When considering in or out:

[Himaginn]

For anyone who did not see Newsnight last night, four scenarios were explored, in a case of Brexit:
1. A new arrangement where we negotiate for access to the Single Market, without Schengen, we don't pay into EU, and we pick and choose which regulation we accept. That was kicked into proverbial touch. Why would EU allow us an arrangement which they deny to their own members. It's nonsensical and would lead to a mass exit by all EU members arguing for the same arrangements.

2. Norway model, accept Schengen, pay into EU, access Single Market, accept all regulation without any say. UK would reject that. Why leave?

3. Switzerland model. EU would reject that because it's already broken. So why try a broken model?

4. Leave the Single Market and join WTO. It would take many, many years to replicate the current trade agreements that we currently enjoy, with the countries that already have agreements with EU. We'd struggle to continue to trade with EU. Our economy and exports would be decimated.

Additionally, an excellent point was made. In our Brexit negotiations, all 27 countries would be represented, with 27 different viewpoints, concerns and opinions. Germany may be concerned about manufactured trade, France may be concerned about food and livestock trade, Poland may be concerned about free movement of people, Greece may be concerned about free movement of capital, Eire would be concerned about all aspects, etc, etc.
These Brexit negotiations would so problematic as to drag on for a long time.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

So what model are you suggesting that allows us to remain in the Single Market?

We retain most of the economic side of EU membership but ditch the political side. i.e. we retain the trade and tariffs policy, but keep fishing and agriculture for ourselves, and our parliament and courts would be 100% sovereign. We would not join the Schengen zone. We'll keep freedom of movement and work between, say, Ireland and other countries of choice (EU or otherwise), but control immigration to keep pace with housing and public services etc.

They're in the Schengen area, they have to follow all EU regulations, they have to pay their EU contribution. This is what gives then access to the Single Market. They have no say in what those regulations are.

Yes, and it works. The regulations only apply to trade with Europe (yet we have to abide by them even for our domestic trade FFS!). We're doing less and less trade with the EU, and most of the regulations are borrowed from global standards anyway. We don't need a say in what shape European cucumbers need to be.

"No positive reasons to remain" How about economic prosperity? How about personal sovereignty? (personal freedom to move, work, live, etc) How about peace and security? How about having a stronger, more powerful voice in global negotiations?

But that's almost never how they word it. They usually say "If we leave the EU jobs will be lost, ex-PATs will have to come home, WW3 will break out, we will be unable to negotiate with anyone else..."
Always the nagative perspective.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

2. Norway model, accept Schengen, pay into EU, access Single Market, accept all regulation without any say. UK would reject that. Why leave?

I didn't see the programme, but I don't see why we would reject such an offer out of hand. Also, Norway does have a say in the regulations at the proposal stage, it just doesn't vote on them, and it only adopts about 10% EU laws. Of course, any agreement we made would be tailored to the UK. It's not like we can only choose between an identical Norway deal or identical Swiss deal etc. That's a Remainer's tactic -to point to someone else's deal as if we would have to adopt it word for word, then say "but unlike the UK the Swiss don't even have fisheries so that model would never work! Haha I win!"

3. Switzerland model. EU would reject that because it's already broken. So why try a broken model?

Not sure what you mean by broken...

Leave the Single Market and join WTO.

This makes no sense. Why would we leave the (common) market? It's not an either/or option. We would be part of both, same as Norway.

These Brexit negotiations would so problematic as to drag on for a long time.

Which is why it would be business as usual. The changes would occur gradually and incrementally, we would adapt to them. The Eurocrats aren't going to put all Anglo-EU trade on hold while they thrash it out. But the Remainers like to paint a picture of everyone being suddenly out of work on June 24th if we vote leave.

 

[Himaginn]

So what model are you suggesting that allows us to remain in the Single Market?

We retain most of the economic side of EU membership but ditch the political side. i.e. we retain the trade and tariffs policy, but keep fishing and agriculture for ourselves, and our parliament and courts would be 100% sovereign. We'll keep freedom of movement and work between, say, Ireland and other countries of choice (EU or otherwise), but control immigration to keep pace with housing and public services etc.

See my comment immediately before yours.

They're in the Schengen area, they have to follow all EU regulations, they have to pay their EU contribution. This is what gives then access to the Single Market. They have no say in what those regulations are.

Yes, and it works. The regulations only apply to trade with Europe (yet we have to abide by them even for our domestic trade FFS!). We're doing less and less trade with the EU, and most of the regulations are borrowed from global standards anyway. We don't need a say in what shape European cucumbers need to be.

How about some reference to facts to justify your claims? less and less trade, similarity to global standards etc.
Additionally, Norway model is worse than we currently have! Schengen area! They have to pay into EU! Why leave?

"No positive reasons to remain" How about economic prosperity? How about personal sovereignty? (personal freedom to move, work, live, etc) How about peace and security? How about having a stronger, more powerful voice in global negotiations?

But that's almost never how they word it. They usually say "If we leave the EU jobs will be lost, ex-PATs will have to come home, WW3 will break out, we will be unable to negotiate with anyone else..."
Always the nagative perspective.

You're being too selective in your listening and quoting examples. Talk sensible!

 

[Himaginn]

2. Norway model, accept Schengen, pay into EU, access Single Market, accept all regulation without any say. UK would reject that. Why leave?

I didn't see the programme, but I don't see why we would reject such an offer out of hand.

Then why leave?

3. Switzerland model. EU would reject that because it's already broken. So why try a broken model?

Not sure what you mean by broken...

Then you're in no position to make informed judgments.

These Brexit negotiations would so problematic as to drag on for a long time.

Which is why it would be business as usual. The changes woudl occur gradually and incrementally, we would adapt to them. But the Remainers like to paint a picture of everyone being suddenly out of work on June 24th.

June 24th 2018! You're not talking sense! Two years after we're out! Whether negotiations are complete or not! 3,000,000 might be affected. This illustrates your poor grasp of the situation.
Negotiations on trade agreements will continue for many, many more years after.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I didn't see the programme, but I don't see why we would reject such an offer out of hand.

Then why leave?

So we can take the sodding Norway offer (for example)! i.e. be part of the common market and the WTO. Of course, I'm not suggesting we take an idenatical Norway deal, but something tailored to suit us. Take a look at the Guernsey model. Then mix and match.

June 24th 2018! You're not talking sense! Two years after we're out! Whether negotiations are complete or not! 3,000,000 might be affected. This illustrates your poor grasp of the situation.
Negotiations on trade agreements will continue for many, many more years after.

You're not talking sense! Do you think a vote leave would start some kind of 2-year Doomsday counter? Negotiations would be held to arrange the basic principles of Brexit before they even decide if they will hold formal negotiations under the '2 year rule'!

 

[Gerrydelasel]

How about some reference to facts to justify your claims? less and less trade, similarity to global standards etc.

If you're not familiar with some of the well-known, basic facts then you're in no position to make informed judgments. Let me google that for you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...eficit-in-goods-with-EU-hits-record-high.html

As for global standards, use common sense.

 

[EFLImpudence]

We didn't out grow the '70's problem, we joined the EU!

Leaving aside all the unfounded clairvoyance, I am interested in that statement.

So - we did outgrow the 70s.

Are you saying it was the EEC who foisted Thatcher on us to smash the Unions and workers and/or
things would have carried on the same for ever had we not joined the EEC?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Are you saying it was the EEC who foisted Thatcher on us to smash the Unions and workers and/or
things would have carried on the same for ever had we not joined the EEC?

+1

 

[Himaginn]

We didn't out grow the '70's problem, we joined the EU!

Leaving aside all the unfounded clairvoyance, I am interested in that statement.

So - we did outgrow the 70s.

Are you saying it was the EEC who foisted Thatcher on us to smash the Unions and workers and/or
things would have carried on the same for ever had we not joined the EEC?

Both political parties had come to the conclusion that Britain needed to enter the European Economic Community (EEC) in order to revive its economy. This decision came after establishing a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) with other, non EEC countries since this provided little economic stimulus to Britain’s economy. Levels of trade with the Commonwealth halved in the period 1945–1965 to around 25% while trade with the EEC had doubled during the same period. Charles de Gaulle vetoed a British attempt at membership in 1963 and again in 1967...

The Single European Act (SEA), signed by Margaret Thatcher, allowed for the free movement of goods within the European Union area.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom

You could argue that oil in the North Sea had an influence. You could argue that it was the revolution in the car industry. You could argue whatever you wish, but in my mind there is no doubt that the accession to EU was partly responsible for our economic recovery.

 

[Himaginn]

How about some reference to facts to justify your claims? less and less trade, similarity to global standards etc.

If you're not familiar with some of the well-known, basic facts then you're in no position to make informed judgments. Let me google that for you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...eficit-in-goods-with-EU-hits-record-high.html

As for global standards, use common sense.

That's only half the story. That's just exports. It wasn't the energy of UK or competitiveness of UK goods, it was the strength of the pound and the weakness of the euro that influenced the export of goods to EU.
And imports?

You said, "less and less trade" which is incorrect. The rate of growth with EU has been less than the rate of growth with non-EU. But that's not less and less.

The ONS said that exports from the UK to the EU grew on average by 3.6pc from 1999 to 2014, below the 6.5pc rise in exports to non-EU countries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...g-importance-to-UK-trade-in-three-charts.html (I've included the link that you omitted. Is that because it was from a Brexit linked article, whereas the link that you provided was a different article?)

I asked you for your source of information, rather than your simple assertion. You then provided the incorrect link.
I'll ask again, source for similarity between global standards and EU regulations???

 

[Himaginn]

I didn't see the programme, but I don't see why we would reject such an offer out of hand.

Then why leave?

So we can take the sodding Norway offer (for example)! i.e. be part of the common market and the WTO. Of course, I'm not suggesting we take an idenatical Norway deal, but something tailored to suit us. Take a look at the Guernsey model. Then mix and match.

Guernsey acceded to EU as a Crown dependency, as did Gibraltar, etc. The situation is not yet clear how Crown dependencies will be affected.

However, it is not just the UK and the EU that are facing highly uncertain futures. There are various other territories dotted around northern and western Europe that anxiously await the result of Britain's EU referendum on June 23, 2016, including the UK's Crown Dependencies, Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man, and Gibraltar, which is classified for the purposes of international law as a British Overseas Territory.

Largely self-governing, none of these jurisdictions is fully "in" the EU, but they are inextricably tied to Europe through their strong constitutional links with the UK, which looks after their foreign affairs. Guernsey and Jersey, for instance, are part of the EU under the UK's accession treaty,

http://www.lowtax.net/blogs/a-Brexi...-impact-on-the-Crown-Dependencies-573458.html

June 24th 2018! You're not talking sense! Two years after we're out! Whether negotiations are complete or not! 3,000,000 might be affected. This illustrates your poor grasp of the situation.
Negotiations on trade agreements will continue for many, many more years after.

You're not talking sense! Do you think a vote leave would start some kind of 2-year Doomsday counter? Negotiations would be held to arrange the basic principles of Brexit before they even decide if they will hold formal negotiations under the '2 year rule'!

You hope. Why haven't Brexit already started that then? It would be sensible, don't you think?
Two years from when UK declares to EU it wants to leave. That's when the counter starts. Negotiations will need to be completed within the two years, or something else will have to happen. We don't know yet, 'cos it ain't happened before.
This was to demonstrate your ridiculous argument that after referendum everyone would be out-of-work!

 

[Gerrydelasel]

You hope. Why haven't Brexit already started that then?

That makes no sense. Why would our comissioner try to negotiate for an exit before the referendum even takes place? The referendum is the instruction to begin negotiations; you can't pre-empt it.

Two years from when UK declares to EU it wants to leave. That's when the counter starts.

False, as I explained earlier. After preliminary negotiations to leave, which take as long as they need to, the timescale for formal negotiations is decided, and this doesn't have to be under article 50 (2 year rule).

 

[tony1851]

Regardless of this two-year period, and regardless of what Junkers and the rest say, it would be in no-ones's interest that
talks drag on. For the sake of both side, deals would have to be struck sooner rather than later.

 

[JohnD]

Pensioners, Tory voters and men

Just a blip, perhaps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...pensioners-tory-voters-and-men-are-deserting/

I think we can all agree that with age comes wisdom. The older you are, in general, the more knowledge you have gained of how the world works. .... If I have to trust someone's judgement, I choose the wisdom of crowds. I choose age over youth...

... the young who are old enough to vote have been indoctrinated with EU propaganda almost their whole lives (even in school).