Discussion > First steps towards a sucessful Brexit
Robert Christopher
Or, as you have chosen, nothing.
Entropic man
Entropic man on Jun 29, 2016 at 11:21 AM
Or, as you have chosen, nothing.
You will have to explain what you are talking about before I can respond.
Robert Christopher
EM, clearly you have nothing to offer the EU on why it annoyed over 50% of the UK population sufficientlty to reject all the benefits of the EU.
Was the EU listening to your advice on Climate Science?
golf charlie
This article starts off in the US, and even mentions Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, but ends up discussing what has happened over the last few weeks in the UK and why there is so much discontent and misunderstand, and mentions Boris. It might not be right, but it is at least a start:
ColdWaterEconomics:
Reflections on the Revolution in Britain
I found it in the comment section of this article:
ConservativeHome:
Why Merkel is shielding Britain from vengeful Brussels bureaucrats
I thought the extract from Jünger's diary, written in 1942 by him, a nationalist with no sympathy for the Nazis, serving with the occupying forces in Paris was too accurate a description of the British to miss.
Robert Christopher
Robert Christopher
I remember all that and more.
What nI don't remember is seeing anything mentioned of what Britain's relationship with EU was going to and what the planned negotiating position once Article 50 is triggered. I won't have any influence on voting for the leader of the Tory Party or the Labour Party should it come to that. Once the negotiations start, without an election, then it will be the political elite who decide what the start and end positions of negotiations will be.
As a lot lot of the campaigning was based on taking back control and renewing democracy what control have the public got how has democracy improved if the political elite decide everything without a mandate on the negotiating position from the electorate? Even if the election was a month ago are you saying that it is democratic to have a group of politicians deciding exactly what the future of the UK is going to be for the next several decades without getting a mandate from the people? I guess you think that it is enough merely to take back control, having done that we should let our politicians make the decision for us because they are our politicians with our best interests at heart?
SandyS
SandyS on Jun 29, 2016 at 1:27 PM
"What I don't remember is seeing anything mentioned of what Britain's relationship with EU was going to and what the planned negotiating position once Article 50 is triggered."
I would have expected the Government to have made an attempt at this before the referendum. It didn't happen, but it does fit in with running a Project Fear agenda - no information generates uncertainty, which was deemed good for the Remainers goal.
And yet again, you are asking me as though I was responsible for the referendum.
Remember who called the referendum, who got it through Parliament with the support of the Tory and Labour Parties, who ran it, who didn't plan for every eventuality, who took advantage of every trick in the book?
It was David Cameron, the man who promised: This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide!
A lot of people put a lot of effort, on both sides, and we all know that, had the vote gone the other way, we would have been heading towards Ever Closer Union, faster than the speed of light.
But it didn't: the vote went the Brexit way, so the next step is to negotiate a new relationship, outside the EU. By definition, we don't know what that new relationship will be because the EU hasn't been helpful in that direction, with preparatory discussion ruled out by the EU.
I won't have any influence on voting for the leader of the Tory Party or the Labour Party either, and neither will many, but we have provided input, in the referendum. We are entering a negotiation for the second time. The first time was before the referendum, after which Cameron brought back nothing of any consequence - which I think is why Brexit won the referendum.
If you read the ColdWaterEconomics article, linked in my earlier post, you will see that we are in a stronger position than we were the first time. Reality is dawning on the other members that we meant business the first time. Everyone is realising that there is a lot to lose. That is good, because it means everyone should take care not to be the one that causes failure.
When the terms are agreed, we will have no idea on exactly what terms would be available to rejoin: they probably do not exist! What we do know is that there have been announcements that the EU is planning to become a SUPERSTATE, defined mainly by France and Germany, where the remaining EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels. This is in addition to anything else that they have been planning.
I therefore cannot understand what a second referendum would be for: more renegotiation?
What would be the choice?
We have already made that choice.
The Government, whom we elected last year, has been given a mandate by the people by last week's result. The negotiating position will be detailed and should be done by people who know what they are doing. I expect the Civil Service will do much of the organising, calling in expertise when needed.
The future of the UK, for the next several decades, will be determined by our regularly elected Government and not by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The newly introduced Fixed Parliaments Act makes it likely that there will not be an early election, but as one of the parties that passed the act was elected in the last general election, it has become more part of normality than it was.
The Stock Exchange indices are recovering, our industry is readjusting, German industry is lobbying its government, so we just need to wait for the negotiators to grind on, and the Tories to elect a new leader.
I knew there would be a catch somewhere!
Robert Christopher
Robert Christopher
You ask me questions and seem to have a wide and in depth knowledge of the subject, so I ask what your thoughts are, doesn't seem unresonable on a discussion forum. I'll desist in future if you'd prefer.
I don't know what the public did decide what they wanted.
Norway model, Switzerland model, Turkey model, Canada model, WTO default, Farage's B******s to the lot of you. I hope Boris Johnson the most likely leader of negotiations has a clearer idea than I do.
SandyS
Somebody is looking to facilitate trade:-
New Zealand offers UK its top trade negotiators for post-Brexit deals
" New Zealand has offered its top trade negotiators to the United Kingdom, relieving the British civil service as it prepares for the strain of seeking new deals with countries across the globe.The Telegraph understands that the Commonwealth country has made an offer to loan staff to the UK in a diplomatic cable sent to the British civil service, which has few trade negotiators of its own.
Wellington’s olive branch came alongside an offer to discuss a trade agreement with the UK, which would help Britain get out of the starting blocks and begin replacing the trade access lost as a result of the Brexit vote........"
Green Sand
British public opposes a second referendum by almost 2 to 1
".........Less than a week after the public narrowly voted to leave the European Union, many remain supporters have called upon the government to hold a second referendum with stricter conditions. The petition calling for this, which is the most popular ever, has been signed by over four million people.The latest research from YouGov/Channel 5 shows, however, that most British people (58%) oppose holding a second referendum. This includes not only 91% of Leave voters, but also 29% of Remain voters. 11% don't know.
Even in an extreme situation, such as the break up of the United Kingdom, most people (51%) still oppose holding a second referendum. In the event of Scottish independence, only 30% of people would support holding a second referendum......... "
More detail in the full poll results - link on same page.
Green Sand
SandyS on Jun 29, 2016 at 6:27 PM
I only know what I glean from a few blogs I frequent but, while I have been technical for most of my working life, I have been surrounded by Business, small and large, so I have seen how the those that can see opportunity (correctly) during a period of danger are worth their weight in gold (if they get it right, of course). Knowing when to speak and when silence is on your side is an art in itself.
I think Green Sand's last post indicates that the silence is doing OK at the moment! :)
I did find out this, from ConservativeHome, by jrii2272:
It was mentioned in the EU Parliament that NF said he would give £350million a week to the NHS that was never on the side of the Grassroots bus what was on the side of the Leave bus was "We send the EU £350million a week" then the line below reads "Lets spend more on the NHS, Vote Leave". It is the remain side that keeps miss-quoting
Well, it is ConHome, and probably written by a UKIP supporter :)
FYI: UKIP ran Leave.EU and then set up Grassroots out, with a bus, along with Tory and Labour people to hopefully become the official Leave organisation, but Vote Leave were chosen, with a different bus, and were set up by the Tory MPs, a few Labour MPs (I think) and with Douglas Carswell(UKIP).
Robert Christopher
And it is always useful to take a disinterested look across the great divide:
MAPPED: How Brexit has FRACTURED EU - countries leading REBELLION against founding nations
And:
EU 'WILDFIRE': Austria warns Europe of impending breakup after 'dramatic' migrant mistakes
Robert Christopher
Good points @RC I think there is a lot of media framing going on.
Did you notice for the Paris agreement it was framed as a happy event with loads of celebration..The fact that it is useless and won't reduce CO2, even tho it costs trilions was not mentioned.
- With the Brexit result no celebration was shown, only doubt was super hyped up.
Compare and contrast.
stewgreen
Housekeeping for previous points
#1 You think Greenpeace get EU money..not directly ..they make a big point of never accepting govt money. The EU does hand money to other big NGOs including FoE Europe
#"2 You think Britons LIVING abroad can use the EHIC
I quote the NHS website "If you are moving abroad on a permanent basis, you will no longer be entitled to medical treatment under normal NHS rules. This is because the NHS is a residence-based healthcare system. You’ll also have to notify your GP so that you and your family can be removed from the NHS register.
Most people will no longer be entitled to use your UK-issued European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) to access healthcare abroad."
AND Another website
"Perhaps British expats need to understand the European Health Insurance Card restrictions more than most, because healthcare in the UK is free – therefore the assumption of some Brits living abroad is that the EHIC gives them long-term free healthcare overseas too. Unfortunately that is not the case…"
- However we super generous UK taxpayers do allow a trick .Foreigners living overseas can claim they are resident in the UK , get some evidence, get a UK based EHIC card..get treated abroad and the NHS will pick up the bill.
EHIC loophole
stewgreen
@RC That Express tone , is quite different from the BBC Narrative which tells me that it's Cameron vs the collective mass of the 27 countries.
The same BBC that told me only Farage and his dog were voting for Brexit.
stewgreen
Got about a bit, did that dog! Woof!
Green Sand
Only a few days after our vote: EU opens new phase in Turkey membership bid talks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36672242
Steve Richards
Stewgreen, Greensand. If all British dogs had been given a vote, and not just Nigel's, the Leave vote would have been overwhelming. No dog likes to Remain at home if offered 'walkies' and can be trained to 'Leave' if offered bribes.
Alan kendall
Alan
Our late hound, a fully trained collie, had her own strong views on remain and leave. Really dropped me in it one night when I parked her in a corner of the pub, with the instruction 'stay'. When I got home she that must be obeyed asked the whereabouts of the dog. Trudge back to the pub, dog still in the corner, sharing a bag of chessy quavers with the landlord, 'forgotten something lad'?
Family and 'friends' down the pub take a certain pleasure relating this story.
The dog was a very good friend and family member, had some working collie traits, preferring to sleep on quarry tiles and others where she would prefer to remain. Many's the morn 5:30ish we would go for a run, whilst I was doing a mile, she would do about 10. But if there was rain about, she would stick her nose out of the door, sniff, twitch the whiskers and if one rain drop landed on that nose she would cross her legs (I don't need a pee) and head back to the quarry tiles. No amount of bribery, threats or predictions of impending doom would change that dogs mind.
Green Sand
Green sand.
My fully untrained Scotty hates rain as well, but is eternally optimistic - if, when it's time for a walk it's raining at the back of the house, she thinks it's probably sunny at the front. Another dog we had, a Labrador, would throw himself in the river with all his might, yet would resist going for a walk in the rain. He must have believed in good water and bad water.
I am a 100% agnostic, but if there is anything that makes me wonder about intelligent design (and thus a supreme being) it is a dog. If you wanted to create an animal to be a friend and helpmate for humans it would be a dog. Every time my dogs have cheered me up, ripped around the house as if on speed, or I watch a TV programme about training a help dog, I renew this slight doubt about my agnosticism.
The fact that Nigel has a dog, shows he can't be all bad. Perhaps he should spend more time with it. I don't think we need someone on the negotiating team who positively delights in insulting his opponents. There, almost back on track moderator.
Alan kendall
Some say that the UK will have to pay a sizable contribution to the EU for access to the 'single market'.
I say that the contribution member states give to the EU is to pay for the EU costs - predominately for the movement towards a single super state.
As we do not agree with the creation of a super-state of which we were part of, we should not pay.
The alternative - tariffs. Tariffs are usually invoked to protect local industry and trade.
However, the industry or trade to be protected here is Germanies.
They have specifically stated 'no protection please were German.
So it would seem rational to me that we should get full market access just be asking for it (from national leaders, not the EU bureaucrats.)
I am sure vested interests will try and derail any deal but commonsense and profit should win through.
Steve Richards
Here is another unintended consequence.
Already British scientists are being excluded from potential European collaborations.The problems are uncertainty regarding funding and uncertainty regarding free movement.
Entropic man
EM is in his element - he has found another thing to have nightmares about.
Martin A
MartinA. Sorry to disagree, but this sounds potentially serious and possibly a harbinger of more to come. It is being argued that already joint collaborations are being being broken and new ones being killed off before inception because EU researchers cannot afford to have projects fail because British collaborators will not be eligible. The granting process is so long winded that many proposals now being submitted will be affected even if it takes two years for Brexit to occur. If I were a researcher in, say, Italy wanting to collaborate with someone in Britain or Germany, I know who I would approach.
The same problem could already be affecting potential cultural exchanges involving EU funds.
Alan kendall
AlanK: Do you think that we should be constrained by EU research funding?
"Two year work programmes announce the specific areas that will be funded by Horizon 2020."
Why not let UK academics propose their own research topic, select their own choice of partner if a partner is required?
The EU, through its awarding process, forces European research cooperation. No bad thing you may say.
But if you were the UK expert and you wanted to collaborate with the USA expert on a topic then tough, the EU will only fund you if you chose to tie up with, perhaps, a second rate researcher at a second rate university.
Why limit people in this way?
If EU funding (from the UK of course) were the only funding in town then you may be able to have a sensible discussion about funding.
However, if all EU funding were replaced by solely UK funding then that has to be better for the UK and its researchers.
Steve Richards
Entropic man on Jun 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM
Apparently the EU aren't that keen at all on Scotland returning to the fold and the MEMBERS of the SNP are vehemently anti-EU. And that is before the announcement of the Juncker Plan. It is for every province, sorry, EU member state, to use the Euro, to hand over all taxation, its military, in fact everything to Brussels.
It's called Euro-Independence - cherry picking not allowed, we just take everything!