Post brexit planning/prepping

[shugie]

I've started to wonder if those who refuse to respect the will of the referendum, will give up when we finally leave. Maybe it's the British political left we need to be worried about more than medicine flowing into the country.

48% of those who voted wanted to remain. Just as at a general election, the opposition does not vanish after the vote, which is why the referendum happened, a lot of people opposed to the EU had been waiting for many years to get the chance to vote to leave, they never liked or supported the EU. And that's their democratic right.

So, the answer to your question is no, those opposed to leaving will continue to campaign to either not leave, or rejoin if needs be. The left, or at least the hard left, is as supportive of brexit at the ERG, albeit for very different reasons.

Maybe those who voted to leave need to respect the democratic rights of those who voted to remain to continue to oppose brexit. After all, a country where the opposition are forced into silence is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

Those opposed to leaving and continuing to frustrate the leaving process need to respect the will of the people and the democratic vote to leave, no second vote, no capitulation to the EU(SSR).

I don't respect the will of the people who voted to leave any more than they appear to respect my desire to remain. In my own very limited way, I will oppose the leaving process at every chance I get. That's democracy. I won't be capitulating to the Tories either.

[HALODIN]

This isn't meant as a loaded question, but in all seriousness - why are you so loyal to a trade block? It's just an economic union.

I don't respect the will of the people who voted to leave any more than they appear to respect my desire to remain. In my own very limited way, I will oppose the leaving process at every chance I get. That's democracy. I won't be capitulating to the Tories either.

[shugie]

I'm not loyal to the EU, and have always thought it was a poor "fit" for the UK ever since they abandoned the idea of the "two speed Europe" where on group of member states were less integrated, outside Schengen, the euro and perhaps on a different version of some directives and regulations. We've spent the last 40 years building up a complex trade network with the EU, and in financial services (yest, the bankers) we've done quite well in terms of market share, and definitely profits, with their associated tax for UK plc. My opposition to leave is largely the speed and chaotic nature of how it is being done, and that speed is because rich tax dodgers don't want the DAC6 directive (requiring disclosure of all cross border financial transfers that "might" be related to tax avoidance) to be implemented in the UK.

If we get to the point of leaving, we should do it properly, plan ahead a number of years, allow all our industries to get ready, and, most importantly, be able to demonstrate to the EU that we can go for a no deal brexit because we are properly and clearly prepared for it. Negotiations from a position of strength will yield much better results. But the chaos at the moment is damaging our economy to the extent that were a foreign power to do likewise, we would probably declare it a hostile act.

While we all enjoy the ease of travel in Europe, the real benefit the EU brings to the UK is free trade, and that has helped us move from being the "sick man of Europe" as we were in the 1970s, to being the sixth largest economy in the world, not bad for a nation of our size after loosing most of our national wealth in two world wars (another EU benefit in that not happening again perhaps?) and no longer having an empire/ The costs of being in the EU are high, in cash, in obedience to rules some of which are not beneficial to us, but our governments have made the cost higher than it needs to be, the French for example do not implement the EU rules anywhere near as firmly as we do, and get fined for the EU for their failures. But if we had followed the French approach, we would have found the EU rules to be far less troublesome. Our government had exemptions from the EU which would have allowed it to exert greater control over immigration, but chose not to do so, because UK plc likes access to cheap labour, and will continue to do so after brexit by bringing in Asians instead.

I view brexit as a result as much of UK government incompetence, even before Cameron asked a question and failed to prepare, at all, for getting the "wrong" answer as it is of EU failures. Rather than leave in a complete mess, with a deal that no one wants, and the likely breakup of the UK, we should fix the problems we have the EU first. If that proves impossible, plan for an orderly departure as a five year process, with the endpoint a no deal departure unless the EU come up with a good deal.

Hopefully that explains, in as few words as I can manage, why I can oppose brexit without being loyal to the EU.

[sclg]

Shugie - an excellent summary.

[Pete]

This whole fiasco is mainly a product of Camoron's stupidity in the first place.
I'm pretty sure we have the economic clout to practically run the whole EU circus..............if only we had competent politicians to go with it.
Instead, thanks to Cameron and his cronies, we've chucked all our toys out of the pram and embarked on a journey to who knows where?............certainly not the brexit secretary.

Pete

[ordnance]

This whole fiasco is mainly a product of Camoron's stupidity in the first place.
I'm pretty sure we have the economic clout to practically run the whole EU circus..............if only we had competent politicians to go with it.
Instead, thanks to Cameron and his cronies, we've chucked all our toys out of the pram and embarked on a journey to who knows where?............certainly not the brexit secretary.

Pete

If the EU were not so arrogant / stupid they could have avoided brexit by giving Cameron something when he tried get some concessions. They give him nothing hoping the British people would be stupid to believe the spin from Cameron and the EU of the concessions he got, that turned out to be nothing. A small give from the EU and the vote could have went the other way, but they don't seem to have learned anything from that insisting on a back stop for example making a no deal brexit even more likely.

[kennyc]

I'm not loyal to the EU, and have always thought it was a poor "fit" for the UK ever since they abandoned the idea of the "two speed Europe" where on group of member states were less integrated, outside Schengen, the euro and perhaps on a different version of some directives and regulations. We've spent the last 40 years building up a complex trade network with the EU, and in financial services (yest, the bankers) we've done quite well in terms of market share, and definitely profits, with their associated tax for UK plc. My opposition to leave is largely the speed and chaotic nature of how it is being done, and that speed is because rich tax dodgers don't want the DAC6 directive (requiring disclosure of all cross border financial transfers that "might" be related to tax avoidance) to be implemented in the UK.

If we get to the point of leaving, we should do it properly, plan ahead a number of years, allow all our industries to get ready, and, most importantly, be able to demonstrate to the EU that we can go for a no deal brexit because we are properly and clearly prepared for it. Negotiations from a position of strength will yield much better results. But the chaos at the moment is damaging our economy to the extent that were a foreign power to do likewise, we would probably declare it a hostile act.

While we all enjoy the ease of travel in Europe, the real benefit the EU brings to the UK is free trade, and that has helped us move from being the "sick man of Europe" as we were in the 1970s, to being the sixth largest economy in the world, not bad for a nation of our size after loosing most of our national wealth in two world wars (another EU benefit in that not happening again perhaps?) and no longer having an empire/ The costs of being in the EU are high, in cash, in obedience to rules some of which are not beneficial to us, but our governments have made the cost higher than it needs to be, the French for example do not implement the EU rules anywhere near as firmly as we do, and get fined for the EU for their failures. But if we had followed the French approach, we would have found the EU rules to be far less troublesome. Our government had exemptions from the EU which would have allowed it to exert greater control over immigration, but chose not to do so, because UK plc likes access to cheap labour, and will continue to do so after brexit by bringing in Asians instead.

I view brexit as a result as much of UK government incompetence, even before Cameron asked a question and failed to prepare, at all, for getting the "wrong" answer as it is of EU failures. Rather than leave in a complete mess, with a deal that no one wants, and the likely breakup of the UK, we should fix the problems we have the EU first. If that proves impossible, plan for an orderly departure as a five year process, with the endpoint a no deal departure unless the EU come up with a good deal.

Hopefully that explains, in as few words as I can manage, why I can oppose brexit without being loyal to the EU.

Well said again !

[shugie]

This whole fiasco is mainly a product of Camoron's stupidity in the first place.
I'm pretty sure we have the economic clout to practically run the whole EU circus..............if only we had competent politicians to go with it.
Instead, thanks to Cameron and his cronies, we've chucked all our toys out of the pram and embarked on a journey to who knows where?............certainly not the brexit secretary.

Pete

If the EU were not so arrogant / stupid they could have avoided brexit by giving Cameron something when he tried get some concessions. They give him nothing hoping the British people would be stupid to believe the spin from Cameron and the EU of the concessions he got, that turned out to be nothing. A small give from the EU and the vote could have went the other way, but they don't seem to have learned anything from that insisting on a back stop for example making a no deal brexit even more likely.

The only concession that Cameron needed to get to keep Jacob Rees-Mogg and the ERG, who are really the driving force behind brexit, happy, was the abandonment of the DAC6 tax disclosure directive, which Cameron was never going to ask for, as HMRC want it, and it was a partly UK government proposal. What the ERG are planning to do is defeat any attempt to introduce a UK version of those rules after brexit. That, for them, is the only game in town, all the talk of concessions, taking control back and the rest is designed to get people to support brexit, even though the ERG know full well that nothing that was promised will be delivered. Immigration, a major issue for many people due to its impact on wages, isn't going to stop, it will be Asians not Romanians.

[HALODIN]

Thanks for a detailed reply. They've had 2.5 years to negotiate a trade deal, I honestly don't think another 2.5 years would change anything. 48% of the population and what appears to be the majority MP's and Cabinet Ministers within a coalition government, are doing their damnedest to prevent it. We've already had contempt of Parliament, I'd hate to see contempt of democracy.

I'd say we're already in a position of strength, we're one of only 5 net-contributors to the EU and in terms of the German car industry, Britain's the world's second-largest consumer. That and if the EU believed we were committed to leaving without a deal, should be enough for an amicable split.

The world has flicked over into the next business cycle (approx every 8.6 years), the decline isn't a result of BREXIT in my opinion. Most economic declines are largely predictable, as markets ebb and flow through inflationary and deflationary cycles. Although I expect BREXIT will be blamed for just about everything negative moving forward.

I don't agree Britain's success is mostly attributable to the EU. After all - being a member of the EU has prevented Britain from pursuing better bilateral trade agreements with other countries, especially our forgotten Commonwealth brothers. Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is difficult because of the number of parties involved and isn't in any one country's benefit, we could change that once we're completely independent. Trade with the EU isn't free, we put in more than we take out. It's really international socialism.

It was NATO, the collapse of the USSR and a long period of prosperity that's kept Europe safe from conflict. I give the EU zero credit for this.

Cameron tried to change the EU before the referendum, but failed miserably and was sent away with his tail between his legs. We seemed to have very little clout and a dissenting British voice is often drowned out by the German and French founding alliance. I don't think this will ever change.

My reasons for leaving are two-fold. Firstly the EU is going bankrupt and if Britain remained, we'd be forced to bail out failed southern EU member states. This is throwing good money after bad. Bankruptcy is a natural occurrence in capitalism and shouldn't be feared. Had the banking system been allowed to fail in 2008 and only deposits protected, we would be out of the grasp of the financial crisis by now. Rewarding failure is a bad idea. The PIIGS states will all go bankrupt and I don't want to be part of the EU when that happens. My second reason is so Britain can regain its sovereignty. I appreciate France, Italy and even Germany fail to transpose EU law into their own legislation, but if that's the case, why subscribe to EU law at all? I would much prefer British laws were decided by the British, for the British.

I would prefer a managed withdrawl, but at the expense of staying within the EU's grap, I'll take a no-deal and 6 weeks of pain. The EU will come to their senses, I guarantee it.

I'm not loyal to the EU, and have always thought it was a poor "fit" for the UK ever since they abandoned the idea of the "two speed Europe" where on group of member states were less integrated, outside Schengen, the euro and perhaps on a different version of some directives and regulations. We've spent the last 40 years building up a complex trade network with the EU, and in financial services (yest, the bankers) we've done quite well in terms of market share, and definitely profits, with their associated tax for UK plc. My opposition to leave is largely the speed and chaotic nature of how it is being done, and that speed is because rich tax dodgers don't want the DAC6 directive (requiring disclosure of all cross border financial transfers that "might" be related to tax avoidance) to be implemented in the UK.

If we get to the point of leaving, we should do it properly, plan ahead a number of years, allow all our industries to get ready, and, most importantly, be able to demonstrate to the EU that we can go for a no deal brexit because we are properly and clearly prepared for it. Negotiations from a position of strength will yield much better results. But the chaos at the moment is damaging our economy to the extent that were a foreign power to do likewise, we would probably declare it a hostile act.

While we all enjoy the ease of travel in Europe, the real benefit the EU brings to the UK is free trade, and that has helped us move from being the "sick man of Europe" as we were in the 1970s, to being the sixth largest economy in the world, not bad for a nation of our size after loosing most of our national wealth in two world wars (another EU benefit in that not happening again perhaps?) and no longer having an empire/ The costs of being in the EU are high, in cash, in obedience to rules some of which are not beneficial to us, but our governments have made the cost higher than it needs to be, the French for example do not implement the EU rules anywhere near as firmly as we do, and get fined for the EU for their failures. But if we had followed the French approach, we would have found the EU rules to be far less troublesome. Our government had exemptions from the EU which would have allowed it to exert greater control over immigration, but chose not to do so, because UK plc likes access to cheap labour, and will continue to do so after brexit by bringing in Asians instead.

I view brexit as a result as much of UK government incompetence, even before Cameron asked a question and failed to prepare, at all, for getting the "wrong" answer as it is of EU failures. Rather than leave in a complete mess, with a deal that no one wants, and the likely breakup of the UK, we should fix the problems we have the EU first. If that proves impossible, plan for an orderly departure as a five year process, with the endpoint a no deal departure unless the EU come up with a good deal.

Hopefully that explains, in as few words as I can manage, why I can oppose brexit without being loyal to the EU.

[shugie]

I believe that we must agree to differ on the matter.