If we just cancelled Brexit....

[GraceGrape]

...do you think there would really be that much fuss?

I posted on the id card thread that it would be much less hassle if we could just cancel Brexit. It got me wishful thinking that this could actually be possible!

Even the most ardent leavers are starting to downplay its likelihood of success. Key figures like Gisela Stuart have admitted it's all been handled disastrously. The economy is starting to look a bit shit before we've even left. According to the pro- leave camp, we all apparently knew there would be a recession but it would still be "worth it" if you're independently wealthy like Garage, IDS or Bojo maybe.

Anyway, I think it would be typically British if we just harrumphed a bit and said "Well, maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all. The referendum was only advisory y'know."

As a nation, we don't tend to like big changes so I think a lot of people would be secretly relieved. There might be a bit of grumbling, and maybe Farage would leave the country in disgust as an added bonus. We could then sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened, as the Brits tend to do with some of the more unsavoury parts of our history anyway. It would also save us the humiliation of seeing David Davis try to do any more negotiating.

David Davis has got a fecking nerve.

I fear, ultimately, it will come down to some variant of "foreigners". Foreigners here, or foreigners there. Just foreigners

I'm not even sure if it's a foreigners issue it will be for some. I think the problem a lot of Leavers have with FOM is they feel there are already too many people here.

Not enough houses, not enough NHS provision, schools are over crowded etc etc. I think they just worry about the UKs resources being stretched too thin by extra people coming here.

Of course the issue is Leavers fail to see that most immigrants are the UKs resources. They come here to do a job and we need them.

Maybe I'm being too charitable. But I think a lot of Leavers are simply worried about more people coming. They aren't necessarily that interested in who those people are.

In many cases it's a totally irrational worry. My MIL (who actually voted Remain) goes on and on and on about immigrants. How much does it affect her? Not at all. Things like not being able to get GP appointments haven't affected her surgery. It has affected DS's. Why? GPs retiring and not being able to replace them, that's why.

But anyone would think that the UK had no part in making EU laws

^This!! The long-standing narrative that the UK has been bossed around by the EU did a lot of damage to the Remain campaign. A lot of Leavers seem to have no idea of how the EU works and what we have achieved. We had such a strong position as one of the earlier members but all we seem to hear is that we were hard done by.

But anyone would think that the UK had no part in making EU laws

Yes, exactly.

What worries me more are the laws (or lack of) that will replace them.

Workers rights, human rights, health and safety...

Leaving the Tories in charge of those, is frightening.

Some examples of leave around here. My parents (happen to be Daily Fail readers) voted to leave because of wanting to close borders.

Our neighbours voted to leave as they felt their children couldn't get jobs because of immigrants.

A mum up at the school said she voted leave because there's too many polish kids in the classes.

I know that's only 3 examples. But, still. Gives you a small idea of how some voted. They won't have been the only ones with those reasons.

More good news in the times (sorry, paywall)

Basically page 7 devoted to news about how the French are planning to exploit Brexit, including the Paris council planning to open bilingual schools. Probably most interesting is that French farmers want a hard border in Ireland to protect them from cheap imports. They also "would not be upset" about customs delays at Calais for incoming goods. These are the same farmers who the likes of Farage and Johnson assured us would "insist" on the EU giving us a good deal.

Just a reminder that we can at present travel to countries outwith the EU (and vice versa for people from other countries) and that after Brexit we will still be able to do so and to travel to EU countries. We will not be "closing the borders", and neither will we be like North Korea.

While it's true that we won't be literally closing the borders, lots of countries that are popular destinations for the British (Egypt, Turkey, the US, Australia to name but a few) require visas or visa equivalents for entry. If a UK citizen wants to visit for longer than a month in some cases, then most countries outside the EU require visas. It gets tricky to visit especially if you want to keep your options open.

No one is pretending that it will be impossible for British citizens to visit France or Latvia after Brexit, just that it is likely that it will be more complicated and, for people who own holiday homes in an EU country, harder to spend significant time there.

Leaving EURATOM (not even part of the EU) to stop movement of scientists. Utterly batshit. But, presumably, Leavers voted for this, as they say, with full foreknowledge.

Agreed lala but that's hardly North Korea territory is it?

Sometimes people exaggerate for effect. We may not be North Korea but nor, I would counter, is imposing restrictions on who and what can come in turning the UK into a global-trading and outward-facing nation, as many senior politicians and their supporters claim.

Elements - if the intention of withdrawing from Euratom is to stop scientists migrating, then we are absolutely doomed. Batshit doesn't even begin to cover it.

Perhaps some more knowledgeable posters could enlighten me here:

What is the big problem with the ECJ having jurisdiction over any future deal with the EU, or indeed with the UK staying in the Single Market? If their power would lie only in ensuring that UK (along with other EU countries) was conforming to the rules of that market what's the threat to sovereignty here? Or does the ECJ have wider powers than that?

If we think that the UK will benefit economically from being outside the Single Market then that's a separate issue but I don't see why the ECJ has to be such a contentious issue in itself, if its powers are limited.

Given that Macron has started making serious noises about changes to FOM (and of course we could enforce existing restrictions) it seems that a good deal is potentially there for UK - like Norway we could have control of fisheries and agriculture and pay less to EU funds.

Such a compromise wouldn't please everyone of course (compromises never do!!) but it seems to be potentially something most of us could live with.

Just a reminder that we can at present travel to countries outwith the EU (and vice versa for people from other countries) and that after Brexit we will still be able to do so and to travel to EU countries.

Of course we will. They will be overjoyed to allow us to spend our money in their country.

But to work, or live ? Just look at how hard it is to get a US work visa, let alone temporary residence.

That said, exceptional talents will always be welcome and offered citizenship.

I remember the 1970s for the "brain drain".

Just a reminder that we can at present travel to countries outwith the EU (and vice versa for people from other countries) and that after Brexit we will still be able to do so and to travel to EU countries.

Yes, but how many people work in global, or at least pan-European businesses? I've worked in several, and it's been easy to do work in other offices in the EU, because a visa is not required. Once we leave, that may no longer apply, and as a result, those businesses will (in fact they are already) looking at people with EU passports for those roles, or simply pulling their offices out of the UK. There are several banks already expanding their European offices, and Euro clearing will eventually leave London, making the City just another financial backwater.

Once we leave, that may no longer apply, and as a result, those businesses will (in fact they are already) looking at people with EU passports for those role

Already happening. Not just in the UK/EU. My DB works in the US, and his organisation (which is heavily involved in medical research) has started to prefer applications from UK citizens who have another EU citizenship.

What is the big problem with the ECJ having jurisdiction over any future deal with the EU, or indeed with the UK staying in the Single Market?

I'm not sure but I'll make one observation. When the UK has its bilateral trade deals with the US, China, and India, when there's a dispute it will not be handled by the English High Court. It may well need some kind of trade commission having non-UK members. In other word, these trade deals will necessarily involve a hole in UK sovereignty.

US courts will be OK because they are part of the 'Anglosphere'. Indian? Perhaps - Commonwealth. Chinese - well they have more clout than the UK.

I'm not sure that there is a problem with the ECJ, but as it enforces the laws decided by the EU it has come to embody all that is anti-British and anti-sovereign. It's now become a matter of faith that no Brexit deal could include jurisdiction by the ECJ even though, as others have pointed out, these mythical future trading relationships will have to be overseen by some third party or other.

That's the essence of the thing. It's not really about how the UK can get the best trade deal, and it's not about whether the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court might actually be less sympathetic to the UK than the ECJ.

It's that in the mind of many the EU is against dear old Blighty and will continually scheme against us until we leave.

The WTO has a dispute resolution body. I think this has overseen past disputes between eg the EU and the US over steel tariffs.

Currently reading 'How Corrupt is Britain?. Just started it and something in the introduction has struck me...
'In a series of key economic experiments, new market rules and politica settlements, and the launch of huge public privatisations, have occured in the midst of emergencies and conflict situations. Naomi Klein's concusion is that the orchesration of 'disaster capitalism' is profoundly undemocratic......In those contexts we generally find the protafonists of economic reform railing against the 'inefficiency of 'coruption' of the system which must be eradicated to pave the way for 'democratic' or 'market' reforms....

I think this sums up Brexit in a nutshell.....
Lets blame the EU for being undemocratic and in the ensuing chaos we can ensure we line our pockets whilst helping our mates line theirs and privatise what little is left of the public sector.... and make sure trading reforms favour a neoliberalist vision of a non-welfare state in almost any form.

It's a bit like selling the Singapore myth. We can't be like Singapore because we have never been like Singapore in any of it's evolutionary stages......but we will sell you the myth so you belive that nirvana is over the hill....

The trends in this Survation poll are interesting, have to see if this shift is confirmed in other polls.

survation.com/conservative-party-voting-intention-steadies-public-mood-continues-shift-soft-brexit/

No shit sherlock