E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

I've already answered that question: go for EEA membership which allows the UK to stay in the single market while negotiating its own bilateral trade agreements with other nations, and when that takes off, re-assess and exit the EEA if things are looking good. Basically: the Flexcit proposal.

I just find it strange that I keep being told to accept the result by Leavers who then keep asking me what I think the result should mean, but seem very reluctant to tell me what they think that result should mean.

I mean, I've asked three times now: what do you think is the best way forward post referendum?

(You must have had something in mind when you voted Leave?)

 

Stop with the incessant pessimism for one, start trying to look forward instead of constantly looking back. If one believes one will fail, one will fail. The remainers, you and Corky included, sound like bitter kids who've thrown the dummy because they didn't get what they wanted. I'd have a lot more respect for both of you if you invested as much time in looking at ways in which we can positively take the UK forward. Instead we have pages and pages of more doomsaying and worst case scenarios, pouring scorn on anyone who opposes your view or disagrees and generally just turned this into a pretty boring thread.

 

"Stop being pessimistic and look forward" is an attitude, not an objective or plan. Can you be more specific?

 

If you can't work it out for yourself Nexxo, don't expect me to be wasting my time spelling it out for you. For a man of your supposed intelligence I don't doubt you can work it out yourself.

 

Fifth time: what do you think would be the best way forward post referendum? You asked me, and I answered. It is only polite to share with us your view in turn.

 

Will you do what I expect you to do...........

 

That's the attitude one hears from all the Quitters. Nothing about how in blazen's name the UK will deal with the legal and political fall-out of repealing the 1973 European community act on which most of the UK's legislation after that point (over 40 years worth) is based.

Or where the hundreds or thousands of extra negotiators with years of experience negotiating EU and trade agreements will suddenly appear from. Or how a service economy can cut itself off from all the markets it provides services to (in or via the EU), and not destroy itself.

No country has ever left the EU. No one knows whether it's even possible. No one knows whether the UK can survive cutting at its own limbs like that. No one knows whether the UK will stop existing as N-I and Scotland have already indicated that they'll do anything to remain in the EU, possibly joining up with Ireland or some other construction.

Brexit is essentially a suicide club. It will make things better, really. Just pull that trigger and all your worries will be over.

 

Thanks. That sounds like some sort of EFTA-minus-esque unique arrangement, which is what I suspect the UK will end up with. It's obvious that the government doesn't want an WTO arrangement (not even the Brexiteers, otherwise they might as well have pulled the trigger now) but won't feel able to accept an EEA one either.

It is a reasonable objective, but will require a lot of negotiation. I mean, years... Would you accept an interim EEA relationship to tide the UK over? More importantly, would the electorate?

 

Thanks for your concern but I'm sure we'll be just fine outside of the EU! I really am looking forward to more EU member states seeing the light!!

 

Sixth time: what do you think would be the best way forward post referendum? You asked me, and I answered. Disequilibria answered. It is only polite to share with us your view in turn.

 

That's pretty simple we ammend or repeal and replace the act to bind the current EU legislation then repeal or supersede EU law over the years when appropriate. That is a well trodden path already gone over by many countries who have gotten independence, india still has some UK imposed law on the statute books.

People have said a lot of things can't be done.

Yes and yes. However that is unlikely, it would be easier to extend the negotiating time frame of article 50 with unanimous approval from 27 states than drop into the EEA with unanimous approval of them plus norway.

 

This I'd agree with. Especially the point on farming. Farmers getting paid to keep fields empty while people are using foodbanks within the EU and others are starving outside the EU. What the hell is all that about??? Nets full of dead fish and shellfish thrown back into our seas too, all because of quotas. Migration is obviously an issue we need to address too.

One thing that shows to me a serious problem with our EU membership is the very fact that it's going to take years to unravel the mess it has created in our legal system. Those in the UK who were in favour of joining the EEC way back when could never have envisaged what the EEC has become today so I feel it was only right that a referendum be held in this time, here and now.

 

I don't think that you can repeal the 1972 ECA before all the associated laws have been rewritten. The way that many laws have been formulated they just casually refer to EU laws and statutes; as such just copy-pasting legislation across into a British legal framework won't work. Basically the UK would, as you say, have to gradually rewrite those laws and phase out the 1972 ECA over the next decade.

Would be, but that depends on the goodwill of the EU 27. I don't think that there will be deliberate sabotage, but I don't think that it will be a quick process either.

 

I think that you're trying to connect a bunch of things that are not connected.

Those quotas are internationally determined (for obvious reasons) and nothing to do with the EU.

How? Points based system doesn't work (non-EU immigration is even higher than EU immigration and less highly skilled). The only way that the UK could reduce immigration is for its economy to reduce its dependency on an immigrant workforce.

Tut tut, no negativity. Disequilibria and I have already worked out how it can be done.

 

This is something I think the UK should have been doing many years ago. Even as far back as when I left school way back in 1989. The government had scrapped apprenticeships and replaced them with Youth Training Schemes. These were the perfect excuse for employers to take advantage of young workers, provide lacklustre training and a pittance of a wage (£30 per week, rising to £35 when you were 17). We have a serious skills shortage in industry, healthcare and other sectors, all because it was easier and cheaper to import talent. Talk about short sighted!!

Me being backward looking and negative there, must be contagious!!

On a more positive and forward looking note, I am hoping Brexit will take this into account and address the issue with some vigor! We need to see skills within our domestic workforce being developed and nurtured.

 

That would require addressing the economy as a whole. Switzerland does relatively well because it has a strong financial services sector and a strong high-tech manufacturing sector. The UK has a strong financial services sector in London City, but its manufacturing is left wanting --and what it has is owned by foreign companies.

Basically the government would have to invest in strong infrastructure development and use that as a vehicle for apprenticeships and specialist manufacturing skills building. Would take a decade to start taking effect though.

I don't see that happening because all that could have been done within the EU, if the electorate had demanded it. But it didn't (and doesn't), because it doesn't really understand what the problems are.

 

I don't think it would have had a hope in hell fire of happening with the UK remaining in the EU.

 

We still don't. Because the electorate simply doesn't understand what is wrong with the UK economy and what to demand from the government to address it. The electorate now thinks it's all going to be OK because Brexit, like it's some magic spell.

But it's not. Brexit in itself doesn't change a thing. You have to know what the alternatives are, which ones would be best to pursue, and how. Which is why I keep asking what you think is the best way forward. What immigration policy instead? What economic policy instead? What agricultural and fisheries policies instead?

 

Sorry but if someone grabs the wheel of the car and crashes it because they didn't agree with the route the driver was taking and then asks everyone how we're going to get to our destination you can't really blame people for being a little peeved when the person who crashed the car doesn't have a clue what to do next.

As the saying goes if you break it you own it, unfortunately there seems to be little ownership of the problem by the people who broke it, instead it seems they want to point the finger of blame at the people who told them not to break things, they want everyone else to fix things for them.

It's like telling someone they're scaremongering for telling you not to play in the road and then when you get run over expecting them to make you better.

 

So what are you going to do then, sit in a corner and sulk, waiting for the opportunity to be vindicated or try and deal with the present and start looking to the future? Your choice.