If we vote for Brexit what happens

wotsthat

Conrad wrote: »

If a good deal isn't on the table in 2019, we walk and go to WTO, I am perfectly happy either way, trade will continue and the most likely outcome is it will be on tariff free terms as is now.

You shouldn't be perfectly happy with WTO rule because, if that's the best deal, it would represent a catastrophic failure of negotiations. A sweet deal was promised - it's time to deliver.

[Yes I'm aware we manage to trade with other countries on WTO terms and you once imported a couple of DVD's without issue.]

Conrad wrote: »

We are the EUs biggest market, our rules are already fully aligned and the free trade is real and present, not just some future aim, so two years is ample negotiating time

The problem with this logic is many people have an issue with EU rules and want to change them. At that point they won't be aligned.

The pragmatic solution will be to maintain a common set of standards across Europe but that's not going to go down well with people who want Rover V8 powered vacuum cleaners and are offended by metric measurements. Especially in an age where the quality of debate is being judged by the volume of the argument.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah.
Try this:
"It struck me that of the 12 priorities a number of things she wants we already have" whilst we are members of the EU.

If you're seriously expecting anything more than vague in many areas regarding Brexit you should perhaps try asking those more-senior within the EU.
Since, we are told, anything firm must be agreed by them as well as by us.
And there will not even be talks to reach agreement until Article 50 is invoked.
So not much help for those like you that would like to know more, then.

In short no one knows, nor can they say with certainty anything regarding a Brexit deal.

To put it simply: Article 50 -> discussion duration of two years -> agreement or just out.

Not sure what your point is.

The government don't need to talk to anyone to say that come March 2019 everyone arriving from the EU will require a visa or a job offer. She was deliberately vague and it's more to do with domestic politics than worrying about permission from the EU.

She managed to say with absolute clarity that the ECJ will have no jurisdiction in the UK post Brexit for example.

I'm not knocking her speech at all. It's exactly what was required (albeit a couple of months ago). You obviously don't see the irony of demanding things we already have or things that are in our gift anyway.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

You shouldn't be perfectly happy with WTO rule because, if that's the best deal, it would represent a catastrophic failure of negotiations. A sweet deal was promised - it's time to deliver.

[Yes I'm aware we manage to trade with other countries on WTO terms and you once imported a couple of DVD's without issue.]



The problem with this logic is many people have an issue with EU rules and want to change them. At that point they won't be aligned.

The pragmatic solution will be to maintain a common set of standards across Europe but that's not going to go down well with people who want Rover V8 powered vacuum cleaners and are offended by metric measurements. Especially in an age where the quality of debate is being judged by the volume of the argument.

Do you also think uninsured drivers should be compensated from your insurance premium if you happen to hit one of them?















Didn't think so, the EU will make you though.

http://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking-news/uninsured-drivers-to-get-compensation-under-new-eu-rule-42547.aspx

This would be a common set of standards across the EU, yes? You want to keep ideas such as this?

I'll agree with you that there are some EU regulations that make absolute sense. Clearly there are some that are just plain daft, having the ability to pick and choose which we follow will be a great benefit.

Matt_L

Unemployment falls yet again...

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Do you also think uninsured drivers should be compensated from your insurance premium if you happen to hit one of them?

No, of course not but we should be beyond cherry picking examples of rules we don't like and extrapolating to infinity and beyond. It's a methodology that focuses on the trees and avoids the wood. It amazes me given all the cameras and technology around people actually get away with being unlicensed, untaxed and uninsured in the first place.

I also think it's ridiculous there's only a 70mph speed limit on British motorways but, like the insurance thing I'll have to suck it up.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

Not sure what your point is.

The government don't need to talk to anyone to say that come March 2019 everyone arriving from the EU will require a visa or a job offer. She was deliberately vague and it's more to do with domestic politics than worrying about permission from the EU.

She managed to say with absolute clarity that the ECJ will have no jurisdiction in the UK post Brexit for example.

I'm not knocking her speech at all. It's exactly what was required (albeit a couple of months ago). You obviously don't see the irony of demanding things we already have or things that are in our gift anyway.

You obviously have a desire for procrastination where none is necessary.
It would appear that you are desirous of a full summation of Brexit details before Brexit actually happens which - as has repeatedly been stated - will not and indeed cannot happen.

"Not sure what your point is. "
Oh dear, it really is quite simple: your ECJ summary may be correct and may indeed be amongst the most straightforward of examples.
Yet you discount the fact that whatever happens when we leave (for example) the EU Customs Union that things will inevitably change; until discussions are complete we cannot know what these changes may be.
Those changes are certainly NOT "in our gift" as you choose to phrase it.
Nor are the consequences of leaving the single market.
Which is why discussions will take place; in order to reach agreement.

It strikes me as sad that - despite what you acknowledge to be an "exactly what was required" speech - you want to know far more in-depth detail than it is possible to have.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

No, of course not but we should be beyond cherry picking examples of rules we don't like and extrapolating to infinity and beyond. It's a methodology that focuses on the trees and avoids the wood. It amazes me given all the cameras and technology around people actually get away with being unlicensed, untaxed and uninsured in the first place.

I also think it's ridiculous there's only a 70mph speed limit on British motorways but, like the insurance thing I'll have to suck it up.

I haven't extrapolated, are there or are there not other examples of regulations that just don't work for the UK? Regulations that we'd be better off without.

To use your analogy if we're going to focus on the trees as well as look at the woods when considering the decision taken then you have to acknowledge the idiocy of the rule makers in Brussels. That you choose to accept the idiocy is your prerogative but clearly there's a larger proportion of people who do not want to accept it.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah.
Try this:
"It struck me that of the 12 priorities a number of things she wants we already have" whilst we are members of the EU.

So try this:

"We're leaving the EU specifically in order to achieve things things we already have whilst we are members of the EU"

wotsthat wrote: »

She managed to say with absolute clarity that the ECJ will have no jurisdiction in the UK post Brexit for example.

That's the only bit she actually wants. Not having to listen to the ECJ will give the Tories so much more scope for deregulation (most of it which will shaft us, rather than cutting down on red tape).

Matt_L wrote: »

Unemployment falls yet again...

But did employment actually rise?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I haven't extrapolated, are there or are there not other examples of regulations that just don't work for the UK? Regulations that we'd be better off without.

To use your analogy if we're going to focus on the trees as well as look at the woods when considering the decision taken then you have to acknowledge the idiocy of the rule makers in Brussels. That you choose to accept the idiocy is your prerogative but clearly there's a larger proportion of people who do not want to accept it.

Please note the use of the phrase "cherry picking" in wotsthat's post.
I fully expect this phrase to become the last bastion for pro-EU pro-remain advocates everywhere despite being advised that we are desirous of a totally NEW agreement.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I haven't extrapolated, are there or are there not other examples of regulations that just don't work for the UK? Regulations that we'd be better off without.

To use your analogy if we're going to focus on the trees as well as look at the woods when considering the decision taken then you have to acknowledge the idiocy of the rule makers in Brussels. That you choose to accept the idiocy is your prerogative but clearly there's a larger proportion of people who do not want to accept it.

The extrapolation is taking a Daily Mail article telling you there's a new rule you won't like and using that as proof I prefer to have my rules made by people you have proven are idiots.

There are lots of regulations I think we'd be better off without or should be changed. I didn't vote leave for a number of reasons but one was that I don't expect the government to stop sticking their nose into my affairs for one reason or another.