The key bit of SBs post is that 97% of the lamb exports go to the EU. We can try and strike continuity deals with other large markets as you suggest, but that doesn't help if there is suddenly a 40% cost for 97% of your exports. Plus, those other large markets, take Japan for example, might be seeing this as an opportunity to get a better deal with the UK they have with the EU, and therefore might not rush to give us the same terms. They will have more negotiating power if they know we are desperate, after taking a big hit in EU trade. Why should they rush to offer us the same terms? These trade deals often take many years to finalise, so even 2-3 years would probably be seen as 'quick'. 90 days would be alarming for many of our trading partners I guess.
You seem to be implying that the UK can, in course of time, strike individual trade agreements with individual countries within the EU. This will not be allowed to happen, because access to eg. the German market is, automatically, access to the rest of the EU. The same thing applies to freedom of movement - you cannot discriminate between EU citizens on the basis of their country of origin.
I have this habit of using "(say)" as a "for the sake of argument" just to get (hopefully) the argument across. So when I use "(say) 2 years" I am not necessarily suggesting 2 years... maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years, maybe never. Nobody knows until we engage with other countries. Maybe some countries will see an opportunity to strike a better deal (for them) with the UK than they currently have with the EU. Good for them, I say. There's always a quid pro quo and there's always a period of re-adjustment. Maybe lower tariffs will offset higher volumes? Maybe they'll be reciprocated by reduced tariffs in the opposite direction? Perhaps we'll get foreign investment into UK industry? Who knows until we engage? The point is: we can all sit here and identify problems before they arise and put stuff like this in the 'too difficult' pile, or we can list them as perfectly sensible concerns with which to go into bat with other countries like good negotiators do. Everything is inter-connected. It is the government's responsibility to also look at the whole shooting match in the round, holistically. If the Welsh farmers are disadvantaged then I'm willing to bet that there are other things that can be done that will put other industries into better positions than they are under the EU. If that's the case, then the holistic approach is to ensure that (for a sensible period of time) measures are put into place to assist the disadvantaged whilst they adjust to the new reality. None of this is easy, of course. Some people will undoubtedly end up unhappy, but isn't that always the case as economies ebb and flow? Farmers have been massively ****ed over Foot & Mouth a few times over my lifetime. Mad Cow wasn't a big hit. Nor was swine flu, bird flu and other ****. They adjust, adapt, some go to the wall, some thrive. It has always been thus. I'm not trying to be complacently dismissive of the plight of others. I may well be affected by this too. But the electorate voted for this in a democratic referendum, if my memory hasn't failed me. Whether the outcome of the referendum had been 99:1 or 52:48 in favour of Leave, the government of the day has a moral duty to both deliver on the referendum and support those adversely affected by it so that they can readjust and eventually thrive. Lights blue touch paper...
Can only speak for France where I have personally see massive changes since 2016 regarding Brexit . The message from the French press is very clear ... sad to lose the U.K. but France and the EU absolutely ready for the change
The French have the right idea and just get militant when they don't like the rules anyway. Perhaps we could get them to burn our lamb so we can claim on the insurance?
Agree 100% about 52:48 they are the actual number to use. I think they have been trying to get a 52:48 style Brexit imo I lost and do accept it where I struggle is the main fact that there has been plenty of time for a post Brexit plan to at least emerge? I also believe that from the 52 only a very small percentage would have voted for a no deal Brexit I maintain that the 52 figure would almost certainly fall by a very large amount if the only option was a no deal Brexit Therefore democracy has to be questioned The divide remains and agree is presently unknown. The question has to be faith imo How many honestly trusts the Conservatives or any party of British politics? Figure unknown New PM must be allowed to do his thing but I am absolutely certain that the 48 are still hoping that Brexit fails and why shouldn’t they? Their opinions have to count in exactly the same way as the 52 So who actually believes that the 52 are all pro No deal Brexiteers ? Have a go if you can to confirm this ? If a no deal was allowed to happen then the 52 must take full responsibility for the outcome Myself I not going to gamble and will get out as I simply have no faith in any rebuild when the official figures are 52/48. Life is too precious plus I don’t trust the 52 and will alway believe that the figure was a protest vote all at least contained a massive amount within the breakdown of . The 48 got caught out but that result looks a lot more solid to me
Perfectly happy to accept that there is a strong case to be made that there is a democratic duty to leave following the vote. I don't at all accept the logical leap from 'leave' to 'leaving without a deal' however....
How do you know that? The question was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The two possible responses were either: "Remain a member of the European Union" or "Leave the European Union" It was quite binary and therefore invited the electorate to make a categoric choice one way or the other. It did not play to the respective intelligence of each individual voter - how could it? It did not given 15 potential Leave outcomes, but neither did it invite the electorate to select 15 potential Remain conditions. We've done this countless times already but, it you're going to reverse democratically elected decisions three years later because you don't like the potential reality, let's do the same for every General Election result for this point forward, shall we?
Nobody voted to leave without a deal Ubes, because it wasn't even discussed as a possibility in 2016.
As a matter of interest, Raver, would you have been happy to have accepted 'Remain' as is, i.e. complete with the inexorable creep toward one European super state and all that goes with it? It's a perfectly legitimate position if that is what people want; it's just not what I'd vote for. I tell you what would be bang tidy: a European-wide referendum asking the electorate whether they'd like to revert back to a simple free trade agreement. I'd even throw into the mix the free movement of people provided they have work and pay their taxes in the countries where the dosh is earned.
Yes, and now we know what that choice actually meant - as opposed to what we were told it would mean - we should have the chance to think again.
A fair and valid question which I'll return to later on when I have a little more time to give the answer justice and the boss isn't sat next to me
That's irrelevant really because it wouldn't have changed my vote, but I strongly believe that a large proportion of those who voted Leave would not have done had they known that it would mean leaving without a trade deal and with no transition period. We're at a point that no one even considered in 2016. It's a travesty of the 'democracy' that you lot keep banging on about .
Parliament were given an imperfect deal which they declined with very little time left to come up with anything different. May had little option but to go. She should've gone after the second rejection, perhaps after the first, in order to give her successor the time to come up with their own plan. Johnson is on a hiding to nothing exacerbated by being the type of individual that polarises opinion. Nothing is forever. Why didn't parliament go with May's plan and undo it later, bit by bit? Yeah, yeah, the Irish backstop etc. You said you'd have supported May's deal, Strolls, so why roll your argument back to 2016 and not focus your ire on the prats we all elected to supposedly represent us?
I don’t mind the reality of leaving the EU but even now after three years I am certain a no deal will damage our country. Of course I would rather not leave the EU but agree the vote was won My point is that of course people on both sides would have had second thoughts and no one will know either way and yes the question was simple enough and so I believe remainers will be far more solid as that position is clear Leave on the other hand I believe would have a far higher percentage of second thinkers when posed with the outcome of a no deal What’s more imo any person who somehow fully believes that leaving the EU without a no deal is in any way good is frankly very stupid or very stubborn. Can anyone on here make a case for a no deal Brexit and establish a post plan for such an event Go ahead and try I say to anyone If one person suffers that would be one too many imo. Therefore that dilemma of a no deal isn’t something the remain camp has to ponder if the question was as you say that simple No way will I accept that the 52 are all no dealers All idiots that get brainwashed that things will be rosy are deluded. The current rally call carries nothing new and I am sincerely looking forward to when the actual maths cuts in