Reply to: Brexit - The Vision

[Bean]

I understand the OP, it just sounded like your vision for the future was the same as one we could have outside Brexit, except less trade.

I'm sure you already know, but no national court or law has 100% supremacy. Except perhaps North Korea, where they give two fingers to any other international courts. So I guess the real question is where you're prepared to draw the line, and that's okay; I think it's clear that the line is "outside the EU, but will accept all other normal international obligations".

Both Brexit responses have missed your vision on trade, though. Do you have a vision on where you would see the future with the EU, and how much (if any) you're prepared for the country to pay for it?

Oh, and Northern Ireland.

It's probably the easiest way to describe the following, in a concise manner;
"When making decisions, the UKSC must give effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The UKSC must also give effect to directly applicable European Union law, and interpret domestic law consistently with European Union law, so far as is possible."

Accept your point regarding International courts, such as the ICC - however, it's more aimed at domestic law interpretations, as above.



•Trade deals with BRIC, commonwealth countries & Africa - are what I'd hope we'd be seeking out, if we are unable to reach a deal with the EU.

I'm not prepared to pay just to have the ability to trade. Would you pay just to enter a supermarket? Will Canada be paying anything for CETA? Would the USA if TTIP had gone through?
Set commons standards we have to meet, to sell in your market? Fine, but it seems strange that there is a fee, to trade, for the UK only it seems.



NI and the CTA pre-dates the EU. The GFA is clear and should be respected, by both the UK and the EU.
The UK gov, NI & Eire have all said publicly they want that.
CTA notwithstanding, it is possible to 'control' immigration, as it is an island.
Nobody wants a border, so this should be a moot point right?


Customs border is trickier and this is why there are negotiations taking place, otherwise it would have just been handshakes all round after handing in Art.50.
Something needs to give, but who and what are the questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to.


I see your point, but inside the CU - that's not 'leaving', so shouldn't happen.


Anyway, as I've said before, whatever 'vision' we voters may have had (individually or collectively) is all moot, as we are not in any meaningful position to demand or enforce the ideas through - so we all get to wait and see.

[BrilloPad]

Owlhoot, Bean, Original PM

Don't I get a say?

[SueEllen]

The Council and the Parliament provides the leadership. The Commission is more akin to Whitehall - the civil service. We don't elect the civil service in the UK. We didn't get to vote for Sir John Heywood (the head of the civil service) either.

This point about how the EU works was explained multiple times before the vote but a few Brexit voters on here absolutely refused to understand the political system the EU uses doesn't mirror that of the UK.

They just think president and presume wrongly that person makes all the decisions. For example the Presidents of France and Eire are elected heads of state. However the president of France has only two main things to look after - foreign policy and defence - while the president of Eire's role is more like our Queen's. The people who do all the work are the elected PMs.

[m0n1k3r]

I voted "leave" because I thought that the EU leadership (ie. the comission and president) should be elected directly by the people. Every other state in the free world elects its leaders in this way, and the EU, a putative state, should do the same. In essence, the led must always be able to dismiss their leaders.

The Council and the Parliament provides the leadership. The Commission is more akin to Whitehall - the civil service. We don't elect the civil service in the UK. We didn't get to vote for Sir John Heywood (the head of the civil service) either.

[m0n1k3r]

• Trade deals with BRIC, commonwealth countries & Africa - are what I'd hope we'd be seeking out, if we are unable to reach a deal with the EU.

In most cases these countries are already part of a bloc, and mainly interested in striking trade deals with other blocs. ECOWAS (the West African Union) include many of the African countries we are interested in, including Nigeria. It is modelled after the EU and has two common currencies, both pegged to the euro (will be replaced by a single common currency later, the ECO). They are currently negotiating a quite comprehensive trade deal with the EU that we will be left out of.

[Paddy]

contractorinatractor was originally asking about a vision for the future, which is not necessarily the same as the reasons to vote to leave.

Many people wanted out for relatively non-tangible reasons (which have traditionally been dismissed as unimportant by remainers with a sole focus on money), such as;

Supremacy of UK courts,
Supremacy of UK law, (whilst still being in a common market, not a supra-national political union),
100% control (not reduction or stopping) of all immigration,
etc.

You've seen lists of things from others in the past I'm sure - but the 3 examples above cannot be done inside the EU, as it currently stands.

The UK Courts already have supremacy.

I think you are referring to some EU directives about trade.

The UK already has full control on immigration but has chosen not to enforce it.

[m0n1k3r]

We just do not need or want their politicians - if we could go back to the 'common market' then no one would have wanted to leave the EU - but it has become more than it ever was supposed to be.

I understand how people say 'it is better to stay in because you can get stuff cheaper' but how much can you be bought for?

Will you keep turning a blind eye to immigrants living in squalid conditions so you can get your latte 30 p cheaper?

Where does it end?

Also remember
1) Europeans can still move to the Uk and work here - just not in an unfettered manner.
2) We do consider ourselves to be European
3) We do not dislike European people and we will continue to go there.


So when you break it down it is really just the parliament bit of the EU we wanted rid of.....

Who is this "we" you write so fondly of?

[sirja]

There is no single vision of what Brexit UK will really look like because none was really offered. It was all slogans and soundbites.

Right now the most important question the govt needs to answer is 'Europe or World?' Does the UK stay within the EU regulatory regime and thus maintain a high degree of 'frictionless' trade with the EU (and solve the Irish issue), but be restricted on trade deals with the rest of the world, or does it move away from the European regulatory regime in order to strike deals with other countries, but take a hit on it's European trade (and a hard border with Ireland). This is the critical question that will shape both the future of Brexit Britain. What should be clear to everyone by now, is that we can't have both frictionless trade with the EU and the freedom to strike deals with the rest of the world.

[WTFH]

There is no vision. There's a few slogans that fit nicely on the side of a bus.

Take one: "Supremacy of our courts"

What does that mean? Is it just the "Brexit is Brexit" definition again? "Supremecy of our courts mean our courts are supreme".

What will have changed in the UK once our courts are supreme? Will it be better for the common folk, or worse? Will it mean better, more just rulings on the laws the government comes up with? Will it be a strong guarantee that the courts won't ever become a tool of the government?

It seems to me that the UK is still where it was a year ago. No-one has a clue how this will pan out. There's no vision. The government has no vision - it's just trying to survive.

Without a vision, the people perish.

Well, they used to say “Sovereignty of our courts” and “Sovereignty of our parliament” but “Supremacy” sounds more like Emperor Ming in Flash Gordon

[NotAllThere]

There is no vision. There's a few slogans that fit nicely on the side of a bus.

Take one: "Supremacy of our courts"

What does that mean? Is it just the "Brexit is Brexit" definition again? "Supremecy of our courts mean our courts are supreme".

What will have changed in the UK once our courts are supreme? Will it be better for the common folk, or worse? Will it mean better, more just rulings on the laws the government comes up with? Will it be a strong guarantee that the courts won't ever become a tool of the government?

It seems to me that the UK is still where it was a year ago. No-one has a clue how this will pan out. There's no vision. The government has no vision - it's just trying to survive.

Without a vision, the people perish.

[motoukenin]

Most people I work with openly talk about BREXIT. It seems 99% of them didn't vote for it. This is a major investment bank with, assuming meritocracy is operating as expected, very high earners and a multitude of intelligent individuals.

But: individuals sheltered from the true reasons for brexit. It seems the people who voted remain seem to agree many areas of the UK, in each country, were disadvantaged and left behind somewhat by globalisation. They still have smartphones, new job opportunities and styles of working - so they were not quite as left behind as is made out. If I go and live in rural Scotland, it's a lifestyle choice. For someone growing up in Fort William, they can't truly expect all the social and job opportunities available in cities to head towards them.

Any lack of investment in a village or town that seems blamed on the EU is, in actuality, the fault of our own UK government policy over the decades. This is exactly the part I do not understand the rationale for. It is assumed immigration is seen as an issue, it is assumed people wanted to (quote) "give the establishment a kicking". An advisory referendum results in THIS?

What is the vision that the leavers see? We don't need another leaver-bashing thread. I want to help myself and other remainers understand what the 2025 vision is. I am no EU-phile, but the easy access to trade deals that have improved living standards for 99% of the UK over the past 20, 30, 40 years is obvious to see the benefit of. I pay a high membership fee to my squash club, precisely because the benefits I get I deem worth more than the fee.

The only groups I can see benefiting from the Leave EU mantra are corporations and large conglomerates, who will have an easier time dictating policy and expanding any monopoly they are edging towards. Having spoken to James Dyson not so long ago, I can see exactly what his gameplan is. It isn't to benefit the poor of the UK, that's for sure. "Business is business."

Owlhoot, Bean, Original PM, et al; can you provide some bulletpoints of what is the vision? Specifics. Trade deals with which specific countries, for example. If you are pro-corporation and wish them to guide policy it is absolutely ok to be specify that as an aim. I've worked in many countries and certainly see a more content nation that does not embrace that ethos, but each to their own opinion. The main criticism of the leavers is a lack of cohesive vision and cohesive plan. Remain was, by definition, pushing for gradual influence and change using the soft touch strategy; so it's safe to say most Remainers understood what vision they were pursuing.

I've mentioned before that most medium size business owners I know are wondering how to serve the UK market but move their core HQ to other EU countries. Business is business. Many families are worried about stagnation, their children losing out on the career ladder and job opportunities of the future based elsewhere. I do not believe there is such a gulf that leavers possess some magic superpower that has this concrete plan that the remainers simply cannot see.

When 99.9% of researchers, scientists and intelligent individuals say climate change exists, I see that for what it is: the fact, until volume of evidence shows otherwise. There are so many of these neutral individuals against leaving the EU, from economists to businesses to university professors, it does make one question the validity of the exercise.

Thanks for any input.

For me, the main issues that I cannot see a resolution to, without accepting negative growth (contraction) and long term recession and simple acceptance of a less developed progression in society are:

• No decent trade deals with non-EU countries; they are unlikely to be prioritised by those countries
• Non-EU immigration will increase, as these are always negotiated upwards in trade deals - we need them more than they need us for the foreseeable
• Universities are finding competition conditions internationally very difficult right now. Lesser growth is likely to lead to mediocrity within our infamous universities
• Leave = far right growing due to resentment from, for example, the young voters who - sizeable majority - voted to remain; but resentment may be fed by a populist candidate (again)
• 'Hard BREXIT' seeming likely, almost purposefully it seems, meaning a soured relationship with our geographically best trading partner
• Stagnation in almost all business sectors, due to impact of devalued currency long-term, high personal debt ratio, extended P/E ratio of UK companies, etc
• Sour grapes from many highly skilled professionals who are able to be mobile and head abroad (perhaps temporarily) until the landscape is clearer 5/10 years down the line

I have been trying to understand the rationale too and this is the conclusion I have come to.

1) The UK has never been happy with being a political part of the EU, they fear the lack of control and decision making that independence brings and when the decision to leave or remain came many voted just on this one fact alone, they were not given any other facts other than from bleating politicians from both sides which most of this group don't trust anyway and were largely ignored.

2) Some voted purely because they wanted to give David Cameron a bashing, just like May got a bashing in the election , the point is trust of politicians is at an all time low and as soon as they get on TV and start giving their bleeding heart sermons people switch off , most people know how bad it is they don't want platitudes they want action, David Cameron saw himself as the voice or reason , large parts of the population saw him as the problem.

3) Some, a fairly small minority, voted because even if it turned out bad they could not care less, Bankers and Finance companies were pretty vocal about the damage that would be done and for some people that was enough to vote leave.

4) Some voted on the fact that the NHS would be given more money , again a small number but it all adds up.

If you look at You Gov polls you will see that people on the whole have not changed their mind and now just want the whole thing done and dusted so the UK can move on, little point in speculating on what the outcome is but like you I also see that the UK will suffer a drop in GDP , tax revenue and at a time when they are heavily in debt and struggling a pretty bleak future, and not just for the short term, there is no evidence what so ever that it will be bad just to start with, this is a long term self inflicted wound.

[meridian]

And to add a couple more complications into the mix:

Gibraltar (obviously).
RAF Akrotiri and Dhekelia, British Overseas Territories on Cyprus that, under agreement with the island of Cyprus, need to remain within the CU.

[meridian]

Brexit - The Vision

DUP is against it.

Yep. It's a practical solution only to the English, in Norn Iron it is seen as breaking the GFA - the DUP want no barriers, even invisible, between NI and "the mainland"

[AtW]

Alternatively, NI could join the Customs Union and the customs border could be shifted to the Irish Sea.

DUP is against it.

[meridian]

contractorinatractor was originally asking about a vision for the future, which is not necessarily the same as the reasons to vote to leave.

Many people wanted out for relatively non-tangible reasons (which have traditionally been dismissed as unimportant by remainers with a sole focus on money), such as;

Supremacy of UK courts,
Supremacy of UK law, (whilst still being in a common market, not a supra-national political union),
100% control (not reduction or stopping) of all immigration,
etc.

You've seen lists of things from others in the past I'm sure - but the 3 examples above cannot be done inside the EU, as it currently stands.

I understand the OP, it just sounded like your vision for the future was the same as one we could have outside Brexit, except less trade.

I'm sure you already know, but no national court or law has 100% supremacy. Except perhaps North Korea, where they give two fingers to any other international courts. So I guess the real question is where you're prepared to draw the line, and that's okay; I think it's clear that the line is "outside the EU, but will accept all other normal international obligations".

Both Brexit responses have missed your vision on trade, though. Do you have a vision on where you would see the future with the EU, and how much (if any) you're prepared for the country to pay for it?

Oh, and Northern Ireland.

I'll carry this on, because I happen to think that the three things you're after are incompatible for all practical purposes.

To take my reply in reverse order:

You can't get 100% control of immigration without some sort of border between RoI and NI to check passports. It's doubtful whether any form of border, no matter how soft, will be accepted by the NI assembly. It's impossible to effectively police the NI border crossing points due to the sheer volume of them, without creating a harder border. Any form of harder border that includes a checkpoint will be bombed regularly even if just for the lolz, which will likely lead to either border removal (not 100% control) or a return to the British Army being stationed (breaking the Good Friday Agreement).

For trade, the UK won't be able to join the Customs Union in your vision - otherwise, the UK would be subject to regulations from the EU and subject to ECJ rulings on trade disputes. Therefore, being outside the Customs Union, the UK would be required to include customs borders between RoI and NI. See above. Alternatively, NI could join the Customs Union and the customs border could be shifted to the Irish Sea. Again, breaking the Good Friday Agreement as this would be seen as putting a(n invisible) barrier between NI and rUK.