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

[baboon]

	Quote:	Sandgrounder
	Are you actually reading the posts or do you just have a "Spin-the-wheel of Brexit-thread responses" on your desk, and hope for the best? Dying of starvation? What are you on about?

Silly question.

He throws a dart.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Chuff
	In contrast, the UK voted to join the EU as a fully-fledged member and then voted to leave.

Thats incorrect, there was never a referendum before the joining the COMMON MARKET in 1973. There has never been a referendum to Join the EU which did not exist in 1973.

[Ouchboy]

	Quote:	baboon
	Silly question. He throws a dart.

it's all on apps these days

[lewton]

	Quote:	baboon
	Switzerland is however not in customs union with the EU. A different matter.

Ah yes, another huge mystery, at least to me.
I hear from various sides in Britain that they want only a customs union for goods.
Why would the UK want to maintain a customs union for goods (where it runs a huge deficit with the EU) without including services (where it runs a surplus)?
For me this is great, but I don't have the UK's best interests in my mind.

[Chuff]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Thats incorrect, there was never a referendum before the joining the COMMON MARKET in 1973. There has never been a referendum to Join the EU which did not exist in 1973.

I wrote "voted to join the EU" without thinking, I just meant we committed to be in it. However, the principle on why it's not the same as CH is the same.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Chuff
	I wrote "voted to join the EU" without thinking, I just meant we committed to be in it. However, the principle on why it's not the same as CH is the same.

The Government rather than the people, committed to it, when the people were asked that said No thanks. Switzerland as said No thanks a couple of times.

[baboon]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	The Government rather than the people, committed to it, when the people were asked that said No thanks. Switzerland as said No thanks a couple of times.

When the people were first asked they said yes by 67%.

[Chuff]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	The Government rather than the people, committed to it, when the people were asked that said No thanks. Switzerland as said No thanks a couple of times.

So what does that actually change with regards to the current situation between CH and the UK? You are focusing on a very small part of my post that in the end makes little difference vs the rest of it.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	baboon
	When the people were first asked they said yes by 67%.

You're talking about the Common Market, based on the Treaty of Rome. The Maastricht treaty signed 19 years after Britain joined is something very different & clearly less acceptable to the man in the street..

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	lewton
	Why would the UK want to maintain a customs union for goods (where it runs a huge deficit with the EU) without including services (where it runs a surplus)?

Because 45% - 48% of their exports go to the EU, would be a starting point.

There is no chance that anyone is going to agree to a trade deal in financial services. You can not have a situation where entities outside the jurisdiction would be in a position to rake havoc with the market.

[John William]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	You're talking about the Common Market, based on the Treaty of Rome. The Maastricht treaty signed 19 years after Britain joined is something very different & clearly less acceptable to the man in the street..

That man being Nigel Farage and his cohorts, plus all those over 50's Brexit's wanting to turn the clock
back 45 years to The Good Old Days !!

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Thats incorrect, there was never a referendum before the joining the COMMON MARKET in 1973. There has never been a referendum to Join the EU which did not exist in 1973.

There is no need to hold a referendum, you have a sovereign parliament that you elect to make those decisions for you. If you failed to hold them to account that is your problem. But this popular idea that the UK found itself in the EU by magic is BS.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	John William
	...plus all those over 50's Brexit's wanting to turn the clock back 45 years to The Good Old Days !!

I wish everyone would eff off with that assumption. there's absolutely no way or proving that to be the case.

Personally, I don't know a single person over 50 who voted leave. No one! And I know how much we resent the implication that was thrown up by the stats. All the ones I know are 28-33 and one random 44yr old.

I'm 53, and whilst I don't remember too much about life before the Common Market, I do remember how excited my parents were by the prospect, and how my dad embraced making new business contacts in Belgium.

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I wish everyone would eff off with that assumption. there's absolutely no way or proving that to be the case. Personally, I don't know a single person over 50 who voted leave. No one! And I know how much we resent the implication that was thrown up by the stats. All the ones I know are 28-33 and one random 44yr old. I'm 53, and whilst I don't remember too much about life before the Common Market, I do remember how excited my parents were by the prospect, and how my dad embraced making new business contacts in Belgium.

We can be united on something, at least. I voted Leave, and I know a few people over 50 who voted Leave but none of us have any desire to turn the clock back 45 years. The music was pretty good in 1973 but apart from that, I don't think of the 70s in general as a very happy time and I would hate to be back in those times. In fact I've not heard any Leavers talk about 'the good old days', whatever that might mean. It's federalism that most Leavers I know are not keen on. We've ceded too much sovereignty, and to use that much derided phrase, want more control -- even if it's at the expense of some benefits currently enjoyed. Nothing about nostalgia for some terrible decade in the past.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	We've ceded too much sovereignty, and to use that much derided phrase, want more control -- even if it's at the expense of some benefits currently enjoyed.

I find it very hard to take this kind of statement for anything other than brain washing. The UK has no written constitution, no constitutional court function, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper house and a PM that uses the Queen’s prerogative to subvert the so called sovereign parliament even in the case of invoking A50 and possibly on the final deal. And as we have found out through disclosures under the FOI, the unelected head of state is most definitely not a figurehead, both the Queen and Prince Charles have interfered with the operation of parliament in the past! And you think exiting the EU gives you back control? Sorry but it is hard not to laugh.

Leaving the EU removes the last few brakes on the UK concluding a trade deal with the US and I fully expect that in time we will find that Liam Fox and his friends have been well paid for their services! If those BREXIT leaders were serious about the interests of their country, then why are they not going all out to get a deal on services, after all trade only represents about 16% of GDP?

[StirB]

"Sovreignty" is a bit of an ethereal concept as far as I can see. Not saying this applies to you Pachyderm or Dougal, but the when you ask the average Leave voter (who gives sovereignty as a reason) to name one practical example of what they'll now be able to do with this new found sovereignty, they cannot come up with one, or say "I won't have to use recycle bins any more". Listening to James O'Brien's phone-ins is quite instructive in this regard.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	We can be united on something, at least. I voted Leave, and I know a few people over 50 who voted Leave but none of us have any desire to turn the clock back 45 years. The music was pretty good in 1973 but apart from that, I don't think of the 70s in general as a very happy time and I would hate to be back in those times. In fact I've not heard any Leavers talk about 'the good old days', whatever that might mean. It's federalism that most Leavers I know are not keen on. We've ceded too much sovereignty, and to use that much derided phrase, want more control -- even if it's at the expense of some benefits currently enjoyed. Nothing about nostalgia for some terrible decade in the past.

The early 80's was a fabulous time for young people, at 21 I was earning twice as much as my father, I bought a flat which today is worth £985,000 according to mouseprice. How many 21 year old first time buyers can spend a million on a home today without any help from their parents? I also bought my first Porsche 911. My friends at University got free education.

How exactly are todays kids in a better position than 35 years ago, answers on a post card

	Quote:	StirB
	"Sovreignty" is a bit of an ethereal concept as far as I can see. Not saying this applies to you Pachyderm or Dougal, but the when you ask the average Leave voter (who gives sovereignty as a reason) to name one practical example of what they'll now be able to do with this new found sovereignty, they cannot come up with one, or say "I won't have to use recycle bins any more". Listening to James O'Brien's phone-ins is quite instructive in this regard.

Is it such a hard concept to grasp that a country acting in its own interests, rather than with the interests of Malta, Latvia or the Walloons in mind, offers more sovereignty to its people?

[Sandgrounder]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Is it such a hard concept to grasp that a country acting in its own interests, rather than with the interests of Malta, Latvia or the Walloons in mind, offers more sovereignty to its people?

How can you "offer more sovereignty"?

I think it's true that the definition has been misused and manipulated, and therefore the meaning lost for the moment.

People will realise too late that the brand of "sovereignty" they've been sold isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[StirB]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Is it such a hard concept to grasp that a country acting in its own interests, rather than with the interests of Malta, Latvia or the Walloons in mind, offers more sovereignty to its people?

Again, this is disconcertingly vague. We are already able to act in favor of our own interests, but on many issues (e.g. immigration, benefits) we chose not to.