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?

P.S. Tariff Free Trade link above

The majority of the economic arguments against the EU are not EU issues but Eurozone issues and there is enormous confusion between the two. A lot of comments on this thread reflect that.

Yes there is an obligation for new members to join the euro but in practice countries are not meeting the minimum requirements to do so and are members in limbo with regards to the Euro. The EU obsession to keep the Euro has led to the worst displays of EU behaviour in a desperate attempt to cling on to it.

The principle of the Euro was to enable people to cross borders without having to worry about changing currency and so they were not subject to currency exchange fees. It was also about bringing nations together. What it has become is a vehicle to try and unify systems and perhaps bring in a centralised tax.

The reality is that it's left weaker states unable to devalue their own currency where needed. This has meant it's encouraged some migration patterns and feed youth unemployment. Countries are not coming together closer as a result of the Euro, indeed it's driving the reverse. And most ironically in a cashless society the need for a single currency is less relevant than it was.

If the Euro was to be ditched it would enable a lot of EU problems to be resolved more easily. The idea that the Euro traps countries misses why the UK are finding it hard to find a good way to leave. The EU has plenty of other benefits.

Don't get me wrong the euro is great for people who cross borders a lot. Its just not working for anyone else (including none users like the UK).

Unravel the dislike for the EU and you find most strands led back to the Euro and within that the ideology of the most hardline EU figures.

I think a lack of understanding of this from all sides has polarised positions and entrenched them.

There are many leavers who argue for a reset to EU just being a trade body. I think there are merits to that but some provisions are worth keeping. Unlike the euro. This is not something the UK can force or even argue for outside the EU. On the whole we have good opt outs and the EU has agreed to them rather than insistence that we adhere. We have been listened to. It would have helped us enormously if we had MEP who bothered to fight for the country in a patriotic fashion rather than in one which just is full of contempt for every one other than themselves. The lining of pockets is a particular character trait.

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

I think you have a reading comprehension issue. I said upthread that the EU's stance is that a "soft" Brexit requires accepting the four freedoms, which is precisely what Juncker is saying in the above quote.

Tariffs are not the main issue - non tariff barriers are far more of an issue for most exporters. However, absent a FTA, the EU will have to apply the same tariffs to the UK as to other WTO partners, because of the "most favoured nation" rule (but I have a feeling that you don't have the faintest clue about the rules governing international trade, and even less interest in informing yourself, so I am going to stop wasting my time at this point).

The principle of the Euro was to enable people to cross borders without having to worry about changing currency and so they were not subject to currency exchange fees. It was also about bringing nations together. What it has become is a vehicle to try and unify systems and perhaps bring in a centralised tax

This is really such bollocks that I don't know where to start. The Euro was literally nothing to do with people crossing borders and changing currency; you can be inside the Schengen zone and outside the euro zone.

Apologies for such exasperated posting this morning, but I am so fed up with misinformation from both sides. I actually am starting to think that the UK deserves Brexit and that for the rest of Europe it can't come soon enough.

Fair enough mistrigri. I am well aware that none EU countries have the euro and I wasn't referring at all to Schegen.

As a counter can you enlighten me to the euros creation and the principal behind it.

Do you think it works. My basic problem is around how it means individual countries have no mechanism to devalue if they need to and that a uniform taxation system is probably the only way to fix that. That is something that's is so politically sensitive and controversial because of the idea of soveignity that it's difficult to see it ever being something viable.

I'm genuinely interested.

As for saying the UK deserve Brexit. Cheers for that. How about helping those of us who are incorrect and open to be corrected first though.

Thea No! where did I say any such thing?

My point is that neither Labour or Conservatives, Brexit or no Brexit, are offering any sort of sound economic strategy as a framework for business and entrepreneurship to provide the UK with a competitive advantage in global markets. We are in a crisis of disasterous governance and most business people, entrepreneurs and other people involved in the successful sectors of the economy have their heads in their hands at the sheer incompetence, and failure to listen.

But if you want to go off on a rant about the Labour Party, fine. Just don't pretend it is in response to an argument I did not make. Putting up straw men arguments just makes you look like a shill.

Mistigri

So you are AGREEING with me, that as far as the likes of EU Tusk and Juncker statements go, there is no EU SOFT Brexit option, only an alternative?
.
Which makes a nonsense of all those UK MPs pretending that there was one for the past year now, and STILL trying to throw a spanner in the final deal works.

No, I'm not agreeing with you, because you are simply wrong.

There is a soft Brexit option - the "Norway option" to save from spelling it out again - but the UK has eliminated this option itself because of May's red lines. The EU has not stated that a soft Brexit is impossible; just that it isn't compatible with the UK's stated negotiating objectives. Moreover, not only is no FOM and no ECJ oversight incompatible with a soft Brexit it is also incompatible with any transitional agreement.

With visas we can more easily pick who we want to work and so you can have more asian scientists as discussed above if we want.

In what way is the number of Asian scientists anything to do with the EU?

Non EU immigration is lower than EU immigration.

How is the number of Non-EU migrants the fault of the EU?

I think the basic point boils down to less immigrants, please.

Non EU immigration was higher than EU immigration - despite Theresa May's best efforts to reduce numbers.

If you have a choice of two equally qualified candidates and one can walk into the job after their notice period, but the other has to have a visa application supported costing time and money, which one is the employer likely to go for?

As for the earlier rant about New Labour - it's a poor reflection on the current Government if the best argument that can be put forward is that 'We are Sht, but our predecessors were Sht too.'

If you have a choice of two equally qualified candidates and one can walk into the job after their notice period, but the other has to have a visa application supported costing time and money, which one is the employer likely to go for?

Equally if you are someone who has skills to offer, say an Asian Scientist, and you have a choice of two jobs, one in a country where you fill out a one page document that forms part of a quick and easy process, which is pretty much the process for most developed and developing economies who want to attract the best and have streamlined their processes accordingly, and one that involves filling out a 70 page document that needs vast amounts of information with proofs about where you have lived and travelled etc etc etc etc and that will be subject to continuing delay and challenge, and if you get one small detail slightly wrong you are hit with a rejection and have to start again, in a country that has become notorious for being anti immigrant and already has many people leaving as a result, which country would you go to?

Business was already telling the government that May's policies at the Home office were damaging our economic interests.....

I think we need to know and plan how many people we should let in each year and stick to it so we can plan public infrastructure.

Plan? This smacks of Communism with their five year plans. Oh no, we should let the Market decide, has been the dogma for the past 40 years. We have let the Market decide.

Mistigri

You say "There is a soft Brexit option - the "Norway option" to save from spelling it out again - but the UK has eliminated this option itself because of May's red lines. The EU has not stated that a soft Brexit is impossible; just that it isn't compatible with the UK's stated negotiating objectives."

'Mays red-lines' for the UK to take pressure off our homes shortages and services, or the peoples - how much appetite do YOU think there is for the UK to continued with OPEN borders??

Re 'the Norway option' please correct me if I'm wrong, but they have a population similar to Scotland of 5 million, have quite specialised industries but also have 'freedom of movement' with the EU, but unlike the UK with a broad economy with 65 million citizens, 2-3 million didn't want to go there from 2004 or really now - so in other words, are you Juncker in disguise, offering the SAME on immigration, SIMILAR on contributions, but with a different no Brussels seat label??

The Norway model for an economy/country our size, is a remainer joke, we need a bespoke deal we can only now start to negotiate, mutually beneficial to the EU and us, as they sell more good to us.

Peregrina

Re your “As for the earlier rant about New Labour - it's a poor reflection on the current Government if the best argument that can be put forward is that 'We are Sht, but our predecessors were Sht too.'

I get your point that non EU migration that dipped from 2010 but then rose again so even if ex pats coming home or commonwealth numbers rose, those figures look bad.

But you seriously do not want to compare Labour’s immigration record with the Conservatives, as the non and EU citizen figures, from a jump from 2000, bear the following quotes out – and to my knowledge, in either the 1997 general election, or since, the Labour Party has never sought a mandate for their apparently secret ‘multicultural’ policy – never mind remembering to built enough homes to facilitate it.

• “Labour (from late 2000) threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.”

• “Labour sent out (in 2004) “search parties” for immigrants in a policy which has created a “problem” for British people unable to find work, Lord Mandelson has admitted.”

In early 2004 the UK had 580,000 unemployed 16-24 year olds, which trended higher to 711,000 before the crash, and passing on to the Conservative coalition a still trending higher over 920,000.

Mass immigration, secret or planed, put downward pressure on pay rates and upward pressure on our youths future prospects, when employers had the option of often older better educated EU citizens or those educated here when grades were dumbed down – and the “markets deciding” results spoke for themselves,

Yet now apparently Labour, who commissioned the Browne report to bravely report on education funding AFTER the 2010 election, when the money had well run out, that recommended Tuition Fee increases, speaks for the young.

Mass immigration, secret or planed, put downward pressure on pay rates and upward pressure on our youths future prospects, when employers had the option of often older better educated EU citizens or those educated here when grades were dumbed down – and the “markets deciding” results spoke for themselves"

The problem with this reasoning is that there isn't a fixed number of jobs in the economy. The economy can and does expand following migration, and this creates more jobs for locals. There is tons of research showing that the effect on jobs and wages is generally positive, or insignificant, except for very small negative effects during recessions that affect mainly low skilled previous immigrants. Which is why immigrants tend to have the strongest anti-immigration views. Low-skilled immigration often leads to an upskilling of jobs for locals, as companies become more productive (thanks to the migrants) and can expand and innovate. Unemployment is at record low levels in the UK. Low pay, conditions etc. have little to do with migration. So we are going to destroy our economy for nothing.

The Norway model for an economy/country our size, is a remainer joke, we need a bespoke deal we can only now start to negotiate, mutually beneficial to the EU and us, as they sell more good to us.

The "bespoke deal" is the big joke I'm afraid. We are now over 1 year since the referendum, and 3 months into the 24 month Brexit process, and the government has no agreed strategy (cabinet ministers all briefing in different directions) and has achieved nothing. Even the low-hanging fruit of citizens' rights hasn't been agreed, although it could have been: the government's stated aim was to protect Britons in Europe, and the EU's proposal - made weeks ago - meets this objective. Why not accept it and move on?

It looks more and more like May's strategy is for Brexit to fail. You can't fuck up this badly without it beimg intentional.

You can't fuck up this badly without it beimg intentional.

Oh, I don't know! She messed up the election, calling it in the expectation of getting a landslide and destroying Labour for the next generation. I don't suppose getting a Minority government featured anywhere in her plans - either win comfortably or the fall back position is lose properly and hand the whole sorry mess over.