If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Why isn't she so confident then? What's going on between your absolute assurance and her evasive approach to details? Why is she stalling for so long? Why has she told no-one anything meaningful even in private?

I also suspect there will be a lot more negotiation than you seem to think; this isn't going to be a 2 minute meeting where May goes "WTO?" and gets 27 "Aye"s.
I'll be surprised if we can make an agreement on a top level deal before we run out of time and go to WTO.

Did you miss the reports of Theresa May saying that she will detail Brexit plans in coming weeks?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-coming-weeks-sky-interview-sophie-ridge-article-50-plan-latest-a7515656.html

As I say in another thread, regardless of whether it is May or if it were anyone else in charge they could not do right in some people's eyes could they?
A few weeks.
Oh and just because YOU think May is not confident or is stalling does not make that reality.

Does this from May today not sound confident:

"Well, I’m tempted to say the people who are getting it wrong are those who print things saying I’m talking about a hard Brexit, [that] it’s absolutely inevitable it’s a hard Brexit. I don’t accept the terms hard or soft Brexit."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38555927

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Are you not worried about how hard they seem to be to negotiate? We provide a lot of things that NZ does as well, so why do we assume the EU will be less hostile to competition from us?

Article 50 has not been invoked yet.
Two years is a long time.
There is also much of consequence due shortly within the Eurozone, from elections to banking and budgetary "difficulties" to continued migration difficulties.
Too many people suggest the EU - if it even exists - will be a very different place at the end of this two-year-plus to be giving ourselves ulcers now IMHO.
So worry?
Nope.

setmefree2

A free trade agreement with the EU means (1) we pay no tariffs on goods we sell to the EU; and (2) the paperwork will be easier if we want something from the EU.
Of these, (1) is vastly overrated. A new study for Civitas, which I have written and which is published today, concludes that the UK is more than able to manage the tariff costs of being outside the EU. In the absence of any Deal, imports from the EU will raise £12.9 billion for HM Treasury in duties, whereas UK exporters will suffer £5.2 billion in tariffs on their exports to the EU.
The WTO rules on subsidies provide sufficient flexibility for the Government to implement “horizontal” programmes to mitigate the impact of tariffs – i.e. economy-wide measures which are not specific to any identifiable industry, and are not tied in principle or practice to compensating for the exact cost of tariffs on exports. A package of enhanced tax credits for research and development spending; regional aid (freed from EU-wide limitations); the abolition of the self-imposed UK carbon price floor which artificially increases electricity costs; and a sweeping-up Transitional Assistance Programme (to take advantage of de minimis exemptions in the WTO rules) would cost, allowing for leakages to non-exporting businesses and domestic consumers, about £8.8 billion. My paper is part of a series from Civitas which shadows and informs the ongoing Brexit debate.
The UK Government can run its mitigation programmes at a profit. The schemes in question are justifiable in their own right. The only question is whether such mitigation schemes should be designed on a standalone basis or (hint: the correct answer) as part of a wider post-Brexit industrial strategy to fit the UK for competing in a global market outside the EU. As a matter of fact, tariffs are irrelevant.
Which leaves us with the paperwork headache of (2). I freely admit that there are considerable red tape benefits in being inside a free trade deal with the EU. One can then only wonder how on earth the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Russians, the Brazilians etc manage to sell a single widget in Europe – because none of their countries have a free trade deal with the EU. But maybe these damned foreigners cheat – or, to put it another way, make things that other people want to buy, at a price they’re prepared to pay? We used to be pretty good in this country at making Spinning Jennies and digging canals. What a shame that the world moved on.
So, a hard-headed, fact-obsessed answer to (2) is: if you’re good enough, it isn’t a problem; and if it’s a problem, what makes you think the taxpayer should bail out your failure? Once upon a time, we pushed through enclosure of the open fields. A lot of labourers may well have lost out temporarily, but it gave us enough grain to stop everyone else starving. Yes, there may well be cases where cheating foreigners are rigging the rules to do down Our Boys. Well, the good news is that, outside the EU, we can use our WTO membership to take “countervailing action”, without having to wait for a majority vote from 27 other colleagues.
A Deal would be preferable – on the right terms – but we could survive without one, and No Deal is better than a Bad Deal just for the sake of having one (which the Continuity Remain campaign can’t grasp). We can certainly afford to drive a very hard bargain with the EU. What does Brexit mean? It means having nobody else to blame.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/01/william-norton-a-good-deal-would-be-better-than-wto-but-wto-would-be-far-better-than-a-bad-one.html

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Did you miss the reports of Theresa May saying that she will detail Brexit plans in coming weeks?

If she can let us know by around 23rd February that would mean there's 'only' been an 8 month vacuum with close to zero indication of what Brexit might mean.

Even if she lays out detailed information (she won't) it doesn't seem entirely reasonable that it's taken so long. These people work for us; we shouldn't have to debating about crumbs from May's table.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Did you miss the reports of Theresa May saying that she will detail Brexit plans in coming weeks?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-coming-weeks-sky-interview-sophie-ridge-article-50-plan-latest-a7515656.html

I guess we'll find out in a few weeks.

As I say in another thread, regardless of whether it is May or if it were anyone else in charge they could not do right in some people's eyes could they?

The criticism about preparedness and confidence are aimed to May, I'm sure someone out there must be able to do a competent job of this, but it's such a poisoned chalice that anyone who is competent at it will be steering well clear.

Does this from May today not sound confident:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38555927

A pre-prepared statement which still doesn't actually say anything? I still don't see confidence.

She's still talking about operating within a single market whilst making it clear earlier that there will be no single market?

Conrad

wotsthat wrote: »

If she can let us know by around 23rd February that would mean there's 'only' been an 8 month vacuum with close to zero indication of what Brexit might mean.

Even if she lays out detailed information (she won't) it doesn't seem entirely reasonable that it's taken so long. These people work for us; we shouldn't have to debating about crumbs from May's table.

I don't quite see what details you expect but personally I am satisfied with;

1) We will be making all of our own decisions as a sovereign nation

2) Seeking the best possible trading relationship with our neighbours


3) EU citizens can remain here in return for ours having rights to remain there




We always worked and travelled Europe as do Kiwis and Americans today, I have no concerns. My friend travels the world on business, no particular issues.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

If she can let us know by around 23rd February that would mean there's 'only' been an 8 month vacuum with close to zero indication of what Brexit might mean.

Even if she lays out detailed information (she won't) it doesn't seem entirely reasonable that it's taken so long. These people work for us; we shouldn't have to debating about crumbs from May's table.

whilst I would have liked article 50 to have already been implemented, your faux outrage seems inappropriate, given you happily accept 5-10 years of procastination from the EU.

its almost certain that the EU will endlessly delay real decision making once negotiations really begin.
there is, after all, no reason why discussions couldn't be taking place about the status of ex-pats except for EU intransience.

remember these people are working for us : being as they are directly democratically accountable to us.

wotsthat

Conrad wrote: »

I don't quite see what details you expect but personally I am satisfied with;

1) We will be making all of our own decisions as a sovereign nation


2) Seeking the best possible trading relationship with our neighbours

Those aren't details. They're your desired outcome. You don't know what the government thinks the desired outcomes should be and nor do you know any details of how they might go about achieving their desired aims.

Details matter.

It's just daft to try and condense negotiating an orderly EU exit and trade deal into two bullet points.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Details matter.

It's just daft to try and condense negotiating an orderly EU exit and trade deal into two bullet points.

very good points there
just why there needs to plenty of thought put into the issues before publishing any details.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst I would have liked article 50 to have already been implemented, your faux outrage seems inappropriate, given you happily accept 5-10 years of procastination from the EU.

its almost certain that the EU will endlessly delay real decision making once negotiations really begin.
there is, after all, no reason why discussions couldn't be taking place about the status of ex-pats except for EU intransience.

remember these people are working for us : being as they are directly democratically accountable to us.

I'm not outraged (faux or otherwise). You seem much much angrier to be honest and have done so for an extended period of time.

The government by now should've been in a position to let us know broadly what they expect Brexit to mean. It doesn't need to be a big secret - the EU will know what the UK's desired outcomes are on day 1 of negotiations. Why should the EU rather than UK citizens hear about it first?

Suggesting I can take my 'anger' out on the Tories in 2020 misses the point somewhat. I might or might not vote for them in 2020 but that doesn't mean the way they've kept us (their employers) in the dark is acceptable.