Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

Our relationship with the EU has changed irreversibly IMO.

You can argue whether we should go back into this club or not, but it is unlikely we would go back on the same terms.

Qualified majority voting would ensure that we get marginalized on all the key future decisions.

The German-Franco core probably spot an opportunity to take decisive control of the EU development right now, and why wouldn't they. If it were Germany and not UK who were leaving, we would be using the impending departure as a call for change (which favoured us).

I agree. As much as I want Britain to remain in the EU, stopping and reversing at this stage would take a huge and clever diplomatic effort by the British Government who have not won any awards for diplomacy or cleverness up to now.
If there were a second referendum after 18 months of negotiations and the deal was regected by the electorate there would be no way back and we would leave with no deal.
A failure like that would bring down the Government but that would change nothing. I can not see the Government risking a second referendum as there is no guarantee they would get the result they want.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

What makes you think a "no deal" will not exist? If the best deal we can reach by negotiation is unacceptable to either party, surely we will leave with no deal?

I meant if you put a second referendum together the only choice will be to accept the deal on offer or reject it and leave anyway.
There's no chance imo that going back to negotiate or throwing it all away and staying in the EU are viable options.
The EU simply will not accept that. And why should they?

BobQ

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

It was made very clear by both the official Leave and Remain campaigns that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and making our own laws on all national matters including immigration policy.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The Remain side were saying that sort of thing to indicate how serious the impact would be on trade of leaving the single market and that the ECJ was the source of all sorts of employment law protections. The Leave campaign were saying that because they wanted to trade with the world without the restrictions of EU trade agreements that stopped us making separate agreements outside of the EU, and that the ECJ constrained UK courts. (Immigration policy is not determined by ECJ, its one of four freedoms we agreed to when signing the Treaty).

But none of that appeared on the ballot paper which was a straight choice of Leave or Remain.

Now those very same propositions are described by the disingenuous as "Reckless Brexit".

I for one accept that we are Leaving the EU but do not think it is disingenuous to point out that Leaving is in my opinion a mistake that will damage the country. I said it before the referendum and I am merely being consistent is saying I still believe it.

Whether it is reckless (did someone else say it ?) remains to be seen. It appears that the Government and Cabinet is still divided on the issues of what Brexit means.

You may be happy that we are leaving the EU, that we will be outside the single market, free to stop all immigration, free to change our laws. But just because 52% voted for it does not mean it will work as they expect, only that it will happen.

That 52% voted Leave is a democratic decision that Government needs to enact, but that does not mean I am unable to express my views on it or that they have not done any harm by their decision.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

I meant if you put a second referendum together the only choice will be to accept the deal on offer or reject it and leave anyway.
There's no chance imo that going back to negotiate or throwing it all away and staying in the EU are viable options.
The EU simply will not accept that. And why should they?

Ah! Yes I agree with you. But I suppose its possible that the EU might offer us two different deals and the Government leave it up to the public which to take. But unlikely......

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Yes I agree with you. But I suppose its possible that the EU might offer us two different deals and the Government leave it up to the public which to take.

Not how negotiation works. Going to be hard enough for the member states of the EU to agree among themselves.

LHW99

I for one accept that we are Leaving the EU but do not think it is disingenuous to point out that Leaving is in my opinion a mistake that will damage the country. I said it before the referendum and I am merely being consistent is saying I still believe it.

I have to say that when the original 1975 vote was to join the EEC, I accepted that - but it was in my opinion a mistake that would damage the country.
I think that the difficulties in negotiating an exit now, prove just how much of the UK's ability to take our own decisions over aspects of national laws and trading treaties have been eroded or given away to the Brussels machine.
I voted to Leave, I stand by that position now, and I understood when I voted that Leave meant being outside the EU, its court system, its single market and its customs union.

norsefox

stator wrote: »

Ignore the media, they have no real information so they are putting any old wonk with any old rumour on TV/in print. None of it means anything.
Only an idiot would conduct negotiation in public, and the Tories aren't that stupid thankfully.
We'll see eventually how it's going but for now you have no idea.

Unfortunately that is utter nonsense. The quality of our negotiation team and planning is exactly as poor as it seems.

And it's not "any old wonk". Half the people being interviewed lately are former EU negotiators who know exactly how badly prepared our mob is.

Thrugelmir

norsefox wrote: »

Unfortunately that is utter nonsense. The quality of our negotiation team and planning is exactly as poor as it seems.

And it's not "any old wonk". Half the people being interviewed lately are former EU negotiators who know exactly how badly prepared our mob is.

Despite the UK representing 12% of the population of the EU. Only 3.8% of the people employed by the EC are British. Even 4.3% are from Romania. Hardly surprising that there's a complete lack of understanding. When there's a lack of involvement in the workings of the EC. Brussels is a detached universe. Just because we are all "European" doesn't make us all bed fellows.

stator

norsefox wrote: »

Unfortunately that is utter nonsense. The quality of our negotiation team and planning is exactly as poor as it seems.

And it's not "any old wonk". Half the people being interviewed lately are former EU negotiators who know exactly how badly prepared our mob is.

How much of the negotiating have you seen?

Former negotiators and former beurocrats have all come out of the woodwork, as has Tony Blair, but none of them have a clue what is actually being discussed behind closed doors.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

norsefox wrote: »

Unfortunately that is utter nonsense. The quality of our negotiation team and planning is exactly as poor as it seems.

And it's not "any old wonk". Half the people being interviewed lately are former EU negotiators who know exactly how badly prepared our mob is.

When the EU and its sympathisers describe the UK as "badly prepared", what they really mean is that the UK has not yet presented a negotiating position which complies with the negotiating framework set out by the EU. It is gradually dawning on the EU that this is not a lack of preparedness; this is a refusal to capitulate to their framework and all of its implied concessions.

Only once that stage of the discussions are concluded will the real negotiations begin. That may turn out to be too late; but that won't be the UK's fault.