain that the UK wouldn't have gotten lower tariffs or better conditions as the UK hasn't had to negotiate its own trade deals for 40 years. I did include in my previous post examples of Canada and Australia who have only 15 trade deals (vs EU 50) and I used the example of the South Korea - Australia deal to indicate that Australia got a much worse deal than EU countries as a bloc.

 

Sure the UK is an important country. But I do think the situation of Australia/Canada and the UK are very comparable. UK economy is 1/9 the size of US economy, 1/8 the size of the EU minus UK economy, 1/4 the size of Chinese economy. Australia and Canada are 1/10 - 1/11 - 1/5 US - EU - China). So you can look at those two countries as good examples of the type of trade deals that the UK will get, not only with the US/EU/China but also with other nations.

 

The Canada deal took 7 years which is actually pretty good for a comprehensive trade deal. If you read interviews about that deal, negotiators on the Canadian and EU side congratulate each other on the positive way the negotiations were done. One of the reasons it did take 7 yaers is because of internal Canadian structures (where provinces had to give approval etc) rather than the EU holding things back. Only at the end did the Walloons make some trouble but that didn't last long. In most trade deals the national parliaments of member states don't have to give final approval.. this time it was an idea by Juncker to increase the understanding of the importance of the EU in every day lives of Europeans, which almost backfired because of some walloon populists who saw political gain in being difficult.

 

 

 

From this side of the channel Europeans see a PM who makes speeches where she places border-control ahead of the economy, and very negative reporting on other member states in the tabloids.

Here the reporting is that the UK uses the threat of withholding security information, and just today it was reported the UK will not help out EU-NATO members when threatened by Russia or whatever even though the UK and France have the only two real armies in Europe.

 

It's just media, and media-whoring politicians, creating headlines. Much of the cooperation between European countries concerning security, like the European Arrest Warant for example, is regulated under international law (not supranational law of the EU).

 

How is the Tory leadership less of a boys club than the EU? My view is that the hardline brexiteers are willing to hurt their own economy just to weaken the EU, regardless of the damage it will do to their own "ordinary, decent people".

But as I said, that's OK if you value curbing immigration above all. I just object to claims that Brexit will "benefit" the UK in matters of trade.

Good post.

 

I understand why you are comparing us with Canada and Australia, and whilst this isn't as much of an issue in this day and age, the location of those two countries compared to other important nations should also be considered. The UK has many more important neighbours on their doorstep. Ok one of them will be the EU which may or may not be fruitful but the options are always there. Those two countries may have 10, 15 or whatever but who is to say we can't get more. Its clearly not impossible and our experience of being in the EU should help us in that regard, not to mention our historical colonial ties to many countries world wide.

 

Your very true about the Tory old boys club however at least they are old boys I can vote in or out (at least most of them). We desperately need a credible opposition to make a true success of Brexit. There is definitely a large element or the Brexiteer movement that want the UK out at any cost to stop all these 'jolly foreigners' but there are also lots of Brexiteers that look forward to the type of nation we can be away from the conformaties of the EU. I don't think it is right for such different cultures to be brought together in the way they are. British culture is far different to any other culture in Europe, we are a bunch of twats to be honest and you are probably better off without us!

 

Don't get me wrong either, I am a big fan of the original concept of the EU. Easier trade, easier movement of people, shared intelligence and ideas. They are all brilliant concepts. The problems come with shared currency, shared laws and an overpowering "justice" system, and the growing potential of a unified army are all becoming too much. Each individual county should be celebrated for its independence, for what that country means to its people and how that country governs itself. It shouldn't be shoehorned into a one size fits all, where the bigger countries, one way or another will always hold more sway than the smallest leaving the rest to conform. It's an exaggeration but when you look at where what has happened since its introduction, who knows what will haplen in 50 or 100 years from now.

[rubecula]

Good post.

 

I understand why you are comparing us with Canada and Australia, and whilst this isn't as much of an issue in this day and age, the location of those two countries compared to other important nations should also be considered. The UK has many more important neighbours on their doorstep. Ok one of them will be the EU which may or may not be fruitful but the options are always there. Those two countries may have 10, 15 or whatever but who is to say we can't get more. Its clearly not impossible and our experience of being in the EU should help us in that regard, not to mention our historical colonial ties to many countries world wide.

 

Your very true about the Tory old boys club however at least they are old boys I can vote in or out (at least most of them). We desperately need a credible opposition to make a true success of Brexit. There is definitely a large element or the Brexiteer movement that want the UK out at any cost to stop all these 'jolly foreigners' but there are also lots of Brexiteers that look forward to the type of nation we can be away from the conformaties of the EU. I don't think it is right for such different cultures to be brought together in the way they are. British culture is far different to any other culture in Europe, we are a bunch of twats to be honest and you are probably better off without us!

 

Don't get me wrong either, I am a big fan of the original concept of the EU. Easier trade, easier movement of people, shared intelligence and ideas. They are all brilliant concepts. The problems come with shared currency, shared laws and an overpowering "justice" system, and the growing potential of a unified army are all becoming too much. Each individual county should be celebrated for its independence, for what that country means to its people and how that country governs itself. It shouldn't be shoehorned into a one size fits all, where the bigger countries, one way or another will always hold more sway than the smallest leaving the rest to conform. It's an exaggeration but when you look at where what has happened since its introduction, who knows what will haplen in 50 or 100 years from now.

Great stuff Bailey. We need a European alliance not a European union imo. There is a subtle difference.

[Cornish Steve]

 

In light of trade-deals the differences in the German, Andorran, French, UK, .. economy are negligible. Tarrifs are usually lowered in a very general way (iirc the WTO prohibits being too specific). So the objectives of the UK, German, .. economies (being fairly similar) are pretty much all the same when negotiating a trade deal. I don't think there's anything to gain by going at it alone from that perspective.

 

 

I can't say for certain that the UK wouldn't have gotten lower tariffs or better conditions as the UK hasn't had to negotiate its own trade deals for 40 years. I did include in my previous post examples of Canada and Australia who have only 15 trade deals (vs EU 50) and I used the example of the South Korea - Australia deal to indicate that Australia got a much worse deal than EU countries as a bloc.

 

Sure the UK is an important country. But I do think the situation of Australia/Canada and the UK are very comparable. UK economy is 1/9 the size of US economy, 1/8 the size of the EU minus UK economy, 1/4 the size of Chinese economy. Australia and Canada are 1/10 - 1/11 - 1/5 US - EU - China). So you can look at those two countries as good examples of the type of trade deals that the UK will get, not only with the US/EU/China but also with other nations.

 

The Canada deal took 7 years which is actually pretty good for a comprehensive trade deal. If you read interviews about that deal, negotiators on the Canadian and EU side congratulate each other on the positive way the negotiations were done. One of the reasons it did take 7 yaers is because of internal Canadian structures (where provinces had to give approval etc) rather than the EU holding things back. Only at the end did the Walloons make some trouble but that didn't last long. In most trade deals the national parliaments of member states don't have to give final approval.. this time it was an idea by Juncker to increase the understanding of the importance of the EU in every day lives of Europeans, which almost backfired because of some walloon populists who saw political gain in being difficult.

 

 

 

From this side of the channel Europeans see a PM who makes speeches where she places border-control ahead of the economy, and very negative reporting on other member states in the tabloids.

Here the reporting is that the UK uses the threat of withholding security information, and just today it was reported the UK will not help out EU-NATO members when threatened by Russia or whatever even though the UK and France have the only two real armies in Europe.

 

It's just media, and media-whoring politicians, creating headlines. Much of the cooperation between European countries concerning security, like the European Arrest Warant for example, is regulated under international law (not supranational law of the EU).

 

How is the Tory leadership less of a boys club than the EU? My view is that the hardline brexiteers are willing to hurt their own economy just to weaken the EU, regardless of the damage it will do to their own "ordinary, decent people".

But as I said, that's OK if you value curbing immigration above all. I just object to claims that Brexit will "benefit" the UK in matters of trade.

 

Let me tell you that many in our Armed Forces will be delighted not to be in the EU. Being paired with France's navy, for example, is a disaster. We're much more closely aligned militarily with other countries (both EU and non-EU).

[holystove]

Your very true about the Tory old boys club however at least they are old boys I can vote in or out (at least most of them). We desperately need a credible opposition to make a true success of Brexit. There is definitely a large element or the Brexiteer movement that want the UK out at any cost to stop all these 'jolly foreigners' but there are also lots of Brexiteers that look forward to the type of nation we can be away from the conformaties of the EU. I don't think it is right for such different cultures to be brought together in the way they are. British culture is far different to any other culture in Europe, we are a bunch of twats to be honest and you are probably better off without us!

 

Don't get me wrong either, I am a big fan of the original concept of the EU. Easier trade, easier movement of people, shared intelligence and ideas. They are all brilliant concepts. The problems come with shared currency, shared laws and an overpowering "justice" system, and the growing potential of a unified army are all becoming too much. Each individual county should be celebrated for its independence, for what that country means to its people and how that country governs itself. It shouldn't be shoehorned into a one size fits all, where the bigger countries, one way or another will always hold more sway than the smallest leaving the rest to conform. It's an exaggeration but when you look at where what has happened since its introduction, who knows what will haplen in 50 or 100 years from now.

 

I agree that those points you mention are probably what drove brexit just as much as the immigration issue. The over powering sentiment in the UK towards the EU is one of suspicion.

There's this bit by a Belgian comedian that to me adequately describes this British sentiment. He said: "Thank God the British took back control; now finally they'll be able to use their own currency, drive on the left side of the road and use miles instead of meters".

 

I look at the EU as the instrument European nations can use for the things they have a common goal in, e.g. global warming, terrorism, economy, etc.

The EU needs to stay out of everything else, such as culture, language, etc.. which it does. The most important constitutional principle in the EU is the principle of subsidiarity which means that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level - presumably issues concerning cultural identity will therefor never be taken on the EU-level.

As nations increasingly work together, there will be more common ground between them and therefor at a certain time, those nations will want to give more compentences to the EU. A common army is an example of this. No way is the EU right now ready for an EU wide army. But Belgium and the Netherlands for example patrol each others air space, and usually place orders for military equiment together. Maybe in a couple of years more countries will pool together this way until finally they decide that maybe the EU should take up this role. That is the meaning of an ever closer union. It's a natural process. It isn't something forced upon you.

Surely the fact that there is a shared currency, but the UK isn't using it, should be enough to indicate that the EU doesn't force itself on its members.

 

Maybe the EU went to quickly the last decades. It definitely did with the big enlargement in 2005, letting all those eastern European countries join. I'm sure if the EU leaders had known that there would be a huge financial crisis only a few years after that, they would have waited to include those poorer nations.

[Bailey]

Great stuff Bailey. We need a European alliance not a European union imo. There is a subtle difference.

Yeh I completely agree.

 

Holystove, I love that quote. Do you work for the EU or in Govt in some capacity as you know an incredible amount about EU regs and principles?

[holystove]

Yeh I completely agree.

 

Holystove, I love that quote. Do you work for the EU or in Govt in some capacity as you know an incredible amount about EU regs and principles?

 

I work as a lawyer; Not on EU matters (my speciality is insolvency) but at university I did major in European law and I have written a couple of papers on EU constitutional law. My knowledge of the constitutional principles of the EU is probably why I still believe so strongly in the concept of the EU despite the occasional idiot they put in charge of it. The framework is excellent, now for the rest.

[johnh]

Its a pity the 'excellent framework' doesn't extend to the euro. No fiscal union, shared debt, or genuine banking union. Even its founding economist Otmar Issing has said 'one day, the house of cards will collapse.'

[Bailey]

 

I work as a lawyer; Not on EU matters (my speciality is insolvency) but at university I did major in European law and I have written a couple of papers on EU constitutional law. My knowledge of the constitutional principles of the EU is probably why I still believe so strongly in the concept of the EU despite the occasional idiot they put in charge of it. The framework is excellent, now for the rest.

Fair play, I suspect that if people like you were in front of the nation explaining the virtues of the EU as opposed to the scaremongering politicians, the result would have been very different!

[johnh]

Fair play, I suspect that if people like you were in front of the nation explaining the virtues of the EU as opposed to the scaremongering politicians, the result would have been very different!

 

Without the scaremongering politicians I agree the result would have been very different. The 'leave' vote would have been much higher. Both sides were economical with the truth but the scare tactics were the sole preserve of the 'remain' camp. Its interesting how many in the remain camp have now admitted that their scare tactics were wrong. The latest to issue a mea culpa is the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney.

[Matt]

Scare tactics vs outright lies. Brilliant.

[johnh]

Scare tactics vs outright lies. Brilliant.

 

Scare tactics + outright lies v outright lies.

As I said, both side were economical with the truth.

[markjazzbassist]

 

Scare tactics + outright lies v outright lies.

As I said, both side were economical with the truth.

 

john would you rather remain or have brexit with Donald trump as prime minister?

 

just trying to gauge your hatred of the remain.

[Palfy]

Scare tactics + outright lies v outright lies.

As I said, both side were economical with the truth.

John if the over 65s hadn't been allowed to vote the remain would have won, I can't help feeling that people who it has least effect on have possibly effected the future of those who are still setting out in life for a Britain they remember with nostalgia.

[holystove]

 

Without the scaremongering politicians I agree the result would have been very different. The 'leave' vote would have been much higher. Both sides were economical with the truth but the scare tactics were the sole preserve of the 'remain' camp. Its interesting how many in the remain camp have now admitted that their scare tactics were wrong. The latest to issue a mea culpa is the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney.

 

From what I can read online, the public debate in England has educated a lot of people (apparently there's room for an informed debate now that the votes are in and noone needs to be scared to vote this or that way). Don't polls now suggest a swing towards remain in a lot of areas? Also aren't the lib-dems not picking up some seats in all these by-elections? (genuinely asking). I have in 2016 lost my faith in polls so it might not mean much.

 

About the predictions of economic doom post June 23rd: those predictions were based on an immediate triggering of article 50. that hasn't happened as of yet, so right now the UK has all the trade-benefits of being an EU member with a currency that has devalued over 20%. UK exports should be soaring.

Economists have apparently been baffled by the resilience of UK consumer spending, but there is a general agreement that even though economic doom hasn't happened as fast as expected, it is merely a question of timing when it will happen.

 

Anyway, as you have said before, it's time to trigger A50 and see what happens. Apparently there's already talks of a post-Brexit trade deal with New Zealand so kudos on that .

[Cornish Steve]

John if the over 65s hadn't been allowed to vote the remain would have won, I can't help feeling that people who it has least effect on have possibly effected the future of those who are still setting out in life for a Britain they remember with nostalgia.

I've read this argument a few times. What ever happened to the wisdom of elders?

[MikeO]

I've read this argument a few times. What ever happened to the wisdom of elders?

 

Never bought that, I'm nearly fifty-seven and more stupid than I've ever been .

 

I hope to get stupider (what's life without ambition?).

[Bailey]

 

Scare tactics + outright lies v outright lies.

As I said, both side were economical with the truth.

Exactly. The lies were equally bad and equally shared!

[MikeO]

Exactly. The lies were equally bad and equally shared!

 

I don't agree but there's little point in going over old ground again.

 

Bus/NHS is all I'll say, remain had nothing touching those depths of deception.

[Bailey]

 

From what I can read online, the public debate in England has educated a lot of people (apparently there's room for an informed debate now that the votes are in and noone needs to be scared to vote this or that way). Don't polls now suggest a swing towards remain in a lot of areas? Also aren't the lib-dems not picking up some seats in all these by-elections? (genuinely asking). I have in 2016 lost my faith in polls so it might not mean much.

 

About the predictions of economic doom post June 23rd: those predictions were based on an immediate triggering of article 50. that hasn't happened as of yet, so right now the UK has all the trade-benefits of being an EU member with a currency that has devalued over 20%. UK exports should be soaring.

Economists have apparently been baffled by the resilience of UK consumer spending, but there is a general agreement that even though economic doom hasn't happened as fast as expected, it is merely a question of timing when it will happen.

 

Anyway, as you have said before, it's time to trigger A50 and see what happens. Apparently there's already talks of a post-Brexit trade deal with New Zealand so kudos on that .

I think if anything the vote has confused people even more. It has been very difficult to work out what is true and what is a half truth and what is complete bollocks. Sometimes I'm not sure the politicians are even sure.

 

Remain has certainly gone ahead but it was in the polls beforehand as well. Like you say polls don't mean as much as they used to. The "silent majority" that never gets sampled are the ones that seem to have the final say. Has anyone on here changed their opinion (either way)?

 

Tories (and Labour) are certainly losing power locally but I also think UKIP have seen an increase as well as the Lib Dems. I expect that will reverse when the bigger elections start rolling around again in a year or two.

[Matt]

I've read this argument a few times. What ever happened to the wisdom of elders?

i agree, seems to have disappeared! Because if there was some within the powers that be, we'd be in a much better state of affairs!

[Matt]

 

Scare tactics + outright lies v outright lies.

As I said, both side were economical with the truth.

scare tactics on both sides too, John.

[Palfy]

I think if anything the vote has confused people even more. It has been very difficult to work out what is true and what is a half truth and what is complete bollocks. Sometimes I'm not sure the politicians are even sure.

Remain has certainly gone ahead but it was in the polls beforehand as well. Like you say polls don't mean as much as they used to. The "silent majority" that never gets sampled are the ones that seem to have the final say. Has anyone on here changed their opinion (either way)?

Tories (and Labour) are certainly losing power locally but I also think UKIP have seen an increase as well as the Lib Dems. I expect that will reverse when the bigger elections start rolling around again in a year or two.

No I haven't changed my opinion I voted remain and would again given the opportunity, but I know that won't happen.

What I want now is to get behind the best exit deal/plan that offers my children and grandchildren a stable and prosperous future, but what really concerns me is that the government responsible for taking us out aren't capable of getting the negotiations right, and are still scaremongering by there comments of its going to be financially tuff, but we haven't really been told anything has to on what deals they are proposing.

I think before we start article 50 we should have a general election so that we can have a say on which party has the best exit strategy and plans for the future.

[Bailey]

No I haven't changed my opinion I voted remain and would again given the opportunity, but I know that won't happen.

What I want now is to get behind the best exit deal/plan that offers my children and grandchildren a stable and prosperous future, but what really concerns me is that the government responsible for taking us out aren't capable of getting the negotiations right, and are still scaremongering by there comments of its going to be financially tuff, but we haven't really been told anything has to on what deals they are proposing.

I think before we start article 50 we should have a general election so that we can have a say on which party has the best exit strategy and plans for the future.

Personally I don't really want the govt to give away their plan. You never go into negotiations with all of your cards being on the table well before the deal has begun.

 

I do like the idea of an election as you mention albeit it would probably have to be a bit vague given what I have said above and then we would just have the same problems we had during Brexit of being lied to by all sides.

[Matt]

Personally I don't really want the govt to give away their plan. You never go into negotiations with all of your cards being on the table well before the deal has begun.

 

I do like the idea of an election as you mention albeit it would probably have to be a bit vague given what I have said above and then we would just have the same problems we had during Brexit of being lied to by all sides.

dont think anyone wants to know the plan in detail, but just to know there's a plan because at the moment it still feels like absolutely no one has a clue what to do