Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Theophile

Lornapink wrote: »

Clegg & Chukka plenty of times in various TV debates said a Norway type option 'would be the worst of all worlds, democracy by fax, a rule taker with no say on the rules'.


Amazing how they now say we need a Norway type option. Another example of Remain manipulation of the public.

As the likes of Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan, Arron Banks repeatedly claimed the Norway option being a viable one post brexit, it looks like they're all in agreement then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

iro

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43876918




More Brexit misery!

Lornapink

Switzerland wouldn't dream of joining the CU and has VERY porous borders. Ireland is merely being overdramatized in order to water-down or reverse Brexit. 2 million people cross the Swiss border daily, it's in the path of major transit routes. Most 'checking' is done in advance and using tech.
Switzerland a nation of just 8 million proves 'small nations' don't need to allow themselves to be bullied by the EU on the CU.

kabayiri

Theophile wrote: »

As the likes of Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan, Arron Banks repeatedly claimed the Norway option being a viable one post brexit, it looks like they're all in agreement then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

There never was going to be a packaged solution on the table. It's a sales pitch.

All the bickering taking place during A50 could develop in dozens of different ways. There's enough difference between us and Norway for the solution to diverge.

All they can do is break the whole thing down into chunks, and come up with answers for each bit.

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

Remainer's endlessly told us tariffs would be imposed on goods, how this will cost the poorest most.

... in the case of a hard Brexit.

Remainer's promised us trade deals take 10 years to negotiate, and that the EU would be imposing tariffs otherwise others would be encouraged to leave.

Correct. Trade deals do often take about 10 years, unless we agree to a photocopy of the EU deal or completely roll over. If we have no deal with the EU (hard brexit) then we'll have tariffs as set by the WTO.

We triggered A50, what, 13 months ago and we're how far forward, exactly?

I predicted Remainers would alter their patter when proven wrong, and here you are...

We've been pretty consistent, and acknowledged where we've been wrong. Can you honestly say the same for the leavers?

Lornapink wrote: »

Clegg & Chukka plenty of times in various TV debates said a Norway type option 'would be the worst of all worlds, democracy by fax, a rule taker with no say on the rules'.

They were right at the time, of all the options, Norway was a dodgy middle ground, though mentioned by the likes of Farage as a good idea. Given our current options though, Norway seems like the best of a bad lot. It satisfies the "will of the people", reduces our contributions and avoids almost all of the economic damage. It doesn't do anything about the non-existent migration problem or the fact we've given away control, but we've lost on both of those anyway.

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

2 million people cross the Swiss border daily, it's in the path of major transit routes.

They have freedom of movement though, right?

Most 'checking' is done in advance and using tech.

Yup, they have a fast-cross border for pre-booked cargo, and a regular border for everything else. It's still essentially a hard border though, with a check-point, thus not compatible with the Good Friday Agreement.

We could absolutely do the same, if we just tear up the GFA and deal with the fall out.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
We could absolutely do the same, if we just tear up the GFA and deal with the fall out.

So what do you think we should do?

Do you think a managed border solution is feasible?

Are there good reasons why a managed border solution should not be acceptable to all reasonable people?

I'm a pragmatist, not a political idealist. Brexit is all about pragmatism.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

So what do you think we should do?

Admit Brexit is a disaster and either stay in or take the Norway option. Listen to the Brexiteers froth for a while before getting on with their lives.

If that's not an option, I'd be giving the people of NI an option of where they want the border: Eire or the UK.

The only other option is the regulatory alignment we keep agreeing to and denying to the public, but if we're doing that we may as well just stay in and save all the hassle. Since Brexit in name only will barely fool anyone.

Do you think a managed border solution is feasible?

The Good Friday Agreement requires "no border". So it's not compatible.

A managed border would work fine if it wasn't for that little detail. Even an open border with random checks is still not compatible, nor is pre-registering for fast-cross access.

I'm a pragmatist, not a political idealist. Brexit is all about pragmatism.

There is absolutely nothing pragmatic about Brexit. It's an idealist approach with no pragmatic basis. Our handling of it is sort of pragmatic, in that May is trying to find a way to get out of it without losing her job.

Lornapink

Just watching Lib Dem, Jo Swinson of the DP arguing for a vote on the terms with the choice of either leaving on the terms of remaining in the EU 'as we are'.

This demonstrates the Remainer blind spot which is that Remain is not a status quo option and not defined, given changing dynamics such as the EU talking of doubling it's budget, accelerating centralisation & bringing in new poor & corrupt nations (see global corruption index on Albania & Macedonia) that will come with hands outstretched all of which will mean an increase in UK contributions.

In other words Remain would need to define this new Remain and in particular will have to answer awkward questions such as what is the 15 year forecast on UK membership fee's.

There is no 'stay as we are' option.

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

Just watching Lib Dem, Jo Swinson of the DP arguing for a vote on the terms with the choice of either leaving on the terms of remaining in the EU 'as we are'.

This demonstrates the Remainer blind spot which is that Remain is not a status quo option and not defined, given changing dynamics such as the EU talking of doubling it's budget, accelerating centralisation & bringing in new poor & corrupt nations (see global corruption index on Albania & Macedonia) that will come with hands outstretched all of which will mean an increase in UK contributions.

In other words Remain would need to define this new Remain and in particular will have to answer awkward questions such as what is the 15 year forecast on UK membership fee's.

There is no 'stay as we are' option.

Why do you insist on that level of detail for remain but not on leave? You're trying to create hurdles that don't exist to try and pretend that it's not possible to be able to, want to, or understand what it means to remain.

Just like your insistence that the Remain campaign go into extraneous detail on what Remain means, when it's painfully obvious to anyone who cares to look or think about it.

It's pretty clear what remaining involves - we remain in the EU and continue to have a say in how it evolves. We don't need to predict where the EU will go because (a) we have no idea and (b) we're able to block the changes we don't like.

We need to define leaving because at this stage it can mean more or less anything, and we'll have minimal say in the things the EU won't let us have a say in.

So the choices are fairly clear:
Brexit, for some clarified definition of Brexit.
Vs
Staying in the EU as it is now, and remain involved in what it becomes next.