Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Getting_greyer

I don't think anyone is worried about being convicted of treason because of their position on brexit.

If they were any worried people I would say not to worry, only an imbecile would entertain such a notion. McCarthyism only prevails amongst the ignorant.

Herzlos

People have been attacked, threatened and murdered for pro-EU views.

I dont think for a second the British government will start executing remainers, but the rhetoric is likely to result in more remainers being attacked for being traitors. Theres been enough right wing dog whistles as it is.

Getting_greyer wrote: »

Clear to me what Goral is saying. We are leaving CFP for full control over our sovereign waters. We may then negotiate access for EU fishers in return for something. Which is pretty much what we have now.

He then asks what else. I believe this means we are leaving an institution where we have pooled sovereignty and return for benefits. Once we take back control we will likely give it away again in return for benefits. Sovereignty to some degree is lost in any international agreement. So I think I could summarise his argument as him asking what is the point?

I think the point is that we choose to give this stuff away, rather than the EU choosing to take it. That we can withdraw from the deal any time we want.
So it doesn't matter if everything remains the same or gets worse as long as it's on our terms.

Getting_greyer

I agree that is the main motivation behind those who valued sovereignty the most and voted leave for that reason. But the point I make (my interpretation of goral) is that we already held the sovereign authority to leave at anytime and was enacted by triggering A50. A commons majority could have seen us leave the EU on day 1 of A50 as there is no higher sovereign power than parliament. In practical terms that leads to cluster!!!! and lawsuits. So what?

In practice we lose sovereignty in any agreement.

Herzlos

I dont think there is any improvement in sovereignty, especially since we had a veto before anyway and could always have pulled A50.

I think a lot of people buy the argument that you can borrow X as long as I say it's ok, but you deciding to borrow X without my express consent isn't. But I think that misses a lot of the nuances of the EU.

lvader wrote: »

Actually the EU can’t afford to lose access to London financial markets, many of which are global in nature. As long as London doesn’t become tied to EU regulations it will do fine.

Germany, France and Eire are all hoping to cash in on London losing access to EU markets.
Our market traders will still want to make somewhere, even if it's not London.

I dont buy the idea that the EU needs to give London super special access.

On the other hand, the finance sector is something like 9% of our economy. Can we risk chasing ot out of the country?

buglawton

Herzlos wrote: »

I dont buy the idea that the EU needs to give London super special access

And in other news

https://www.fintechfutures.com/2020/01/a-thousand-eu-financial-firms-plan-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit/

More than 1,400 EU-based firms have applied for permission to operate in the UK after Brexit, with over 1,000 of these planning to establish their first UK office

Because..

When the current passporting system becomes defunct, the TPR will allow European Economic Area firms and funds to continue to operate in the UK, whilst they seek full authorisation from UK regulator

adindas

buglawton wrote: »

And in other news

https://www.fintechfutures.com/2020/01/a-thousand-eu-financial-firms-plan-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit/


Because..

When people want to see How London will dwarf financial hub of the EU countries combined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_centre

If you wanted to see the spat between the EU and Switzerland
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/01/european-traders-banned-from-trading-swiss-blue-chips-as-eu-talks-break-down.html

The Key Point:
"Swiss regulators have imposed a ban on EU exchanges trading Swiss equities after the European Commission allowed the ‘equivalence’ status granted to the Swiss stock exchange to lapse.
From Monday, trading of shares in Swiss blue chip companies such as Nestle, Novartis and UBS will only be permitted on the Zurich stock exchange, with European investors and traders facing financial penalties and possible imprisonment of up to three years for trading the stock, according to the countermeasures proposal published in November 2018 by the Swiss Federal Department of Finance (FDF).

Just have a sensible look if London impose the equal penalty such as what Switzerland have been doing to the EU. It will cripple the EU market.

Also refer to the interconnectivity between London, New York, Tokyo, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore financial hub which will be strengthen after Brexit. It is unmatched by any EU country.

adindas

Getting_greyer wrote: »

I don't think anyone is worried about being convicted of treason because of their position on brexit.

If they were any worried people I would say not to worry, only an imbecile would entertain such a notion. McCarthyism only prevails amongst the ignorant.

Do not make it up the thing I never say (e.g People are convicted of treason because of their position on brexit). Also what you are saying does not make sense at all. Could you charge all people who have voted to remain ???

But there is a room for treason charge for those who have been constantly frustrating, undermining weakening the UK negotiation position with the EU, sabotaging Brexit. Keep in mind the departure of the UK decided by a nation have been made in the referendum. Also it has been paved by the UK parliament.

There are few people, politicians, MPs who have been doing a secret plot, illegal talk with the EU to make it Brexit look stupid, keep undermining the UK negotiation position. For these people, there is room for this but whether it is possible to bring this charge, it will depend on the public enquiry and court challenges.

This is just a few examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/25/tory-mep-david-bannerman-ex-ukip-says-treason-act-should-include-extreme-eu-loyalty

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-britons-eu-loyal-tried-treason-tory-david-campbell-bannerman-a8463056.html

Few old posters here have created a new profile to hide their previous scaremongering view on brexit which has been proven to be untrue day by day. Just notice your profile was created on January 2020.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock. Come here after January 31, 2020 23.00 GMT. Kerching the sound of penny from fruit machines, The game is over.

Moe_The_Bartender

adindas wrote: »

I never say that people are convicted of treason because of their position on brexit.

But there is a room for treason charge for those who have been constantly frustrating, undermining weakening the UK negotiation position with the EU, sabotaging Brexit.

And yet Comrade Corbyn wants to ennoble one of them.

Getting_greyer

I'm not demonising Brexit. I think it's a bad idea and I'm worried we have weakened the country with our decision. I hope I'm wrong and it's a success. I just call out that which I think is ridiculous, such as lobbying being called traitorous.

I think I can see your angle; parliament voted for A50 so any frustration against is in effect blocking the will of parliament? But A50 merely triggers the 2 years notice period. It isn't illegal to revoke that decision, just as it isn't illegal to extend, lobby both negotiating sides or such. Parliament could have technically ignored the result of the referendum if it wanted to - it wasn't legally binding. Any secret and "illegal" negotiations didn't work, the biggest hindrance to Brexit has so far been calling an election in 2017. That made us look more stupid than any visits to Barnier that Nick Clegg did.

But we're out in a few days, I suspect you're rejoicing that and, as I said before, I remain sceptical. Brexit may turn out to be the biggest success story but as it stands there is a sizable portion of this country that are deeply worried about it. Throwing the nearest web link at someone is unlikely to allay their fears. And that works vice versa.

Ultimately in the main, there are two differing views on this thread. Both wish to see our country prosper just different idea how we should do it. One of those views has one the political argument and we are progressing down that route, it doesn't mean you cant be critical of it. So no, I'm not demonising brexit.

Tromking

Getting_greyer wrote: »

I agree that is the main motivation behind those who valued sovereignty the most and voted leave for that reason. But the point I make (my interpretation of goral) is that we already held the sovereign authority to leave at anytime and was enacted by triggering A50. A commons majority could have seen us leave the EU on day 1 of A50 as there is no higher sovereign power than parliament. In practical terms that leads to cluster!!!! and lawsuits. So what?

In practice we lose sovereignty in any agreement.

Wow, the mental gymnastics some people go through in their desperation to propagate the myth that the U.K. does not regain any worthwhile form of autonomy post Brexit.
On the issue of fishing, if the U.K. decides as part of a FTA negotiation to issue fishing rights to EU boats in return for concessions elsewhere, it’s not ceding sovereignty, it’s using its new found Sovereignty to leverage a better deal for the UK.
Basic stuff this.