comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
8bit

I don’t follow.

We have established that FOM and immigration have been overall beneficial (IMO fundamental) to the success of economy/country.

The assurances given to Nissan demonstrate the UK will (thankfully) negotiate remaining in the SM and customs union. Therefore staying under the jurisdiction of the CJEU, (EU Court).

The UK will still have to comply with EU regulations, (conformity of goods and services etc).

The EU are not going to abandon FOM.

The UK basically want the same trading relationship pre-Brexit but at an increased cost. I am unsure how this is ‘taking back control’?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody knows what our relationship will be we haven't even started negotiations, there's no point speculating on things that might never happen. Just because immigration has a net positive economic benefit that doesn't make freedom of movement the best possible system or the only option. We've had a financial crisis followed by austerity and cuts, have a massive debt and deficit that keeps getting bigger, that's not my idea of a successful economy.

Why do so many people have a problem with 'speculating', how else do you plan for the future? It's a weird non-argument.

Speculating is fine, WWSPD made the point about taking back control. We don't know what deal we'll get. some people want to create worst case scenarios just so they can moan

8bit

The 2008 global financial crisis, and subsequent austerity cuts had nothing to do with the UK’s relationship with the EU.

In regard to Brexit negotiations, I am aware they have not started (and won’t until 2019). However the UK government have informed Nissan (in writing) of their intentions. While I agree it’s not known if this will be the end result, however it gives us an idea what the government are working towards.

It appears you are stating that even though FOM has been positive for the country, we should now seek to curtail anyway.

What benefits do you see this providing? And do you think any benefits will mitigate/outweigh the damage?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Canada negotiated a tariff free trade deal with the EU, no reason why we can't do the same. There are pros and cons to leaving and staying. there will be a lot of political games being played between us and the EU, once we start negotiating we'll have a better idea.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

8bit

Ceta is completely different as Canada will not have full access to European markets nor the SM. For the same reason they won’t pay into the EU budget.

Fundamentally (unlike the UK) because the Canadian economy is not reliant on EU membership/trade.

8bit

Forgot to mention that free trade is exactly what the UK gov appears to want. A ‘Ceta-esq’ deal would not cater for financial services. Which makes up the vast majority of the UK economy.

comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 24 minutes ago
Canada negotiated a tariff free trade deal with the EU, no reason why we can't do the same. There are pros and cons to leaving and staying. there will be a lot of political games being played between us and the EU, once we start negotiating we'll have a better idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it only took 7 years of negotiations and was almost scuppered by a single regional government in Belgium.
https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/10/24/five-facts-about-belgiums-walloons-and-the-canada-eu-free-trade-deal.html

I can see a similar thing happening when we try to negotiate our trade agreements with EU.

sᴉɥƃuǝlפ

I think it’s been accepted (both in the UK and EU) that prolonged negotiations are going to be inevitable. Although Liam Fox seemed to think the UK could broker Brexit, and at the same time, set up new trading provisions

Although the UK does have regulatory equivalence with the EU, (unlike Canada) which will help. That said, Ceta was a reciprocated/goodwill trade agreement. The EU did not want Brexit. And they will do everything possible to deter other members from leaving.

Brexit goes to the High Court.

Ruling due today........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37855207

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Whatever the decision, it will be appealed through the supreme Court.

Whilst I feel the ref result should be respected, the government's position, (citing the Royal prerogative -not consulting Parliament ) given the implications/severity of Brexit, does seem a little frivolous.

Brexit challenge has been upheld by the High Court.

Massive blow to the gov.

"Parliament alone has the power to trigger article 50"

This is going to take years and years, and cost an absolute fortune. Lawyers win again.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Anyone thinking this will make a difference to the outcome is being very naive.

MPs aren't going to vote against their constituencies - it would be political suicide.

A waste of parliaments time, and tax payers money, to arrive at the inevitable result.

What a farce this country is.

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
"Parliament alone has the power to trigger article 50"

This is going to take years and years, and cost an absolute fortune. Lawyers win again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand a hearing has been scheduled in the Supreme Court for December – as neither side was expected to accept todays result.

Dependent on the Supreme Court’s decision, the case can (ironically) be referred to the CJEU.

It's a farce really.

When it inevitably goes to vote, May will make it a whipped vote and the Tory majority will push it through, with the backing of all those other non-Tory MPs who voted to leave, and those MPs in 'leave' constituencies who will vote out of self-interest if they want a political future.

This is simply about insignificant little MPs needing their egos massaged.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The Lambeau Leap

This is not solely about leaving the EU, or not. It means the terms of severance have to go before parliament.

Basically those who wanted to restore parliamentary sovereignty by leaving the EU, will not be able to deny parliament a vote on EU separation.

I get that to an extent WWSPD, but there's no denying it's also about MPs needing their tummy tickled.

The decision to leave won't change, and the EU aren't going to give us favourable terms just because our MPs stand up in Parliament and say 'we'd like Brexit to look like this...'