If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

Last year I talked of our security and intelligence Ace, dismissed by Remainers of course, well it appears from Mrs Mays letter this could be our most important Ace, mentioned more than twice as much as trade in her letter.


When I bang on about our Navy being the main security detail for the Straights Of Hormuz (EUs oil supply route|) or the Eastern border states taking huge comfort from our commitments (beyond that NATO requires), I am not just talking for talks sake.


As mentioned many times The Five Eyes system provides vital global intelligence and security - another reason to keep us onside as close as possible.

Conrad

As ever Remainer talking heads in the media seem to be batting for the EU - admonishing our tough negotiating declarations such as using our military and intelligence as a bargaining chip, whilst they approve of everything Brussels says.


This exemplifies why Remoaners like Farron or that top Diplomat who we pushed aside, could not be included in the negotiation process as they at every turn undermine our strength and resolve and endlessly fawn over Brussels, rubber stamping everything Brussels says, but lecturing us how weak we surely are

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

...
This exemplifies why Remoaners like Farron or that top Diplomat who we pushed aside, could not be included in the negotiation process as they at every turn undermine our strength and resolve and endlessly fawn over Brussels, rubber stamping everything Brussels says, but lecturing us how weak we surely are

Farron can never be part of the negotiations.

He made it very clear yesterday that his aim is to stop A50 completing and leave UK inside the EU.

He doesn't share the goals that the A50 negotiators have.

One of the strengths we do have in the negotiations should be a singular focus, compared to conflicting desires from a wideband EU27.

Farron doesn't help that focus.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

The point is that only those firms that wish to sell into the EU (a small minority) will have to abide by EU red tape.


But all those many often small firms that have nothing to do with the EU can be subject to British rules fit for the British market - as we slowly evolve our own rules. That's the point

You are correct, the EU rules will only need to be followed by any company whose products go out to the EU in some form, or want to do so at some point in the future (I'm not sure if the exporting company figure includes companies who export indirectly). So there may be some savings to be made by reducing the safety standards of domestic products, but I doubt it'll be anything like the improvements you envision.

But realistically, are we going to bother running with dual standards? Will people (willingly) buy lower-grade domestic products?

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

We own 50+ of the core patents in Graphene. I'd say we are in a good place to influence standards in material science. This is nothing to do with being in/out of the EU.

Indeed we can still shape science, where university/research funding is maintained. But how, for instance, does that give us any control over things like car emissions regulations, NCAP, type approval, food standards etc for the mundane stuff that makes up the vast bulk of our exports to the EU?

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

We'll have our own full seat at global rule setting tables that hand rules down to Brussels.

WTO? We've got a seat the same as Brussels does, so we don't hold any further sway than they do, and they can produce whatever regulation they want for trade to their trading bloc.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Indeed we can still shape science, where university/research funding is maintained. But how, for instance, does that give us any control over things like car emissions regulations, NCAP, type approval, food standards etc for the mundane stuff that makes up the vast bulk of our exports to the EU?

I have a problem when it comes to standards and protectionism. I just don't like the idea.

I have the same issue with firms like IBM who amass very large patent banks, as a method of building in corporate protectionism.

I think you achieve more progress when you have open protocols.

Tromking

Opening 'salvo`s' in the negotiations are interesting.
UK emphasizing its undoubted strengths in Europe-wide security as a riposte to French/German insistence that the 'divorce' settlement be sorted before a fair trade deal is discussed.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4362544/Day-one-Brussels-wailing-accused-blackmail.html

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Tromking wrote: »

Opening 'salvo`s' in the negotiations are interesting.
UK emphasizing its undoubted strengths in Europe-wide security as a riposte to French/German insistence that the 'divorce' settlement be sorted before a fair trade deal is discussed.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4362544/Day-one-Brussels-wailing-accused-blackmail.html

Heh, already farcical isn't it?

The EU stance of agreeing terms without agreeing trade is frankly ridiculous.

When we go to buy a car, we are not told that we must pay before we know what car we will get for our money.
Or what equipment the car will come with; what extra's we could buy if we want to ............. or even what colour we can have.

Insert your own analogies if you wish but there is no way that you will convince the majority that payment must be agreed before we know what we are getting.
That applies just as equally to the EU as with anything in life.

Tromking

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Heh, already farcical isn't it?

Yes, just heard Verhofstadt accusing the UK of using the security of EU citizens as a bargaining chip, that`ll be the UK operating RAF Typhoons out of Poland and a UK having just sent 1000 troops and military materiel to Estonia too.
The odds of the UK declaring UDI from the EU must be rising.:)