Tory Voting Brexiters, please tell me what you think

[ShintyFartMuscle]

Ok first of all, hands up, I am abroad and so I feel I'm not getting a true picture of the feelings in the UK now, and I have found there are more MNetters with differing views and so I thought it would be good to ask here, and I do so most respectfully.

My question is what is it about the Tories and Teresa May that make you think they will be the best at negotiating Brexit?

From where I am, very,very far away, I know, JC has gone from a rank outsider, despised by half his party and yet he has still gained massive ground, and made people feel some hope in the future. That feels like the kind of person that could negotiate well for a divided nation too.

On the other hand, TM has gone from a stonking position, way ahead in the polls, and lost it, U turns, and well just not looking like she is strong in debate, and not going to be strong in negotiating.

So what would the Tories bring to the table as it were?

I am very surprised to read that EU regulation helped create an environment where science research could thrive. Can you give an example?

Do you mean outside academia? Because in the academic world I think it's entirely accepted that freedom of movement is a good thing that enables cross fertilisation of academic ideas. The universities will be among the biggest early losers from Brexit.

Freedom of movement has also been vital in industry. My employer is a large, multi-national British company with sites around the world. Part of its R&D was moved to Asia a few years ago, specifically because of the difficulty of bringing qualified Asian scientists to the UK (this is a direct consequence of increasingly rigid îmmigration law). However, the main "blue sky" R&D site is still in the UK, largely because it can still recruit PhDs from the EU. We are talking about highly specialised chemists and materials scientists here - not the sort of people you can advertise for in the job centre.

I live near Toulouse, a city with an enormous aerospace industry, much of it based on EU cooperation. We have Airbus, of course (a classic example of inter-country cooperation on an industrial project facilitated by the EU), but also numerous academic establishments and smaller businesses that specialise in the aerospace field and which wouldn't exist on the same scale (or perhaps at all) without the EU.

Unless you live close by or work in one of these fields, you might not be aware of their importance. My employer is based close to Cambridge and I'm familiar with the science park. But I suspect that if you asked a leave voter from the surrounding rural areas, they would be entirely unaware of the existence of these businesses, which are not high-profile even though they are highly valuable in terms of their contribution to the UK economy.

Thanks. Yes, I meant beyond freedom of movement obviating the need for work permits. Maybe there isn't anything else. I just thought that @whatwouldrondo was alluding to something else..

Mmzz It just reflects the way that important issues for the UK economy received no proper attention in the Referendum campaign. Scientist for the EU (and to be clear that is most of the Science community) campaigned hard but are the first to admit that they were presenting evidence based arguments that nobody listened to.

1. This argument about contributions and subsidies misses the point about the wider financial benefits of the EU. It is taking the child's wages (nice emotive metaphor there) to pay for an environment in which they can thrive and can and do earn vastly more. Science is an example.

1. The government have made its priorities for funding very clear, with the focus on short term profit. The Science community is reeling from the impact that will have on cutting edge research which may not have immediate commercial benefit but is driving scientific advances in areas like biotech and medical research.

1. I am not a Scientist but Scientists for the EU (and the vast majority of Scientists are for the EU) have published many papers on the benefits of the EU's research infrastructures, which provide the playing fields for Science to thrive not just int terms of a common regulatory and standards environment but movement of ideas and people within common training and career structures, sharing of knowledge and ideas etc. The research infrastructures that have been established in all the key areas of research are hugely complicated and I won't pretend to fully understand but in the last year I have come to appreciate that this is an important issue. They have also shared research that shows that as a result research carried out within the EU has more value added than that conducted in the rest of the world. To be honest I am in a hot crowded train en route to a meeting so I am not going to root out all the links but this paper which is effectively arguing for post Brexit membership of the European Research Area and its research infrastructure (the Science version of the single market) gives an overview. Of course as it highlights, as with the single market, membership without the influence to shape the research area is not as beneficial as full membership of the EU. That link will lead you to all the rest if you are interested (Mike Galsworthy on their Facebook page highlights lots more relevant information) scientistsforeu.uk/2016/08/science-and-brexit-time-to-be-better-europeans/

1. Perhaps not but it is no coincidence that two areas with strong Libdem support are Cambridge and Oxford. When faced with this crisis in governance all you can do is vote for people to be in parliament who will speak up for your interests.

1. I would certainly argue that other EU leaders are better. Germanys competitive advantage over the UK in global markets e.g. the fact it does more trade with China, and its greater productivity stems from its investment in infrastructure and people, in terms of technical training etc. Democracy does not hold them back. Not sure what your point is about JCs polling, is this the myth that he bought the votes of young people with false promises? In this area the support of young people went to the Libdems who made no such promises. Those that I spoke to were voting not for golden promises but for a change of direction from: increasing inequality, erosion of our NHS and welfare state, the loss of the life and opportunities they thought they had in Europe before the Brexit vote, poor governance, a government that works only for its core voters, an elderly demographic . If Damien Green thinks he can buy them off with action on tuition fees he is falling for the same myth.

What tiny chance to have an entrepreneurial environment outside the EU that we do not have in the EU? I may not be a Scientist but I am a marketer / strategic planner specialising in Asian markets. Entrepreneurs, and countrys, need a competitive advantage to succeed in their markets. In an entire year of debate I have consistently asked Leavers to explain how they propose to build the competitive advantage in global markets to replace those that arise from the many benefits of being in the EU, full membership of the European Research area for Science and the financial passport (which in itself generates far more revenue to the U.K. than the contributions to the EU) to name just two. The silence has been deafening.

By the way apologies to OP for the derail, but I think we are plumbing the issues. How can May be a credible negotiator when she has no coherent plan not just on the Brexit talks but on these detailed issues for important sectors of our economy. Meanwhile the EU has a detailed grip on it all. Michael Berners for instance negotiated with the City on the regulations implemented as a result of the lessons learned from the financial crisis. He knows that brief, on financial services, inside out. May and her Brexiteers, with the exception of Hammond, are not even listening to the City.

Thanks. Yes, I meant beyond freedom of movement obviating the need for work permits. Maybe there isn't anything else.

I gave some examples that were not just about FoM - Airbus, the aerospace industry in Toulouse. You can add biotech and pharma and environmental technologies, all sectors which benefit from the existence of EU structures and regulations, and in which the UK is very active. Probably other sectors too but that would be outside my personal experience.

Ok. stepping back for a minute, the assertion is that the UK government has no plan for what it wants on a sector by sector basis. That's right, isn't it?

But how do you know that? Because there is no published plan?? TM is notorious for being a control freak. She clearly is not a woman of the people with a common touch. Is it possible that she has commissioned such plans but will not share them with parliament and the media becuase she knows that if she does, they'll be seized upon and criticised to the high heavens by those whose first priority to bring down the conservative govt?

Moreover the public does not seem to be willing to try to understand complex issues, preferring to think in sound bites. So, they can be easily led if they ehar somethign over and over enough (including £350m for the NHS).
i am not saying that's true - about TM having plans - only that its possible that she has made such plans but isn't offering them up to be pulled apart by her own country before she even gets to the negotiating table.

But how do you know that? Because there is no published plan?? TM is notorious for being a control freak. She clearly is not a woman of the people with a common touch. Is it possible that she has commissioned such plans but will not share them with parliament and the media becuase she knows that if she does, they'll be seized upon and criticised to the high heavens by those whose first priority to bring down the conservative govt?

DS works in the nuclear industry, in one of the research establishments south of Oxford. I can therefore tell you about Euratom. You say 'No published plan' 'Is it possible that she commissioned such plans?'. The decision to pull out of Euratom came as a bolt from the blue and the senior management sent round a strongly worded statement to all their staff the next day. This does not suggest someone consulting on the needs of the industry. As yet, no justification for pulling out of Euratom has been given - it is not even an EU treaty. This does not suggest a hidden plan. We have a Parliamentary democracy, May should be sharing plans with Parliament. This suggests amateurs making up policy on the hoof. Moreover, the public in Oxfordshire, given the high number of scientists does tend to be well informed and articulate, and would appreciate a proper debate.

Mmzz Exactly, you cannot make effective plans for industry sectors if you do not consult the people working in those sectors and collect detailed evidence to support policy. Whether it is financial services, or logistics, or Science the people working in those sectors are frustrated that they are not being listened to unless they have some good news for the Brexit project. You cannot make effective plans if you only listen to good news. Businesses put a great deal of effort into ensuring that the people at the top get to hear the bad news as well as the good in order to shape their strategic plans.

FOM.... what sort of freedom of movement are you talking about?
The one the UK has/had where anyone could come and settle in the uk and nothing would be ask of them?
Or what you have in other eu countries such as Belgium or Spain who asked

• to prove you are working and have a chance if actually getting a job there
• to prove that if yOU are NOT working, you are actually self sufficient (proof of income)
• all that to be able to stay AND to have access to Heath care etc...

The Leave campaign has created this massive lie about 'immigrants coming form everywhere stealing all we have' and wo adding anything to the economy.
A lie that says that people can't be stopped from coming because of the FoM.
A lie that says that a lot of people are only coming for the benefit system (have you really looked at the benefit system in the uk that most Brits will agree is very hard to live on and then compare it to the one available in other eu countries btw? Because I know where I would go for a good benefit system and it's not the uk)

All that when actually the UK was totally able to solve all the issues that we allegedly have.

Actually I agree Mmzz there is a plan.
But I don't think that's a plan that includes the wellbeing of the country, one that will ensure that people will be able to continue to live well in the uk, wont see the collapse of the economy/research/health etc...

I think her aim is clear. She want to a country with very low taxes and very few regulation on anything. And no immigrants unless she really needs them.
That's my conclusion form her attitude and response to the different crisis since she has been at the home office/PM.
I think she is on the way to succeed. And No deal is better than a bad deal si a wry start for that.

Mistigri

You say The EU haven't decided anything of the sort; there is still, I think, a window in which a soft Brexit (i.e. remaining inside the SM) could be negotiated, although that window is closing

Please show me one quote/link from anyone senior in the EU like Tusk, Juncker, or leader and senior politician of the Eurozone stating that the the UK leaving the EU, can stay in the Single Market, or is negotiable - as before and after our REferendum, I can show the OPPOSITE.

I find it so amazing that no one here seems to listen to the EU statements and threats, so the remainers talk amongst themselves, making up options as they go along.

The 'freedom of movement of citizens' is very important to an EU struggling to create jobs.

Now how many of the UK MPs saying that we should remain in the EU Single Market are willing to both accept, and tell voters, that they are willing to keep open borders with the EU - rather than hide behind vagaries?

If they haven't consulted industry specialists, then it looks very likely that they have no plan worth having, if indeed there is any plan at all. This is classic civil service thinking that seeks to train generalists and disdains expertise. utterly stupid though.

I never meant to imply that the professionals in the Oxford area would not be able to understand or want to contribute to a debate. What i was thinking of was more the way that the media and politicians distill info and end up with a misrepresentation e.g. the Grenfell tower only needed £5k spent on it and the motives for not spending that were x,y, and z. whereas it should be it needed £5k more spent on the cladding and we don't know why the fireproof stuff wasn't used

Ok. stepping back for a minute, the assertion is that the UK government has no plan for what it wants on a sector by sector basis. That's right, isn't it?

But how do you know that? Because there is no published plan??

There are two points to be made here. The first is that the absence of a published plan is a serious issue for business, regardless of whether a plan exists or not. My employer, and I'm sure this is true of all large exporters involved in EU supply chains, has a Brexit committee which is looking at how we can mitigate Brexit risks. These risks btw are not primarily about tariffs, but about non-tariff barriers which would delay or disrupt cross-border movements of materials, finished products and employees. The obvious answer to these issues is the relocate new investment, and possibility existing plants, to the EU.

The second point is that a sector-by-sector plan is a nonsense; the EU will not agree to a cherry-picking approach and even if it were theoretically willing to do so, it is likely that this would fall foul of WTO regulations/ GATT.

Please show me one quote/link from anyone senior in the EU like Tusk, Juncker, or leader and senior politician of the Eurozone stating that the the UK leaving the EU, can stay in the Single Market, or is negotiable - as before and after our REferendum, I can show the OPPOSITE.

The UK can only remain in the single market if it is willing to accept the four freedoms and the oversight of the ECJ. Since it is not prepared to meet these conditions, then it can't.

But I don't believe that any senior EU figure has ever categorically ruled out continued SM membership via an EEA/EFTA type agreement. This would require the consent of other EEA members as well as the agreement of the EU27 but I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible, subject to negotiation of course. The EU might even be prepared to waive the usual requirement that members be part of the Schengen zone ;)

Misti We, or at least I, were talking about sector by sector plans for building / reengineering the U.K. economy with or without Brexit, rather than the cake and eat it plan for negotiating Brexit.

I was too. I really think the EU negotiations are going to be a waste of valuable time. But we need to have detailed plans for turning around the economy or we will be heading for a crash of epic proportions

are you sure it's the Eu that is wasting valuable time?
I'm absolutely not convinced that Brexit is an issue for them. Actually they've said clearly that Brexit is NOT on the top of THEIR agenda. They are busy trying to move the EU towards something new instead.

Wasting time will be an issue for the UK though if it can't get an agreement within the time frame.

No, I'm not saying the EU are wasting valuable time, i'm saying that should the negotiations end up with a deal that is not worth having, then the UK will have wasted the opportunity to do something more constructive with 2017 and 2018.

And i'm saying that i suspect that is exactly what the outcome of the negotiations will be.

I'm curious as to what exactly we should be doing instead of negotiating? The consequences of leaving without a deal are catastrophic. For instance, no UK planes would be able to leave UK airspace. There would be a complete halt to all food/energy imports from the EU, while we set up a new system to check merchandise at the ports. This blog by Richard North, a Leaver, is very good on the details: www.eureferendum.com

Two years are not anywhere near enough to deal with the consequences of falling out of the EU (and having to renegotiate WTO schedules) without a deal.

Look sorry, but I was happy to do this yesterday but I don't have time for this today. I have a business to run.

Missmoon I completely agree, my point was in response to Mmzz that there is not an even infinitesimal chance that they are going to reengineer the economy to be more "entrepreneurial" post Brexit when they have not even planned the Strategy for the negotiations, let alone the fallout from a bad deal. It is a crisis of bad governance.

I could just about get behind a sensible plan for Brexit, with transitional arrangements that gave time for massive infrastructure investment (which of course would mean massive borrowing) to increase productivity and create new competitive advantage for the economy, not that I think it is possible without a massive hit for the next decades but if they cannot get their act together to negotiate they are certainly not up to that scale of economic planning.

Ron, yes, I was replying to MMzz too!

Whatwouldrondo

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to hype up the Labour Party as the party of business and entrepreneurship; the same Labour Party that from 1997 to 2010 lost 2 million tax creating UK Manufacturing jobs, 1 million by 2005 – while concentrating on high taxes and building a fat State with around 1 million new tax funded jobs?

Where was the major infrastructure investments over those 13-years when our National Debt went from £400 billion in 1997 to £1 trillion in 2010 that I missed, or are we going to include Labours £222 billion Private Finance Initiative disaster, stuffing public service budgets with up to 50-years of bad debts, a useful ‘investment’ plan?

Where were Labour’s 2010 Manifesto policies to create the 2.5 million new private sector jobs the Tories created over several years, by LOWERING taxes after Labour had lost around 6% of GDP/output in 2008/9 and god knows how many jobs, rather than Labour continuing in raising taxes to sustain the unsustainable public spending monster they created?

Corbyn and McDonnel, a couple of tired old revolutionaries who hate business/profits, want to take a UK with around £7.2 trillion of National Debt and unfunded pension liabilities of the State and Government workers, and do what, use their ministerial or business expertise to massively grow the UK State – currently needing to earn from the Private Sector around £800 billion a year to pay our bills – and replace it with government borrowing/State control like their hero did in Venezuela ??

Labour has not learned any lessons from pre 1979 or pre 2010, where they think they can massively grow the public sector, while overly taxing the private sector, it failed pre 1979 with the addition of trade union militancy, it failed pre 2010 with massive borrowing funded by higher taxes for all and the tax receipts of a Brown engineered bank credit/lending boom that burst – and as Corbyn and McDonnel want to massively tax the UK back to 1970’s [[http://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/labour-s-manifesto-spending-plans-are-impossible-to-cost levels] and repeal trade union laws, as they create 1 million new government tax funded ‘decent’ paid jobs – those economic illiterates want to COMBINE the worst policies of both their last administrations.

The Tory EU negotiation position has always been to keep as much of what we have through our current EU membership as we can out of the Single market we were told we couldn’t stay in, but they know the EU bureaucrats and 27 other countries have a vote, what people here chose to forget, so who can say what the final details will be, when 2-years of negotiations have just began.

But to say Corbyn and McDonnell who think ‘democracy’ is incitement to mass marching trying to topple governments, and the way for sustainable UK growth is high taxes and huge borrowing when we already pay markets £46 billion a year in ANNUAL interest on our National Debt, is frankly a very bad joke.

Any fool of a politician/government can borrow and spend money we have not got,

Mistigri

Re your “But I don't believe that any senior EU figure has ever categorically ruled out continued SM membership via an EEA/EFTA type agreement”

How about the European Council President “'Hard Brexit' or 'no Brexit' for Britain” – Tusk?

Or

How about EU Chief Executive “No revenge' in Brexit but market access needs migration” J-C Juncker?

Access to a Single Market via any means to a broke and extortionate EU by any vehicle, would cost the UK taxpayer with better things to spend it on, a huge amount of money, which is crazy when they sell more goods to us than we do to them, and so we are likely to get Tariff Free www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/eu-trade-commissioner-says-bloc-will-do-post-brexit-free-trade/Trade anyway.

I reiterate an earlier point, that to an EU floundering around trying to find policies create a lot of jobs when fat bureaucracy and overly strict labour laws rarely do, ‘open borders’ to the UK is a key requirement of theirs, and UK politicians who advocate the UK still has an option of staying in the Single Market without it, should either shut their lying gobs, or be brave enough to STAND on ‘open border’s, rather than continually create dissatisfaction about negotiations.