BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

A big risk to this country is the 'we're doomed' mentality of too many on here. If you think like losers, it's more likely we end up as losers. Meanwhile, life's winners are looking to make the best of the situation we are in.

seanoconn

Stevo 666 wrote:

A big risk to this country is the 'we're doomed' mentality of too many on here. If you think like losers, it's more likely we end up as losers. Meanwhile, life's winners are looking to make the best of the situation we are in.

Too true. Praying we're all doomed just to say "I told you so" is pretty futile. The media could help rather than condemning us to sell papers.

Stevo_666

seanoconn wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

A big risk to this country is the 'we're doomed' mentality of too many on here. If you think like losers, it's more likely we end up as losers. Meanwhile, life's winners are looking to make the best of the situation we are in.

Too true. Praying we're all doomed just to say "I told you so" is pretty futile. The media could help rather than condemning us to sell papers.

I dunno Seano, the redtop headlines seemed pretty optimistic this morning, even if they will make blood pressures rise for some people on here

But yes, some people on here I'm sure almost want things to go wrong now. They'll deny it, just like on the Labour party thread.

Let's crack on and think positive.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Happy Coopster?

EU calling for the passport system for british banks to be removed, Airbus reviewing investment plans and Merkel saying the UK wishes to leave the EU and the single market...... doesnt bode well.

there will be no 2nd vote or any new terms to keep us in (as you predicted) infact the EU are in a hurry to get rid of us and they ll give us no favourable terms what-so-ever, never mind the potential split of the union and the mess that will be Gibraltar.
oh and now the capital markets union, which would have released 3 trillion euros of investment into EU is what? London (the eu's premier financial centre) would have been the winner but we are leaving so thats gone too.

of course early days but Gove and Johnsons silence is deafening, i wonder if they ever really thought they d win :roll:

Happy is the wrong word when there is so much bitterness about, although this would have been the case whatever the result.

I would go with positive and excited

As I have said above, the EU are still not listening and trying to tell us what to do. Should we really do as they say and elect a new PM in the next few days or follow the conservative democratic process? Why should we weaken our negotiating position by giving into a bully?

I'll admit to be wrong about there being a second referendum but my thought was that would be the case after EU reform had been negotiated. My views on why I voted to Leave have not changed. Although funny how one side are now pushing a Gov petition for a 2nd referendum. Both sides should have pushed this before the vote to take place for it to have legitimacy.

I trust you have seen that Morgan Stanley have denied they are relocating, the leaked memo from JP Morgan to its internal staff and that S Korea's top diplomat said South Korea will consider a bilateral trade deal. Somewhat different to the scaremongering we were fed.

I don't believe there will be a split in the union. As said above 38% have already rejected the EU in favour of the UK and it only needs a 6% swing for that to be a majority and to validate the UK's electorate decision.

I would argue the silence from George Osborne is more deafening. Will we hear him make a public speech again before he is sacked?

The EU position is a negotiating strategy. We will try and agree as much as possible before invoking Article 50 and they will refuse to even discuss it.

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I am guessing that South Korea has a trade surplus with us.

I don't get your stats about 38% and 6% swing.

I imagine Osborne has been asked to stay on until new PM is chosen. Not sure what you want to hear from him

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

A big risk to this country is the 'we're doomed' mentality of too many on here. If you think like losers, it's more likely we end up as losers. Meanwhile, life's winners are looking to make the best of the situation we are in.

Too true. Praying we're all doomed just to say "I told you so" is pretty futile. The media could help rather than condemning us to sell papers.

I dunno Seano, the redtop headlines seemed pretty optimistic this morning, even if they will make blood pressures rise for some people on here

But yes, some people on here I'm sure almost want things to go wrong now. They'll deny it, just like on the Labour party thread.

Let's crack on and think positive.

Now I had to give the troops a talking to on Friday but for the average man on the Clapham omnibus what good will being positive do?

mr_goo

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

bendertherobot

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

It would need some research. Initial feeling is that, just as non use of Art 50 to withdraw may contravene International Law treaties then holding an exiter in by a veto almost certainly would.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

Or he wants the uncertainty to end as soon as possible.

We are delaying to strengthen our negotiating position - they are doing the opposite. They have the whip hand so will refuse even informal talks until we invoke Article 50.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

It would need some research. Initial feeling is that, just as non use of Art 50 to withdraw may contravene International Law treaties then holding an exiter in by a veto almost certainly would.

Surely that would be a cancellation rather than an amendment and need a unanimous decision by each member rather than the EU Commision

mr_goo

bendertherobot wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

It would need some research. Initial feeling is that, just as non use of Art 50 to withdraw may contravene International Law treaties then holding an exiter in by a veto almost certainly would.

It's certainly an interesting line of thought and one to watch out for over the next couple of years.

bendertherobot

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

It would need some research. Initial feeling is that, just as non use of Art 50 to withdraw may contravene International Law treaties then holding an exiter in by a veto almost certainly would.

Surely that would be a cancellation rather than an amendment and need a unanimous decision by each member rather than the EU Commision

Of what, the treaty or the article? It would be negotiated. I can't see the negotiation ever succeeding.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

It would need some research. Initial feeling is that, just as non use of Art 50 to withdraw may contravene International Law treaties then holding an exiter in by a veto almost certainly would.

Surely that would be a cancellation rather than an amendment and need a unanimous decision by each member rather than the EU Commision

Of what, the treaty or the article? It would be negotiated. I can't see the negotiation ever succeeding.

Exactly - the whole point of the article is that it is unilateral

coopster_the_1st

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

We have a huge negotiating position around Art 50 and the timing of it, particularly with the German and French elections next year. Not to mention the pressure on other EU governments in EU sceptic countries to hold a referendum.

As mentioned on Radio 4 this morning Westminster and Brussels are about pack up for their summer holidays soon and the UK needs a new PM so nothing will happen until October at the earliest. I expect the EU presidents are squirming in their chairs like they have a bad case of piles

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

We have a huge negotiating position around Art 50 and the timing of it, particularly with the German and French elections next year. Not to mention the pressure on other EU governments in EU sceptic countries to hold a referendum.

As mentioned on Radio 4 this morning Westminster and Brussels are about pack up for their summer holidays soon and the UK needs a new PM so nothing will happen until October at the earliest. I expect the EU presidents are squirming in their chairs like they have a bad case of piles

You just don't get it. Read back and you will see that it was always considered lunacy to invoke Article 50 immediately. Two years is too short a time period to negotiate an exit and gives all the leverage to the EU. The idea is to get as much done through informal talks before invoking A50. It was also said that the EU would refuse to any informal talks and make us pull the trigger. It may be funny to you but we are burning goodwill.

taon24

I was a definite remainer and I still loathe the idea of leaving.
I'm still unsure of the reason why we are leaving. I accept that the EU parliament is more distant than ours, be we hardly engaged with it. I accept that the EU does increase regulation.
I'm also unsure of what we are hoping to achieve by leaving. I'm sure there is a spectrum:
a) Remain in EU - still an option if we can't get an acceptable deal.
b) EEA - Norway/Iceland - We have free movement of people, goods, money and services. We have to accept EU regulations on these issues with no say. We will have to contribute to the EU budget. May require opting into Schengen area.
c) Swiss - Free movement of goods. Potentially the 'valuable' London banking sector will lose out (It does pay some wages and taxes even if it is hated almost as much as parliament.). My reading suggest that the EU negotiate that the swiss get some elements they want, in exchange for taking some that the EU want, but that switzerland may not like. We will have to contribute to the EU budget. May require opting into Schengen area.
d) UK isolated - No free movement. Item by item negotiation, with us negotiating with a bigger block of countries, which don't always have the same political reasoning. The negotiation will not be soft and the EU will be wanting to be seen to be recieving as good a deal as Britain. Border control will be one of the items up for negotiation.

So what do people want Britain to get from Brexit. What sort of deal? What are the positives? What will the EU be demanding in return?

surrey_commuter

taon24 wrote:

I was a definite remainer and I still loathe the idea of leaving.
I'm still unsure of the reason why we are leaving. I accept that the EU parliament is more distant than ours, be we hardly engaged with it. I accept that the EU does increase regulation.
I'm also unsure of what we are hoping to achieve by leaving. I'm sure there is a spectrum:
a) Remain in EU - still an option if we can't get an acceptable deal.
b) EEA - Norway/Iceland - We have free movement of people, goods, money and services. We have to accept EU regulations on these issues with no say. We will have to contribute to the EU budget. May require opting into Schengen area.
c) Swiss - Free movement of goods. Potentially the 'valuable' London banking sector will lose out (It does pay some wages and taxes even if it is hated almost as much as parliament.). My reading suggest that the EU negotiate that the swiss get some elements they want, in exchange for taking some that the EU want, but that switzerland may not like. We will have to contribute to the EU budget. May require opting into Schengen area.
d) UK isolated - No free movement. Item by item negotiation, with us negotiating with a bigger block of countries, which don't always have the same political reasoning. The negotiation will not be soft and the EU will be wanting to be seen to be recieving as good a deal as Britain. Border control will be one of the items up for negotiation.

So what do people want Britain to get from Brexit. What sort of deal? What are the positives? What will the EU be demanding in return?

As migration was central to the Leave campaign argument that rules out a-c.

Worse case scenario is standard WTO terms which would be tariffs of 5-10 on all UK goods imported into the EU. About of a third of our trade is in services so this would be open to negotiation though it would make sense for them to hamper us as much as possible until they can establish home grown alternatives or persuade banks to set up shop in the EU.

All that is pretty much a given and in itself will not be catastrophic just a long-term decline in our exports to the EU. The problem comes when we we say in that case we are going to put tariffs on your goods and we end up with an ever downward spiral.

Pross

^^good question and one I asked my cousin who voted to leave. Her answer was 'I did a lot of research and decided it was best for my family' but couldn't explain any of these issues that were better for her. Bearing in mind she works in a low paid job that has almost certainly gained from the working time directive and has benefitted twice from the increased maternity leave allowance I was slightly perplexed.

The only answer you seem to get is 'we've taken back power' or as the slightly less politically correct put it 'we've got our country back'.

finchy

Just had a £2.5k project postponed indefinitely as a result of the EU referendum. The agency I go through says that Friday and Saturday have seen the lowest volume of work in its 18 years of existence and they've received advanced warnings from several large clients about probable cancellations.

Hmmmmm....

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

We have a huge negotiating position around Art 50 and the timing of it, particularly with the German and French elections next year. Not to mention the pressure on other EU governments in EU sceptic countries to hold a referendum.

As mentioned on Radio 4 this morning Westminster and Brussels are about pack up for their summer holidays soon and the UK needs a new PM so nothing will happen until October at the earliest. I expect the EU presidents are squirming in their chairs like they have a bad case of piles

You just don't get it. Read back and you will see that it was always considered lunacy to invoke Article 50 immediately. Two years is too short a time period to negotiate an exit and gives all the leverage to the EU. The idea is to get as much done through informal talks before invoking A50. It was also said that the EU would refuse to any informal talks and make us pull the trigger. It may be funny to you but we are burning goodwill.

It's the only real leverage UK has, thereby leaving other nations precariously positioned while their own Leavers clamour for their own referendum.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

We have a huge negotiating position around Art 50 and the timing of it, particularly with the German and French elections next year. Not to mention the pressure on other EU governments in EU sceptic countries to hold a referendum.

As mentioned on Radio 4 this morning Westminster and Brussels are about pack up for their summer holidays soon and the UK needs a new PM so nothing will happen until October at the earliest. I expect the EU presidents are squirming in their chairs like they have a bad case of piles

You just don't get it. Read back and you will see that it was always considered lunacy to invoke Article 50 immediately. Two years is too short a time period to negotiate an exit and gives all the leverage to the EU. The idea is to get as much done through informal talks before invoking A50. It was also said that the EU would refuse to any informal talks and make us pull the trigger. It may be funny to you but we are burning goodwill.

It's the only real leverage UK has, thereby leaving other nations precariously positioned while their own Leavers clamour for their own referendum.

I would get this done ASAP before anybody thinks of a clever way to backslide

verylonglegs

finchy wrote:

Just had a £2.5k project postponed indefinitely as a result of the EU referendum. The agency I go through says that Friday and Saturday have seen the lowest volume of work in its 18 years of existence and they've received advanced warnings from several large clients about probable cancellations.

Hmmmmm....

Well Finchy according to Cooper you just need to think positively and it all be OK. Or he has no idea what he is talking about. Possibly.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

A big risk to this country is the 'we're doomed' mentality of too many on here. If you think like losers, it's more likely we end up as losers. Meanwhile, life's winners are looking to make the best of the situation we are in.

Too true. Praying we're all doomed just to say "I told you so" is pretty futile. The media could help rather than condemning us to sell papers.

I dunno Seano, the redtop headlines seemed pretty optimistic this morning, even if they will make blood pressures rise for some people on here

But yes, some people on here I'm sure almost want things to go wrong now. They'll deny it, just like on the Labour party thread.

Let's crack on and think positive.

Now I had to give the troops a talking to on Friday but for the average man on the Clapham omnibus what good will being positive do?

Same as for the rest of us. Given it appears that Clapham omnibus man probably voted leave, I guess he is already quite positive.

Stevo_666

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Just had a £2.5k project postponed indefinitely as a result of the EU referendum. The agency I go through says that Friday and Saturday have seen the lowest volume of work in its 18 years of existence and they've received advanced warnings from several large clients about probable cancellations.

Hmmmmm....

Well Finchy according to Cooper you just need to think positively and it all be OK. Or he has no idea what he is talking about. Possibly.

I rest my case - losing mentality. Being negative about being positive isn't a good start.

mrfpb

In other news Lord Hall, the UK commissioner resigns. Sky fails to fall in and civilisation fails to crumble.

Angela Merkel say there's no need to be nasty and no hurry to invoke Article 50. Which is nice.

TheBigBean

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

I think he is just your average run of the mill megalomaniacal politician (bit like Boris) who is concerned about a loss of power. His comments were ill-advised and he seems to be more concerned about the insitution he represents than the people that institution is supposed represent.

Fortunately, Merkel is talking a bit more sense.

pinno

TheBigBean wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I read a very interesting comment on a news feed that gave the reason why Juncker is chomping at the bit to get shot of the UK so quickly. He desperately wants to avoid a domino effect and the subsequent break up of the EU. To do this the UK needs to be gone so that he and the rest of the EU Commission can amend the Article 50 clause by installing a veto on it.

Any thoughts on this.

I think he is just your average run of the mill megalomaniacal politician (bit like Boris) who is concerned about a loss of power. His comments were ill-advised and he seems to be more concerned about the insitution he represents than the people that institution is supposed represent.

Fortunately, Merkel is talking a bit more sense.

Thank Christ for the Germans eh?!

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

In other news Lord Hall, the UK commissioner resigns. Sky fails to fall in and civilisation fails to crumble.

Angela Merkel say there's no need to be nasty and no hurry to invoke Article 50. Which is nice.

I still do not get the significance of that resignation. Is it to create a vacancy.

Your flippancy is inappropriate when surrounded by some people who are suffering financially as a result

florerider

It has a major significance, his remit was financial services.

mrfpb

I apologise that I upset you and others here. I think my flippancy was a response to the inappropriate panic in the media since the result was announced and the vitriol and false assumptions regarding the motives of Leave voters by many Remain voters on social media.

I think Lord Hall's resignation was intended (by him) as the first step in Brexit, but Downing St have said it's up to the next PM to replace him, which undermines his statement and adds yet more uncertainty to the process.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I could be completely wrong (as I was about the referendum result), but I find it hard to imagine that many banking jobs will be moved to Frankfurt. There may be job losses due to the uncertainty and economic downturn, but companies can't just move people like they are inventory. I met a partner at a City law firm who was not willing to relocate to Canary Wharf.

In the end, finance is just like all other exports, if the EU seeks to protect its markets it will simply find that the asset subject to protectionism becomes quite scarce i.e. it will be harder to borrow money.