BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Delaying makes sense as we have to unravel 43 years of integration in two years.

And this is why we won't succeed in negotiating after A50. I work in the public sector. It takes two years just to get a £50k project off the ground let alone actually do anything. We just won't be able to achieve any agreement in only two years - it would need more like 5 to 10 years to get anything that the Brexit crowd would actually want.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

not too mention May suggesting EU nationals could be deported.

It would be ridiculous to make a cast iron guarantee without getting a reciprocal guarantee about UK nationals in other EU countries. Wouldn't it?

So basically in a war against ISIS you would decapitate prisoners because the enemy does so with your soldiers...
eye for eye, That's encouraging for the future of this nation... I think you should be better than that

If you were Corbyn that would be reported as comparing EU residents to ISIS.

You do have to worry where his thinking is if he is going to bring ISIS into this.

Why haven't the EU not confirmed their policy on UK nationals in the EU?

How can the UK guarantee continued free healthcare to EU nationals when there is not a reciprocal agreement for UK nationals?

didnt you think about this before you voted OUT ? or was your reasoning much like many others, based on immigration.

why the heck would the EU do a thing? they are not the ones leaving, we are, no doubt you ll be up in arms too when the French kick our border back to the UK........

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

How can the UK guarantee continued free healthcare to EU nationals....?

Could that be because money is taken out of my wage to pay for the NHS?

That would be different. The NHS is residence based. If you are entitled to reside here, you get treatment.

The EHIC is also dependent not on nationality, but on residency. There can't be any guarantee yet about EU residents if we don't know the UK's status within the EHIC system.

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

That would be different. The NHS is residence based. If you are entitled to reside here, you get treatment.

The EHIC is also dependent not on nationality, but on residency. There can't be any guarantee yet about EU residents if we don't know the UK's status within the EHIC system.

Unless I am missing a trick, if you are not a resident, you are a tourist... tourism works both ways... it would be silly to get rid of what is a very effective system, but the alternative would be a travel insurance, which is not the end of the world, it just adds to the cost of holidays... basically it goes to damage airlines and tour operators and benefits nobody

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

That would be different. The NHS is residence based. If you are entitled to reside here, you get treatment.

The EHIC is also dependent not on nationality, but on residency. There can't be any guarantee yet about EU residents if we don't know the UK's status within the EHIC system.

Unless I am missing a trick, if you are not a resident, you are a tourist... tourism works both ways... it would be silly to get rid of what is a very effective system, but the alternative would be a travel insurance, which is not the end of the world, it just adds to the cost of holidays... basically it goes to damage airlines and tour operators and benefits nobody

Agreed. But it is currently for EEA and Switzerland, so we'd need to get an agreement to continue it. (Like everything else that is based on EU/EEA.)

coopster_the_1st

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

That would be different. The NHS is residence based. If you are entitled to reside here, you get treatment.

The EHIC is also dependent not on nationality, but on residency. There can't be any guarantee yet about EU residents if we don't know the UK's status within the EHIC system.

Unless I am missing a trick, if you are not a resident, you are a tourist... tourism works both ways... it would be silly to get rid of what is a very effective system, but the alternative would be a travel insurance, which is not the end of the world, it just adds to the cost of holidays... basically it goes to damage airlines and tour operators and benefits nobody

You really need to be lobbying your home country politicians regarding this to make sure then enable the status quo to continue. Oh wait, I see the problem there...

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

not too mention May suggesting EU nationals could be deported.

It would be ridiculous to make a cast iron guarantee without getting a reciprocal guarantee about UK nationals in other EU countries. Wouldn't it?

So basically in a war against ISIS you would decapitate prisoners because the enemy does so with your soldiers...
eye for eye, That's encouraging for the future of this nation... I think you should be better than that

If you were Corbyn that would be reported as comparing EU residents to ISIS.

You do have to worry where his thinking is if he is going to bring ISIS into this.

Why haven't the EU not confirmed their policy on UK nationals in the EU?

How can the UK guarantee continued free healthcare to EU nationals when there is not a reciprocal agreement for UK nationals?

didnt you think about this before you voted OUT ? or was your reasoning much like many others, based on immigration.

why the heck would the EU do a thing? they are not the ones leaving, we are, no doubt you ll be up in arms too when the French kick our border back to the UK........

My base reasoning was the EU would not reform so why stay. I wanted it to reform to add a controlling function to the countries government for immigration but that requires reform and it would not do that. So "I'm Out" as they say on a BBC TV programme.

The EU need to do the same as the UK government in guaranteeing the status of its citizens. If I was an EU citizen I would be feeling very unsettled right now with the punishment messages being sent out by the EU rather than supporting ones...

And as already proved as Project Fear, the French border is not moving back to the UK.

letap73

Surrey Commuter wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

You knows? Viewed through the filter of history, perhaps Nigel Farage will be viewed in a similar light to William Wilberforce. After all, WW would have been hugely unpopular and edgy back in his day..

A true giant of a man be-striding the planet like a modern day hybrid of Ghengis Khan and Mahatma Ghandi

Farage will occupy a place in history similar to Oswald Mosley.

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

Agreed. But it is currently for EEA and Switzerland, so we'd need to get an agreement to continue it. (Like everything else that is based on EU/EEA.)

On a personal level I am not particularly fussed... I am in the enviable position of owning two of these EH cards... if the Uk one no longer works, I'll flash the Italian one.

As I said, buying a health insurance for a holiday is not the end of the world... some will not be able to afford it and will swap Marbella for Blackpool... I can see this might make a difference for those businesses relying on regular travel, but I don't think it's a game changer... I think it's a marginal issue, maybe a big issue for tour operators and airlines.
On a very personal level, being an environmentalist, I see a lot of good if airlines go bust, but of course there are jobs on the line and that is less good

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Delaying makes sense as we have to unravel 43 years of integration in two years.

And this is why we won't succeed in negotiating after A50. I work in the public sector. It takes two years just to get a £50k project off the ground let alone actually do anything. We just won't be able to achieve any agreement in only two years - it would need more like 5 to 10 years to get anything that the Brexit crowd would actually want.

the small print seems to suggest that it is two years to disengage - then we start to negotiate what we do after that.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the small print seems to suggest that it is two years to disengage - then we start to negotiate what we do after that.

Is that like casting a ship off then deciding where to go next?
A rudderless ship at that.

surrey_commuter

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Agreed. But it is currently for EEA and Switzerland, so we'd need to get an agreement to continue it. (Like everything else that is based on EU/EEA.)

On a personal level I am not particularly fussed... I am in the enviable position of owning two of these EH cards... if the Uk one no longer works, I'll flash the Italian one.

As I said, buying a health insurance for a holiday is not the end of the world... some will not be able to afford it and will swap Marbella for Blackpool... I can see this might make a difference for those businesses relying on regular travel, but I don't think it's a game changer... I think it's a marginal issue, maybe a big issue for tour operators and airlines.
On a very personal level, being an environmentalist, I see a lot of good if airlines go bust, but of course there are jobs on the line and that is less good

You are right health insurance is a tiny tiny issue.

Right now I can not believe there are any plans to kick people out not least because how would you do it. Still as things get uglier the new Farage may promise it to whip the troops into their next frenzy of anger.

A central pillar of the EU is the freedom of movement, essentially this means that we are all equal in the eyes of the UK or Spanish law. If the Spanish Govt charges non-EU residents for healthcare or a surcharge on property taxes that is entirely up to them. And as 17 million people in this country voted for it sure a bit churlish to moan about them doing so.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the small print seems to suggest that it is two years to disengage - then we start to negotiate what we do after that.

Is that like casting a ship off then deciding where to go next?
A rudderless ship at that.

a good analogy - it is like leaving a perfectly good marina because you did not like the harbour master having a subsidised lunch. You have now quit the marina whilst shouting abuse on your way out, you have just realised you holed your boat crashing into some rocks and whilst all of your crew had assured you that there were loads of better marinas they now seem incapable of naming one and some are even abandoning ship

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

With regards to the trade deficit to the EU, which side does that actually give the advantage to in negations?

In theory it lies with us. In practise I have a trade deficit with my local Costcutter and it does not help me negotiate better trade terms with him.

letap73

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the small print seems to suggest that it is two years to disengage - then we start to negotiate what we do after that.

Is that like casting a ship off then deciding where to go next?
A rudderless ship at that.

Put simply from my limited understanding, yes:

Invoke Article 50

2 stages to leaving:

1. UP TO 2yrs max for leaving negotiations
(and setting out the shape of future trade talks
but not negotiating them during the leaving talks)

Once leaving talks are complete the UK exits the EU
this can be expedited it doesnt have to take 2yrs.

2. UK moves to WTO status and begins formal talks on trade deals
single market Norway model will be quicker
canadian model will be very slow

Both will take many years and the UK will trade on WTO terms for those years in negotiation.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

My base reasoning was the EU would not reform so why stay. I wanted it to reform to add a controlling function to the countries government for immigration but that requires reform and it would not do that. So "I'm Out" as they say on a BBC TV programme.

The EU need to do the same as the UK government in guaranteeing the status of its citizens. If I was an EU citizen I would be feeling very unsettled right now with the punishment messages being sent out by the EU rather than supporting ones...

And as already proved as Project Fear, the French border is not moving back to the UK.

Project fear? right now BoE is predicting a dire outlook for the UK but he is obviously a founder member of PF and should be ignored.

Your Capt's have, all but one, abandoned ship and like it or not, should we triggered A50, the border will move back, it is inevitable, the french will demand it and we all know the importance of democracy and honouring the will of the people, we all have to accept the rough with the smooth, it is part of taking back control and being an independent nation.

surrey_commuter

letap73 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the small print seems to suggest that it is two years to disengage - then we start to negotiate what we do after that.

Is that like casting a ship off then deciding where to go next?
A rudderless ship at that.

Put simply from my limited understanding, yes:

Invoke Article 50

2 stages to leaving:

1. UP TO 2yrs max for leaving negotiations
(and setting out the shape of future trade talks
but not negotiating them during the leaving talks)

Once leaving talks are complete the UK exits the EU
this can be expedited it doesnt have to take 2yrs.

2. UK moves to WTO status and begins formal talks on trade deals
single market Norway model will be quicker
canadian model will be very slow

Both will take many years and the UK will trade on WTO terms for those years in negotiation.

sounds about right

bobmcstuff

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone got a pension with SL?? Or a big mortgage..

Aviva just announced the same.

I have money in an Aberdeen Asset Management UK property fund and it's just dropped by 8% on the news.

Fortunately not very much money in that one (guess that's why they recommend against putting all your eggs in one basket )

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

[
if you look at the turmoil the mere suggestion of brexit has caused, you can see that when the date is set and A50 is triggered, we will be thrown into a downward spiral that will see us become Northern Europes very own Greece.

I love your sense of optimism mamba

Remember we have been in a Greece situation before - late 70's under Labour when we ended up needing funding from the IMF, 25% inflation, held to ransom by union barons etc. No BREXIT needed, just bad left wing policies...

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

[
if you look at the turmoil the mere suggestion of brexit has caused, you can see that when the date is set and A50 is triggered, we will be thrown into a downward spiral that will see us become Northern Europes very own Greece.

I love your sense of optimism mamba

Remember we have been in a Greece situation before - late 70's under Labour when we ended up needing funding from the IMF, 25% inflation, held to ransom by union barons etc. No BREXIT needed, just bad left wing policies...

No argument from me over the mess that was the 70's,

i worked with relative of Callaghans, when the Met Office was in bracknell, Callaghan was hardly a left wing firebrand, served in the Navy during WW11 and even wrote a RN Manual, far from a Corbynite, like Heath found earlier in the decade, Union power was too strong.....

just cant understand why we d want to chance a revisit.

finchy

Jez mon wrote:

With regards to the trade deficit to the EU, which side does that actually give the advantage to in negations?

All else being equal, it would put the advantage in the side that buys most. However, all else isn't equal. Our economy is about 20% of the size of the post-Brexit EU, so our exports to the EU is a much bigger proportion of our economy than the EU's exports to the UK is a proportion of their economy (remember, we'll be desperate to sell to a market of about 440 million people, whereas they'd want to sell to a population of 65 million, max). Basically, we'd be forced to blink first. That's why the most likely outcome of this is a Norway-style deal, which is not what people voted for.

surrey_commuter

finchy wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

With regards to the trade deficit to the EU, which side does that actually give the advantage to in negations?

All else being equal, it would put the advantage in the side that buys most. However, all else isn't equal. Our economy is about 20% of the size of the post-Brexit EU, so our exports to the EU is a much bigger proportion of our economy than the EU's exports to the UK is a proportion of their economy (remember, we'll be desperate to sell to a market of about 440 million people, whereas they'd want to sell to a population of 65 million, max). Basically, we'd be forced to blink first. That's why the most likely outcome of this is a Norway-style deal, which is not what people voted for.

Gove/Leadsom are adamant they will not do that but the rest you are spot on.

Jez mon

finchy wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

With regards to the trade deficit to the EU, which side does that actually give the advantage to in negations?

All else being equal, it would put the advantage in the side that buys most. However, all else isn't equal. Our economy is about 20% of the size of the post-Brexit EU, so our exports to the EU is a much bigger proportion of our economy than the EU's exports to the UK is a proportion of their economy (remember, we'll be desperate to sell to a market of about 440 million people, whereas they'd want to sell to a population of 65 million, max). Basically, we'd be forced to blink first. That's why the most likely outcome of this is a Norway-style deal, which is not what people voted for.

That's what I thought, but the Brexit supporters keep waving our trade deficit around like it's a massive bargaining chip.

Surely if it did come to tit for tat (high tariffs on all sides) we'd just be far more likely to see expensive German cars, and a service industry moving abroad, I can't see a rush for the German car companies to open up factories in the UK to avoid high tariffs, whereas moving services can be done more gradually, and would be easier...

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone got a pension with SL?? Or a big mortgage..

Aviva just announced the same.

I have money in an Aberdeen Asset Management UK property fund and it's just dropped by 8% on the news.

Fortunately not very much money in that one (guess that's why they recommend against putting all your eggs in one basket )

One week ago some paid experts warned about Commercial Property. In the same breathe they described the Corporate Bond market as barely functioning. Do with that info as you wish.

ugo.santalucia

Jez mon wrote:

Surely if it did come to tit for tat (high tariffs on all sides) we'd just be far more likely to see expensive German cars, and a service industry moving abroad, I can't see a rush for the German car companies to open up factories in the UK to avoid high tariffs, whereas moving services can be done more gradually, and would be easier...

That assumes there will be a middle class capable of buying expensive German cars. The really poor have nothing to lose, the really rich will gain from any scenario, the middle class gets once again squeezed by a weakened currency and possible tariffs. Seeing we are approaching the limit of what is humanly borrowable, I can't see expensive German cars in the future... remember the current level of borrowing is only sustainable with an ever increasing house market, which is what Brexit want to curb

Which is probably one of the least worst outcomes of all this

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

finchy wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

With regards to the trade deficit to the EU, which side does that actually give the advantage to in negations?

All else being equal, it would put the advantage in the side that buys most. However, all else isn't equal. Our economy is about 20% of the size of the post-Brexit EU, so our exports to the EU is a much bigger proportion of our economy than the EU's exports to the UK is a proportion of their economy (remember, we'll be desperate to sell to a market of about 440 million people, whereas they'd want to sell to a population of 65 million, max). Basically, we'd be forced to blink first. That's why the most likely outcome of this is a Norway-style deal, which is not what people voted for.

That's what I thought, but the Brexit supporters keep waving our trade deficit around like it's a massive bargaining chip.

Surely if it did come to tit for tat (high tariffs on all sides) we'd just be far more likely to see expensive German cars, and a service industry moving abroad, I can't see a rush for the German car companies to open up factories in the UK to avoid high tariffs, whereas moving services can be done more gradually, and would be easier...

That is the problem with tariffs - they lead to tit for tat responses. In reality we are not just going to stick a 10% tariff on German cars, it will be on all cars so if you are a German car manufacturer you have only lost competitive advantage against UK produced cars.

TheBigBean

Under WTO rules you can't use different rates for different countries.

The UK should negotiate its exit before A50. If the EU refuses, it should arrange a plethora of trade deals to come into effect with other countries, so that the impact of A50 is mitigated. Right now, it should simply be realistic and tell everyone this is a 5-10 year process. Of course, during that time a lot might change in the EU.

surrey_commuter

under EU law you can not negotiate a separate trade deal with a member and individual members can not negotiate their own separate deals with third parties.

This means we must trigger A50 before we can negotiate our exit (2 years) then we can negotiate our future trade deals with the EU and others.

I am sure that if we left on reasonable terms and did not compare people to the Nazis or bang on about their citizens being such scum we need to erect barriers there would be a way around this... In that case see above - if they want they can trap us in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

under EU law you can not negotiate a separate trade deal with a member and individual members can not negotiate their own separate deals with third parties.

This means we must trigger A50 before we can negotiate our exit (2 years) then we can negotiate our future trade deals with the EU and others.

What are they going to do? Take us to their court? Kick us out?

Everything is open to negotiation.

bendertherobot

On that I agree. It's one thing to have a law, it's quite another to enforce it. But there are certainly pros and cons to poking the tiger.