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

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Sure thats normal business, survival of the fittest.

Which brings you right back to your starting point that supplier will continue to supply goods to the UK marked under cost in the long term. Enough!

	Quote:	marton
	Unelected? so what! The people who voted in the referendum were also unelected? Nothing new here!

You don't quite get this democracy thing, do you?

[lewton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Unelected Lords ruling over elected government to protect unelected EU.

It's funny how British supremacists suddenly realized that unelected Lords is not a democratic institution.
Whenever I pointed that out in the past (along with the weird electoral law and the lack of a standardized written constitution), I got the answer that your democracy has functioned well for much longer that any other country's so I shouldn't criticize it.

[Sbrinz]

Lord Jean-Claude has published his five ideas for a future in Europe,

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39132141

better late than never I suppose...

[Sbrinz]

	Quote:	lewton
	It's funny how British supremacists suddenly realized that unelected Lords is not a democratic institution. Whenever I pointed that out in the past (along with the weird electoral law and the lack of a standardized written constitution), I got the answer that your democracy has functioned well for much longer that any other country's so I shouldn't criticize it.

It works, doesn't it?

Maybe a few of you think it is preposterous that lots of old farts can overturn a legal proposal. But let's consider why the bill was sent back to the lower chamber for reconsideration.

The proposed Brexit laws provided no protection for EU workers already living in Britain. The Lords considered the Prime Minister's idea that this would be negotiated with the EU at some future point, to be weak and not suitable. The Lords want something written down, in black & white, that the future of thousands of personal lives of EU people will not be thrown onto the negotiating heap. (Remember the disaster when Britain separated Pakistan and India? Was it 1947? - Millions were killed! )

Maybe they don't want the EU to act badly towards British ex-pats in Europe. Is there anything wrong with the idea of getting a better piece of UK legislation in place before negotiations begin?

Be prepared to see the House of Lords paying their way over the next few years: there is an awful lot of law that needs to be changed, and this is the first tranche of many disputes.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

What proposed Brexit laws? The only thing this bill deals with is allowing the government to trigger Article 50.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Lords do play a vital role in the UK political system, but trying to tag this on to a simple triggering mechanism is stupid. The rights (or not) of EU nationals already living in the UK is something that will come under the negotiations with the EU after Article 50 is triggered.

If they want to play that game then they should also have insisted that the rights of UK citizens to live and work in EU countries be enshrined in the bill too. Oh sorry, that wouldn't work would it? Because they can't force the EU to do so. If this gets forced through then we could end up in the silly situation whereby EU nationals have the right to live in the UK, but the same is not done for UK nationals living in the EU. Now wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish?

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	In the case of the airlines, the price drop is not purely due to greedy shareholders backing down and wanting less profit. That may have happened, but by far the bigger part of the savings is due to efficiency. Compare for example today's online booking systems to the 1960s when you went to a travel agent and the travel agent phoned a broker and things got written down in ledgers. Or compare how much more efficient turnaround times have become. Virtually all branches of the economy have to some degree seen rationalization and become more efficient. This is why we have more money to spend on cr#p than our parents did.

Not only that but for airlines there is increasing economy of size as airliners get ever bigger; a 747 typically carries two to four times as many passengers as a 707.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	You don't quite get this democracy thing, do you?

Like you

Quoting that old false chestnut "unelected EU" again

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Don't get me wrong, I think the Lords do play a vital role in the UK political system, but trying to tag this on to a simple triggering mechanism is stupid. The rights (or not) of EU nationals already living in the UK is something that will come under the negotiations with the EU after Article 50 is triggered.

Only so far as it relates to UK citizens who have not been granted permanent residence. It is not within the competence of the EU to negotiate beyond that because it is a matter for the individual states.

[Sbrinz]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	What proposed Brexit laws? The only thing this bill deals with is allowing the government to trigger Article 50.

I refer to the laws covering Brexit.... https://brexit.law/

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Which brings you right back to your starting point that supplier will continue to supply goods to the UK marked under cost in the long term. Enough!

Your assuming that the £ will never recover, this is naive at best. Once the Irish loose market share they will likely go bust in any case.
UK prices are not rising and they did not fall over the previous 3 years, as the £ strengthened from current levels. They were lower before that.........

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Your assuming that the £ will never recover, this is naive at best. Once the Irish loose market share they will likely go bust in any case. UK prices are not rising and they did not fall over the previous 3 years, as the £ strengthened from current levels. They were lower before that.........

Irish exports to GB and N. Ireland are around 14% of their total exports. A big hole but not enough to make them go bust.
Biggest problem for them will be shipping to the EU via Northern Ireand and UK will likely cost more due to tariffs!

[amogles]

	Quote:	Sbrinz
	Lord Jean-Claude has published his five ideas for a future in Europe, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39132141 better late than never I suppose...

The man has a talent for stating the obvious.

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	Biggest problem for them will be shipping to the EU via Northern Ireand and UK will likely cost more due to tariffs!

Why?

Tariffs only apply to stuff that is sold or consumed within a country.

Transit countries don't generally impose tariffs. Trucks in transit are sealed and have TIR papers. It was done that way for decades before tarriffs within the EU were abolished.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	You don't quite get this democracy thing, do you?

What you actually are referring to is your version of democracy rather than the one the people agreed to. But carry on, don't let the facts interfere with your opinion...

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Your assuming that the £ will never recover, this is naive at best. Once the Irish loose market share they will likely go bust in any case.

As opposed to you assuming that it will.... In any case the Irish are assuming they will lose market share in the UK and are planning according by seeking new markets (56 new market delegations this month alone).

And of course at this point in time the UK market, while large at about 14% is no longer the dominant export market, nor is agricultural produce a significant export.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	Still doesn't affect the underlying price, though. If you have a barrel of oil, you're going to sell that for its market value of ~$55 regardless. Buying in GB£, that $55 has jumped from £40 to £46. Roughly.

International price doesn't matter (directly) if you sell locally into a market that is protected by tarriffs and other means, which is much more often the case than not. Oil is an exception in Europe as in most countries there are no local interests to protect.

Cow milk sells retail in the EU for roughly the same price local farmers get when they sell in bulk. In order to be exportable it has to be subsidised yet that doesn't affect the local price. Retail price for cow milk in Germany currently is only 25-30% of what it sells for here.

Once you have local Producers, politics has local interests to protect so barriers will be erected. Those barriers will only fall if other, at least as profitable, advantages can be gained; sometimes even then bypaths are developed as evidenced by the Swiss direct payments to farmers that are accepted by WTO.

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	Sbrinz
	It works, doesn't it? Maybe a few of you think it is preposterous that lots of old farts can overturn a legal proposal. But let's consider why the bill was sent back to the lower chamber for reconsideration.

Sorry, but this "let's consider" thing won't wash. All you're doing is retro-fitting your own views onto their vote. You are not their spokesperson. Just like Brexiteers, and Remain voters, people vote for many different reasons -- and the Lords did so too. Much of the impetus for the anti-bill vote was simple pique at the suggestion that they "wouldn't dare" to vote for the amendment.

	Quote:	Sbrinz
	The proposed Brexit laws provided no protection for EU workers already living in Britain

What "proposed Brexit laws"? There are no proposed Brexit laws -- just impending negotiations. May has made it clear that she is keen to protect the status of EU workers in the UK, and wants this to be agreed pre-negotiations, along with the rights of Brits in the EU. Merkel & Co have said no, that it must take its place after A50 has been triggered.

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	Sbrinz
	I refer to the laws covering Brexit.... https://brexit.law/

That's just some bloke's blog. There is no Brexit law, and there will not be for quite a while to come.

As we approach the triggering of Article 50, the language coming from the EU is that the UK must pay a big bill to leave. This has been echoed by many EU politicians. I think it's finally dawning on them the sheer cost of losing the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget.

The best bit is, the UK has figured out that there's no legal obligation to pay a penny if no deal is reached. Which makes sense, why should you pay for something which you won't benefit from? This will be a high stakes game once negotiations start.