Off Topic UK / EU Future

Well I think we have all agreed that it is a total mess. Maybe we should start to look at the problems trading under WTO rules would create.

 

Being in the EU is no doubt the economically best deal for the UK
But we are no longer in it.
Is it OK to sign up to become a part player - an associate member of the club with a few of the benefits but no say in the future - which would mean the economic future for the UK? If we cannot leave now what chance would there be of us managing to leave at a later date?
O is it better to say enough is enough. The EU - quite correctly will not adjust their rules for a member who wanted to leave. We will not be able to get the freedoms that supposedly were voted for in the referendum unless we sign up to be order takers. So we become one of many nations that are totally independent and only sign trade deals that we want - but those deals would be our choice. Do we honestly think that the UK is unable to function as a stand alone country? Yes there will be many adjustments that are needed. I also personally think we will be poorer in the future - but thank the 17.4 million for that.
I cannot see a deal the EU and UK would both accept.

 

As far as the UK is concerned it needs to find some resolution of staying as close as possible to the EU. Just take a look at the fact sheet produced by the EU of all the countries around the world that it has currently has deals with, or is in negotiations with, and ask yourself why so many of the smaller economies wish to have access to this huge market through formalised agreements. Where are these countries that the UK will get better deals with outside the EU? They hardly exist.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/

 

If we had not voted brexit I would totally agree with you.
But we are now one of those economies that wish to have formalised agreement with the EU. However none of those countries will look to be subject to the ECJ, the migration rules etc.
The UK will still need to strike a trade deal with the EU - the question though will be what sort - and will it be done on the basis of respect for equals as opposed to "you rotters left our club and this is all you can have"

 

I have read on several occasions that the EU exports to us twice as much as we export to them. Therefore surely they should be looking at an agreement with us as an important issue or perhaps Estonia for example will over rule Germany, France, Spain etc on this and veto it. This could be a golden example of not getting the "27" to all agree. There are many issues that the EU could lose out on if it does not sensibly agree deals etc with the UK. Its not all about the UK in a mess it does to a degree work both ways even if Brussels would like to maybe brush things under the carpet.

 

We are not equal though are we. We have an economy selling services, and buying goods. Drive the autoroutes here and you don't see goods being transported in lorries from the UK. The kicking the can down the road approach that has being going on for far too long, cannot continue for much longer. After the speech that TM made on Friday I searched the continental press to see their reaction. It was hardly mentioned. I found two headlines tucked away from different countries using the same word. Delusional. Therein lies the problem. Countries over this side of the Channel are saying, so what, yet the UK seems to think that it is something special that the EU cannot manage without.
Meanwhile preparations are being made for the UK to leave with no deal. Schools are being built to take the children of people who will have to relocate, new offices are springing up, customs officers are being trained, car factories are being expanded. All sensible measures if you see that your economy will grow as the UK one reduces.

 

That's fine. If the EU do not care about us then frankly I would not want a deal with them.
You are probably right - the UK thinks it is more important than it is to the EU.
So let's shake hands and walk away.
I am sure at some stage deals will be done - after all if the EU does deals with dozens of other countries then a deal with the UK is just another deal.
I do not like the idea that the UK is so desperate that we are given a take it or leave it. Your impression is that the UK does not matter to the EU so perhaps we just go it alone - we will be poorer but that is what 17.4 million wanted.

 

Your perception seems to be that 17.4M knew what they were voting for, and therefore there is no turning back. I take a different view. The people in Sunderland as an example have now realised that their jobs are at risk, and all the polling shows that there is a huge swing in the way that they would vote if they had a second chance. It is time to be honest with the public, although I am not holding my breathe, and give them a second bite. Democracy is not democracy unless people have a chance to change their mind. David Davis. My guess is that people were over influenced by the soundbites of the ones such as BoJo. I know people who were, and have now changed their minds. Instead of meekly saying that a one off poorly designed opinion poll must be slavishly followed, let us point out that it is not a good idea for the country and the individuals to be made poorer, and urge the vast bulk of moderate MPs to do what is right.

 

To be honest Frenchie, I do not think there is time now for a second referendum. Even if there were and the result was 52-48% the other way, that would not be the end of the matter. I also do not think that the EU. would be convinced by such a result - their reaction may be 'yes, but for how long' or rather that they do not want to have to go through this same process again in a few years time. For me the horse has bolted - at least for now. At some time in the future there may well be a majority in favour of rejoining, together with a whole new generation of voters. Maybe also the EU. will have reformed itself by then. There is a strong wish amongst many Europeans that the EU. apparatus becomes more accountable, and that will grow. Only one of the organs of the EU. the European Parliament is actually elected by us - as for the rest, EU Commission, European Council, Council of Europe etc. etc. they are all remote, in fact most people don't even know who they are, what they do and how they were elected. As long as that is the case the EU. will have a democratic deficit.

 

You have made it clear that you think it is bad for the country Art. Have you e-mailed your MP asking them to vote against the path that this government is taking us down? You could point out that leaving the customs union would have a huge effect on your grandchildren's future. I wrote to mine, and six months later still await a reply. I also wrote to Guy Verhofstadt and had a personal reply.

 

There will never be an end to the matter Cologne, you cannot change the direction of a country that has become integrated over forty years without a breakdown of government. I am not one of those who believe that a change of government would allow a different approach to the talks and produce a different outcome, because of the time restraints. You could argue that a different government could ask for a pause, and I think it would be granted.
I also believe that the EU needs reform, and because of the structures in place it takes time. Ask the vast majority of people in the UK who represents them on the County Council and they don't have a clue. As long as they only ask for moderate increases in the council tax they are quite happy to let them get on with it, until the council goes bust and removes all the services.

 

This assumes that the people who voted to remain also knew what they were voting for and I doubt they could see where Europe was going.

 

This is one very strong reason why many voted to leave. I doubt if I will see the EU reform itself in my life time, in fact I would expect it to collapse before they do any serious reforming.

The EU Parliament is democratically elected but they just seem to me to be a rubber stamping outfit to pass the regulations of the bureaucrats. The majority of MSP's are pro Europe so there is no effective opposition as far as I can see.

The other organisation we should leave is the European Court of Human Rights, which is separate from the EU and a whole new ball game.

 

We had several hundred years of governance before joining the EEC and that has had to become integrated in an ever increasing manner, so I think undoing 40 years will not be the problem it is painted out to be, that said there have probably been more laws and regulations created in the last 40 years than since William of Normandy pitched up in 1066.

I am sure you are correct, but didn't you mean MEPs?

 

I really do not see that somewhere someone has signed of the finance on a new school for people who may or may not relocate to a certain area or even country unless of course people who do decide to relocate are "forced" to only relocate to certain areas and their choices are removed from them. That really does not stack up at this time of proceedings as new schools are put in areas where they are needed straight away not in areas that perhaps may need them in the near furure.

The things you list OFH are all down to an areas economy and growth forcast and have nothing to do with Brexit.

 

There has been a very interesting debate in the Lords this afternoon about the current withdrawal bill, and the way it has been drawn will mean that the family law sections will allow people from the EU to have access to UK law, but UK citizens not have any access to EU courts and the laws there. It was shown that a large number of cases currently are heard in one place and the judgement accepted throughout the current 28 countries. Something like 1800 cases a year of child abduction are heard and resolved. If you need a divorce you can apply for one in any country and have it granted, but after Brexit if one person is in the UK and their partner is in the 27, then you could finish up with two expensive cases going on at the same time. Who would arbitrate if the UK court and the EU court didn't agree about splitting the assets. It seems that it would be the ECJ although the government spokesman was vague on many of the details that were raised. What was agreed by all sides was that the EU law was far better than the 1980's agreement that would have to be the fall back position.
They then went on to environmental issues. I didn't have time to watch a great deal of the debate, but it was pointed out that there are thousands of regulations that will have to be debated, and there would be another general election before they got through them even if they sat for 365 days a year. While all this is going on other things that government should be doing are pushed aside, and could be the downfall of them.

 

The things I mentioned were actual projects that are underway, mainly to suit the banks. New offices are being built in Germany, France and Ireland at the request of banks who will relocate some of their operations abroad. The schools that are being built in Paris and Dublin are going to be International private schools for the children. These building projects are investment from the banks, who will have the option of taking up all the space, or some of it, and letting out the rest. I don't think they would have moved without Brexit.

 

From people I know who work in the international banking sector ( and may be affected by relocation) most are being informed that destinations for any relocation will not be widely made known or finalised until the so called transition period begins to allow for a proper evaluation on what deal or no deal has been struck .At this stage most institutions are basically just setting up contingency field offices in other countries as they also want to see what "sweetners" are being offered by EU countries if there is even a need for wide spread relocation. I realise that this has nothing to do whatsoever with a banks business investment strategy which it may or may not have undertaken with or with out Brexit, that is something I am sure most of us would not be privy too.

 

According to the chancellor speaking to MPs today, a transition deal has to be done by 1st April to enable airlines to set their schedules for April 2019.

 

Why would I? Leaving the EU is what I think is bad for the country. Is an email from me going to get a reversal of Article 50?
As I have said here - I have no idea what is the "second best" but am getting closer to believing that a clean break is the best option. The idea of paying most of what we previously did plus ECJ and EU rules on immigration were worth it for membership but unless the EU have a total change of heart (and why should they?) I think what they will let us have as a 2nd class associate member is not worth the price.
I certainly do not want a border down the Irish Sea. If they think that is acceptable then I don't.