If you voted leave, what relationship do you want Britain to have with the EU?(63 Posts)
So first up, this is not supposed to be a leave bashing thread or trying to question why you voted as you did. I (as a remain voter) may not like the result, but I'm trying to respect it.
What I'm trying to grapple with is what happens next. 52% of voters indicated they want to leave the EU, but what is that a mandate for exactly?
- an EEA style arrangement (like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland)
- an EFTA style arrangement (like Switzerland)
- WTO arrangements (like the rest of the world)
- something else (and if so what? (and please something remotely viable, not the Boris Johnson line of full access to the single market without obeying any of the rules we don't like)).
And why is that choice the best option? I'm genuinely curious and trying to understand. Please be kind.
There is not a mandate. Any one of these is on the table
Or something different again.
Personally, I'm for the Norway model but it doesn't solve the free movement of people issue. I didn't vote out for that reason. However, it does present a conundrum.
I believe until the next Tory leader is in place and instigates talks we won't really know.
My gut feel is that it won't follow one of the above strictly. There is, interestingly, a sort of carve out to limit free movement in people in the EEA but I don't think it could be utilised without tweaking.
Moreover, we would still be subject to most legislation.
Or we stand firm whilst we negotiate which could mean WTO tariffs and call Germany's bluff but there is the huge problem of financial services to consider.
The more I think about it, the more I think we are looking at a new solution with compromise on both sides.
I think it will be ok. But uncertainty is the new normal
Ps I voted out. I still would. I must be thick
Thanks for replying. My preference would be the Norway model, but that's probably no surprise given I voted Remain.
But, if the Norway model is the preference (and obviously with just one reply we can't tell), I don't understand why that is a better option than being in the EU? One of the big issues with the EU is its lack of democracy (I'm not blind to that), but if we go with the Norway model, we more or less have to accept the rules without being at the table when they are being made. That seems to go against the grain of the "take back control" and sovereignty arguments for leave (as well as the freedom of movement issue you already mentioned).
So that's why I'm struggling to understand what the leave side want - is it really the WTO option?
P.S. I've struggled to find a way to say I'm sure you're not thick without it sounding patronising. So just for the record, I don't think leave voters are thick and I don't intend that to sound patronising so apologies if it does - it's not my intention. If I thought they were thick I wouldn't go to the bother of trying to understand what they want to happen.
I voted remain but think this is an interesting idea for a thread.
Thanks Detestable - I thought so, but it seems not many others do! :-(
I think it depends on we an wring from the EU. The Poles have asked for the EU to reform, so that we would want not to leave....but if the EU wasn't willing to make the very minor concessions that DC asked for, then it won'r change now.
There was an interesting article in the DT today www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/28/now-the-vote-is-over-lets-move-on-with-six-steps-to-a-bright-fut/ that's worth a read.
But will the Brexit crew accept any free movement of people? BJ said yes yesterday but apparently no today. I'm assuming no means we will be out on our ear with no trade deal and then our main sector - financial services is fucked?
We did well enough in the 50s when we traded with the Empire... If we could do it then, we can surely to goodness do it now. The Commonwealth needs a purpose... Now it has one! Just needs a bit of elbow grease and nous... Bring back the good old days when God was in his heaven and all was right with the world!
Bit more commentary tonight on this.
I think there are more calls on the EU to reform.
So here is a question. If the EU agreed to look to amend some aspects of free movement of people, would that be enough for the people who voted Leave?
I voted Leave for reasons relating to the eroding of constitutional rights and the EU's long term aims. So this would not be enough for me and my ilk.
That is what makes this so fascinating. You can hardly call a referendum for every decision. Yet where we go from here is crucial and will affect the generation to come
scrap EU-mandated labour market regulations and social protections as fast as possible. There is no reason why we should accept European limits on how many hours people do in the office - so long as we have a minimum wage in place, which we do, then it is up to every individual how long a shift he or she wants to put in. Issues such as parental leave can be freely agreed between companies and staff.
From that article.
Which also suggests deregulation and becoming the new Singapore.
Sounds like a super place to be rich and to neither have nor want children.
I agree if you are going to.flounce from EU then we should stop focussing on trade with EU, otherwise what's the point? It's an appalling negotiating position.
Only bit I agree with is allowing immigration to stay roughly the same...but I am not sure the Leave vote would agree.
Small I said it was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with all of it. However, having a military dh, then the working time directive has always been laughable where he's concerned anyway. You do what has to be done until the job is completed, end of.
I don't see why in terms of low taxation, especially corporation tax, we couldn't undercut the rest of the EU. Iirc, there was a move afoot to have a standard rate of corporation tax across the EU so that no-one undercut anyone else which wasn't looking good for either Eire, or Luxembourg,
time.com/4381991/brexit-europe-next-steps/ raised my eyebrows as well, especially point 3.
We did well enough in the 50s when we traded with the Empire... If we could do it then, we can surely to goodness do it now. The Commonwealth needs a purpose... Now it has one!
I'm sure Australia, New Zealand, India, Jamaica etc will be thrilled to hear they finally have a purpose again - like they have been waiting around since the 50s for us to click our fingers so they can ask us how high we want them to jump.
However, having a military dh, then the working time directive has always been laughable where he's concerned anyway. You do what has to be done until the job is completed, end of.
And this is the case for most managers and people in well paying jobs. Working time directives etc are designed to protect the poorer members of society. This is something the EU has done well. The Leave campaign's own economic proposals (such as they were) advocated getting rid of anything that even resembled a worker's right.
It looks like anyone who doesn't want the UK economy to grind to a halt favours the Norway style EEA model. I'd be amazed if we got a deal on immigration. People will just have to accept it. They will also have to accept that the EU is the UK's most important trading partner for very good reasons - the same reasons why we wanted to join in the first place. The 'empire' wasn't sufficient then and it isn't now.
As for the UK charging around the world speedily negotiating deal on amazing deal... I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this is a realistic near term solution. The UK can and will get trade deals. We are still a big economy and other countries will of course make deals with us. But not enough to make up for losing the single market and nowhere near as quickly or on such beneficial terms as Brexit leaders strongly implied (lied). Why? Because:
1. It's hard to do and we are starting from a position of relative weakness. Other countries know that and they know that we know it.
2. We have just made it abundantly clear to the rest of the world that we are not a good partner. We do not like to compromise, particularly not with foreigners.
3. The UK would no longer be a gateway to the single market. We have become a much less desirable trading partner.
4. The political climate is uncertain and probably will be for some time soon. S&P downgraded us partly because the government can no longer be relied upon to make predictably sensible decisions. Are we a safe bet?
5. Further to 4, other countries will be viewing the UK with a certain amount of suspicion at this point. We are unpredictable and make decisions that the rest of the world think are poor. This decision has had an impact on the global economy and countries around the world have been working hard since the results were announced to mitigate the effects on their own economies. We have won ourselves no friends.
mango time to get a bit of optimism back I think.
We are not as poorly placed as you think. The real headache for me is financial services. There are interim measures though. Join EEA as a half way house prior to further exit late on. No one knows yet but you are basing solutions on current models. This hasn't been done before.
I think that comment was probably tongue in cheek, but I'm in Canada and while there was lots of reaction to Brexit (mostly incredulity) our exposure is very limited as only 2.5% of our trade is with the UK, where the EU is our second largest trading partner.
Australia isn't terribly likely to coming rushing to help the UK either it has a fairly strong republican movement after all, and is currently gearing up toward a trade deal with the EU together with NZ. Both currently use the UK as a springboard into the EU, with that relationship gone they may look at other ways to access that market.
Trade with India might increase, but again we've just turned our back on one of our most significant advantages, and there's no particular reason why India should trade preferentially with the UK. The rest of the commonwealth just isn't rich enough to make a huge difference at least in the foreseeable future.
for the avoidance of doubt, I was being tongue in cheek, but my comments are scarily similar to some I've heard!
Flash- I could tell you were being tongue in cheek, but I have heard numerous people say that deadly seriously, so I thought I'd respond anyway.
I kind of love the thought that people are thinking, well we colonised you once so we get first dibs on you forever more.
Flash what an absolute ignorant comment. You want to compare the world today with how it was almost 70 years ago
And the Commonwealth comment? Just a little heads up, you're not the empire you once were! The countries in the Commonwealth should not have to cut of their nose to spite their face just because Britain did.
Oh my sense of humour has departed me
looks at non sleeping 9 month old
We have just made it abundantly clear to the rest of the world that we are not a good partner. We do not like to compromise, particularly not with foreigners.
Interesting point. This is very true.
scary i was just and by that suggestion made by the author not you of course, even though I am aware for lots of people that was always the agenda
at any cost.
There are already many countries with low workers rights who also have low pay. I doubt we'll compete particularly well in that arena.
I do think though the Leavers have to face it, if we have to pay tarrifs to trade eith EU then that is the cost we should accept. Not because I want to be out of EU, but because being half in half out is going to make everyone angry. Better to at least try please the half who wanted out.
Then we can move forwards, try it out, and then assess if it works
I really don't think we need to have a free trade agreement with the EU at all costs. We can just pay the tariffs which are about 2.5%. If we get a reduced tariff all and good but I really don't want to end up with any other restrictions that a relationship with the EU might bring.
I think we should be starting free trade negotiations with the likes of the US, Canada, India, China etc. as soon as possible once article 50 has been set in motion.
Trade barriers aren't just in the form of tarrifs - they include additional paperwork and complexity.
But if you think we can slap a few percent on goods without any severe impacts on trade you are very mistaken.
The cost of that is that we will almost certainly lose most of our financial sector though. The agreements on services are hugely important to us and the reason why London is the financial centre of Europe. Of course losing finance would reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots, but it would come at a very big cost.
ah - so it all comes down to the financial sector and that is why London and the London bubble are so pro-eu while the rest of us poor non-londoners have been thrown to the wolves -
Why should London not still be the financial centre for Europe (we are still in Europe) and just maybe we can stop the lop-sidedness in this country (the haves and have-nots) by expanding in other areas
Working time directives etc are designed to protect the poorer members of society. This is something the EU has done well.
Where do you get that idea from? It might have served Germany et al but it hasn't served us well.
"GDP per head in the poorest UK regions is lower than any region of France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland or Denmark" source
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.