The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Cata1yst]

Another day, yet another reason to tell the financial sector to get stuffed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38235845

[marton]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	I doubt it.. I reckon a few are having real squeaky bum moments. There will be a lot of new German cars stacking up in Oostend waiting patiently to arrive in the UK mit neue steuer if this is not sorted.

After the Walloon parliament vote down any UK trade deal I am sure they will be happy to buy these cars that are conveniently parked in nearby Ostend at a huge discount because of their wrong side steering

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	I believe the technical term would be 'tough crap'. The invocation of article 50 would have reached the EU via official diplomatic means. If someone screwed up along the way, it would be an internal British issue and would not be their problem.

That doesn't make it conforming to the constitution.

If invoking §50 doesn't happen conforming to the constitution there's nothing for the EU to accept to begin with, what EU receives is just a meaningless piece of paper.

[Sbrinz]

Can we recapitulate a bit?

Britain wants to leave the EU - correct?

Britain needs to incorporate all EU law into UK law - correct?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-...ments-38187867

Britain expects 2 years to negotiate after Article 50 - correct?

Chief EU negotiator wants 18 months negotiations - correct?

Britain now has a record number of foreigners living in UK - correct?

Britain presently has a low unemployment rate - correct?

Britain pays into the EU less than Germany, France, Italy - Correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget...European_Union

In this situation, what exactly are the advantages in leaving the EU?

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I'm glad you were never negotiating anything my behalf with that attitude towards the process.

It's very common to have 'talks about talks'. The EU has said it won't engage with the UK until A50 is invoked. I say again that informal scoping now would make the whole process more likely to succeed. We can spin it how we want, but it looks as if the EU, especially the several EU leaders who face elections during 2017, have no intention of doing anything to help the process along. I don't especially blame them. They are annoyed and anxious, particularly after the Renzi vote, and the growing popularity of anti-EU / anti-euro parties across the continent.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	This is the time in the process where the Empress should be identifying common ground with all of Parliament and with her EU counterparts, and listing the possible bones of contention and further requirements. There are huge areas of common ground which will be mutually beneficial to all concerned (information sharing with Europol being a major one), many issues that only require minor tweaking to become common ground, and then the rest where the negotiations should be concentrated.

This is partly what the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" is aimed at. Absorbing as much EU legislation into UK law as is reasonable. So these things are obviously already happening. The prime minister and I are wholly in favour of strong cooperation on many things -- environment, security, intelligence sharing, aerospace, and much more. I've no reason to think that we're not 'identifying common ground'. It's just a shame that we're not allowed to be talking about these things with the EU now, so that non-contentious areas can be agreed and off the table, leaving the time available focused on the bigger questions after A50.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	....the constitutional aspects of this could be more time consuming than any negotiations with the EU...... it could run well into the 2020s.

I've not heard that timetable suggested; not sure where it comes from. We have to wind up the EU deal within 18-24 months, or (apparently) we adopt the standard WTO terms. Frankly, I think it might be better to cut to the chase, and go there before the end of the talks if no agreement is looking likely on the substantive issues with the EU.

What we don't know is whether the EU is full of bluster about being uncooperative with the UK, or whether they mean it. I guess it will become clear pretty soon after the negotiations start in the spring, following A50. If it's quickly obvious that they will offer no concessions, then it makes sense to politely withdraw and just get on with it.

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	marton
	Article 50 says Now if some lawyer were to argue that UK's own constitutional requirements were not met?

We argued about the pros and cons of EU membership, and options for leaving, all day every day for 3 or 4 months.

Is there an obvious reason why lawyers for the Remain campaign, or any media interviewer / commentator, did not mention that constitutionally, Brexit could not happen if the Leave side won the vote? And even after the vote, months seemed to go by without any mention of this. Cameron made it clear, over and over again, that this was a binding referendum. He even made a big deal out of this point in a speech outside Downing St, the day before the vote.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	Is there an obvious reason why lawyers for the Remain campaign, or any media interviewer / commentator, did not mention that constitutionally, Brexit could not happen if the Leave side won the vote? And even after the vote, months seemed to go by without any mention of this. Cameron made it clear, over and over again, that this was a binding referendum. He even made a big deal out of this point in a speech outside Downing St, the day before the vote.

Because, in his hubris, Cameron never thought it would ever be put to the test? Let's face it, Cameron aside, it's not as if anyone had a plan ready in the event of it being carried.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	It's very common to have 'talks about talks'. The EU has said it won't engage with the UK until A50 is invoked. I say again that informal scoping now would make the whole process more likely to succeed. We can spin it how we want, but it looks as if the EU, especially the several EU leaders who face elections during 2017, have no intention of doing anything to help the process along. I don't especially blame them. They are annoyed and anxious, particularly after the Renzi vote, and the growing popularity of anti-EU / anti-euro parties across the continent.

Exactly.

Keir Starmer has just said in the Commons that what he's hearing from EU colleagues is that they view the UK's current stance as unnecessarily confrontational, and I'm inclined to agree. They were ill prepared and it's really showing now.

I'm not a fan of Keir Starmer. He's a very intelligent guy, but I don't see him as a politician because he doesn't appear able to manage a debate. Perhaps it's something he can grow into, but the essential point is that the longer this charade goes on, the bigger the economy will be impacted by prolonged uncertainty. Also, the impact will be felt across the EU. Somebody needs to grasp the nettle and hit the ground running.

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	This is partly what the so-called "Great Reform Act" is aimed at. Absorbing as much EU legislation into UK law as is reasonable. So these things are obviously already happening. The prime minister and I are wholly in favour of strong cooperation on many things -- environment, security, intelligence sharing, aerospace, and much more. I've no reason to think that we're not 'identifying common ground'. It's just a shame that we're not allowed to be talking about these things with the EU now, so that non-contentious areas can be agreed and off the table, leaving the time available focused on the bigger questions after A50.

I agree with you on the areas of common ground and now is the time when we should be ironing out the minutiae of those areas ready to hit the ground running in April.

Personally, I don't believe we can absorb EU law into UK law with a one sentence 'Great Reform Act' as is being touted. As Lord Pannick (love the name) stated in point 1 of his address to the Supreme Court yesterday, it's a little more complicated than that.

	Quote:
	21My Lords, and my Lady, I say at the outset that the

	Quote:
	22 courts have rightly recognised that the 1972 Act has 23 a constitutional status. It creates a new source of 24 domestic law, and indeed it gives priority to it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/draft-transcript-tuesday-161206.pdf

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	What we don't know is whether the EU is full of bluster about being uncooperative with the UK, or whether they mean it. I guess it will become clear pretty soon after the negotiations start in the spring, following A50. If it's quickly obvious that they will offer no concessions, then it makes sense to politely withdraw and just get on with it.

The main stumbling block will be access to the single market for the simple reason that it comes as a package with 4 indivisible rights/freedoms. That hasn't changed from Day 1 and I don't believe it will change. How can the UK possibly negotiate a selective deal on access when it was denied to Norway and Switzerland? Any compromise on that package would only serve to further undermine the EU with the other member states, and cause holy hell with Norway and Switzerland.

The solutions to this are to completely withdraw from the single market or clearly state that we want to adopt one of the existing models at a price that I believe would be unacceptable to the Leave voters.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	We argued about the pros and cons of EU membership, and options for leaving, all day every day for 3 or 4 months.

The most sage like post on the referendum wasn't in this thread. I've quoted it before, but believe it deserves to be read in full because I wish I'd had a bet on the result based upon this

	Quote:	xynth
	There is more truth to this than what many people realize. The devil is in the fact that the referendum is non-binding! Yes, the UK citizenry will boldly vote and the government is pretty much free to ignore the results if they are inconvenient. There is no timeframe and/or obligation for the government to act upon the results. Of course, one could argue that ignoring the results of a referendum is likely to be political suicide, but the possibility is there. Let's imagine the scenario that the results are very tight. If the results are like 60% leave and 40% remain, it will be exceptionally difficult for the government to weasel their way out of a Brexit. In case it's more like 50.1% leave and 49.9% remain, it's much less clear cut! The Cameron government can fall either way. In case the vote is for a Brexit, Cameron is finished. In case the vote is for Stay, a large Tory contingent will take a very dim view on the fact that Cameron campaigned for the stay.

How low will GBP go?

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	Is there an obvious reason why lawyers for the Remain campaign, or any media interviewer / commentator, did not mention that constitutionally, Brexit could not happen if the Leave side won the vote?

Because it was all smoke and mirrors? Because the law prefer to only deal in facts, not speculation, but the wheels were in motion. The case launched by Gina Miller happened on 18 July, so hardly months, and the outline may well have been prepared before the referendum result along with other scenarios.

	Quote:
	High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit First of three actions around the Article 50 process

https://www.ft.com/content/52e562fe-...2-e39ecd3b86fc

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Exactly. Keir Starmer has just said in the Commons that what he's hearing from EU colleagues is that they view the UK's current stance as unnecessarily confrontational, and I'm inclined to agree. They were ill prepared and it's really showing now.

Forgive me if I don't give too much credence to what a politician says he "is hearing" from unnamed "EU colleagues", especially when we're being accused of being confrontational. There has been a long stream of angry EU politicians telling their own cheering electorates that we can expect no concessions; that there will be no relaxation of the '4 Pillars'; that no form of transitional period will be available; that they will press for some sort of visa-style documentation; that no, they are not prepared to guarantee the residency rights of British people in the EU; and so on.

What sort of confrontational British government statements are they referring to? I thought the accusation was that we weren't revealing our negotiation position at all?

	Quote:	Blueangel
	.....the essential point is that the longer this charade goes on, the bigger the economy will be impacted by prolonged uncertainty. Also, the impact will be felt across the EU.

Not much evidence of that so far. Fastest growing economy in the G7.


"Somebody needs to grasp the nettle and hit the ground running."

I wouldn't have used those words, but I agree with you.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Personally, I don't believe we can absorb EU law into UK law with a one sentence 'Great Reform Act' as is being touted.

My apology, that should have been "Great Repeal Bill".

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The main stumbling block will be access to the single market for the simple reason that it comes as a package with 4 indivisible rights/freedoms. That hasn't changed from Day 1 and I don't believe it will change. How can the UK possibly negotiate a selective deal on access when it was denied to Norway and Switzerland? Any compromise on that package would only serve to further undermine the EU with the other member states, and cause holy hell with Norway and Switzerland. The solutions to this are to completely withdraw from the single market or clearly state that we want to adopt one of the existing models at a price that I believe would be unacceptable to the Leave voters.

Well, I agree that it's hard to see the UK remaining in the single market. The EU have been talking tough on this, so while we have to have a go, I think we'll end up out of it. So be it. We sometimes talk of being in the single market as if it's a basic human right. Nearly every country in the world has no connection with the EU single market. We'll survive.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The solutions to this are to completely withdraw from the single market or clearly state that we want to adopt one of the existing models at a price that I believe would be unacceptable to the Leave voters.

I think the stance of the Brexiteers is increasingly ideological and favouring a clean break for three reasons:

• A belief that the UK can return to a pre-common market set-up where it was happily trading with the Commonwealth, a leg NZ lamb was £1.25 and generally ruling the waves.
• A fear that to get access to the common market, the UK may end up having to accept freedom of movement - or worse still, the Norway model, where the UK would effectively be an EU member where it comes to following the rules, but with no say in setting them.
• A fear that maintaining a close trading relationship with the EU would inevitably result in rejoining the bloc down the line.

We're looking at a political landscape that is decreasingly dominated by Realpolitik and more so by Idealpolitik, I think - so I wouldn't count on reason as the main guiding force for where the UK goes next.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	What sort of confrontational British government statements are they referring to? I thought the accusation was that we weren't revealing our negotiation position at all?

He didn't specify

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	Not much evidence of that so far. Fastest growing economy in the G7.

I take it you've heard the maxim...

"When people get scared, get greedy.
When people get greedy, get scared."

We're currently witnessing the first line of that. As fatmanfilms likes to point out, the FTSE is on the up, but who is making the investment?

The rumblings I'm getting from friends and family, and from people with a highly visible public profile like Martin Lewis, is that consumer confidence and spending is falling since Cyber Monday. The advice is to use savings to reduce debt and mortgages, and replace any household items that are due to be renewed within the next 3yrs. I'm also hearing friends say they're having one last blowout Christmas before battening down the hatches.

Going slightly off point, about 15yrs ago, I had a debate with an American friend who challenged me to list all the products in my home that were manufactured in America. The closest I had was a pirate XP disc. When you view property in Switzerland, many of the kitchens are kitted out with Swiss made appliances. Now....what would a UK home look like with only UK manufactured goods and appliances?

The UK service sector is huge, but it's incredibly vulnerable. Where do we honestly stand when it comes to large scale manufacturing that doesn't serve niche markets?

[marton]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	It's very common to have 'talks about talks'. The EU has said it won't engage with the UK until A50 is invoked. I say again that informal scoping now would make the whole process more likely to succeed. We can spin it how we want, but it looks as if the EU, especially the several EU leaders who face elections during 2017, have no intention of doing anything to help the process along. I don't especially blame them. They are annoyed and anxious, particularly after the Renzi vote, and the growing popularity of anti-EU / anti-euro parties across the continent. This is partly what the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" is aimed at. Absorbing as much EU legislation into UK law as is reasonable. So these things are obviously already happening. The prime minister and I are wholly in favour of strong cooperation on many things -- environment, security, intelligence sharing, aerospace, and much more. I've no reason to think that we're not 'identifying common ground'. It's just a shame that we're not allowed to be talking about these things with the EU now, so that non-contentious areas can be agreed and off the table, leaving the time available focused on the bigger questions after A50. I've not heard that timetable suggested; not sure where it comes from. We have to wind up the EU deal within 18-24 months, or (apparently) we adopt the standard WTO terms. Frankly, I think it might be better to cut to the chase, and go there before the end of the talks if no agreement is looking likely on the substantive issues with the EU. What we don't know is whether the EU is full of bluster about being uncooperative with the UK, or whether they mean it. I guess it will become clear pretty soon after the negotiations start in the spring, following A50. If it's quickly obvious that they will offer no concessions, then it makes sense to politely withdraw and just get on with it.

"We have to wind up the EU deal within 18-24 months, or (apparently) we adopt the standard WTO terms." You are confusing the deal to leave the EU with also negotiating a trade deal.
There are many things that need to be agreed before we leave the EU and before trade talks can start; Deloitte claims that the UK Foreign Office have identified 500 projects that need to be concluded. There is also the need to replace EU agreements with third countries by UK agreements with the third countries; trade is only one topic.

Unpicking 43 years of treaties and agreements covering thousands of different subjects was never going to be a straightforward task e.g. important topics are EU payments and grants, Status of UK and EU expats, Open Skies agreement, EHIC card, European arrest warrant, Interpol, the protection of acquired rights of/against UK individuals and entities, Common rules for managing the return of irregular migrants, EU data protection standards and cooperation agreements with third countries, &&&& .

It is not possible to start discussing a trade deal before we know what Brexit will look like e.g. Single Market, EEA member, customs union or no such links or connection.

[marton]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	We argued about the pros and cons of EU membership, and options for leaving, all day every day for 3 or 4 months. Is there an obvious reason why lawyers for the Remain campaign, or any media interviewer / commentator, did not mention that constitutionally, Brexit could not happen if the Leave side won the vote? And even after the vote, months seemed to go by without any mention of this. "Cameron made it clear, over and over again, that this was a binding referendum. He even made a big deal out of this point in a speech outside Downing St, the day before the vote".

"Cameron made it clear, over and over again, that this was a binding referendum. He even made a big deal out of this point in a speech outside Downing St, the day before the vote"

If he did then he was lying. This Act of Parliament is clear; "advisory".
Anyway he is gone and his promises are gone with him.

Even if the EU people would agree to negotiate now before Art. 50 invocation we have the problem of who will be around in a year to keep their promises.

We saw how quickly Cameron's promises disappeared.
Hollande is unlikely to survive so why talk to him?
Nobody can guarantee Merkel will survive.
Verhofstadt has announced he will step down as Brexit boss if he wins European Parliament presidency

"why lawyers ...... did not mention that constitutionally, Brexit could not happen if the Leave side won the vote?" Because that statement would not be true?
The issue is simply "what is the correct process to follow to make Brexit happen", nothing to do with Brexit not happening.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	It is not possible to start discussing a trade deal before we know what Brexit will look like e.g. Single Market, EEA member, customs union or no such links or connection.

Article 50 is primarily about the exit terms not a trade deal. All it requires is that they consider how the future relationship might be, but that is all. And I think if Boris and friends continue playing silly buggers the consideration will end up being very vague indeed.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	And I think if Boris and friends continue playing silly buggers the consideration will end up being very vague indeed.

And if the Empress mentions Grammar schools again before this is resolved, I'll make her eat those hideous leather trousers and all the cows it took to make them, in one sitting. PM vs Food.

So MPs last night voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art. 50 by the end of March. This leaves a few questions:

• Why are they carrying on with the Supreme Court Case now MPs have voted?
• Why didn't MP's vote how their constituents voted? So much for representational democracy.
• Why did so many Labour MPs abstain? They are beyond spineless.

Oh, and in other news, Tata have guaranteed keeping Port Talbot open for another 5 years.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	And if the Empress mentions Grammar schools again before this is resolved, I'll make her eat those hideous leather trousers and all the cows it took to make them, in one sitting. PM vs Food.

What's your beef with Grammar schools? They work. I went to a Grammar school and it's the reason I am no longer poor. The only reason socialists don't like them is because they know that anyone with an education will never vote Labour.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	What's your beef with Grammar schools? They work. I went to a Grammar school and it's the reason I am no longer poor. The only reason socialists don't like them is because they know that anyone with an education will never vote Labour.

My beef with May raising the grammar school question is that the UK had just made a monumental decision, so I saw it as a distraction from far more serious matters.

I don't vote Labour, so have no idea what the rest of your little rant is about, plus my grandfather was head of a Grammar school maths department and a lifelong, very active, paid up member of the socialist party.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The only reason socialists don't like them is because they know that anyone with an education will never vote Labour.

Ha!
Edit:

	Quote:
	General Election 2015: Stephen Hawking says he will vote Labour

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10206818.html

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	So MPs last night voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art. 50 by the end of March. This leaves a few questions: Why are they carrying on with the Supreme Court Case now MPs have voted? Because the vote was not structured as a Parliamentary bill that needs to go to the House of Lords for completion. Only a Bill has legal status! Why didn't MP's vote how their constituents voted? So much for representational democracy. True, 72 Tory constituencies voted Remain! Why did so many Labour MPs abstain? They are beyond spineless. True Oh, and in other news, Tata have guaranteed keeping Port Talbot open for another 5 years. Excellent

See coloured comments