Any Brexiters who have changed your minds....?

[onlyconnect]

If you voted Brexit but would now like to remain, could you call loudly for a second referendum please?
I'm a remainer and see the obvious problems with remainers asking for a second referendum but if former Brexiters were to ask, it would have legitimacy surely.

BorisBoggtrotter - "Furthermore they didn't understand about MFN status in EU trade deals, they made a comment about the "extra cost of transporting cars" to the continent, without realizing the technical economies of scale brought by containerisation. "

Right, so cars are transported in containers? What an amazing grasp of the technical details of shipping you have. :-)

To help you, here is a picture of a PCC (Pure Car Carrier) which is the type of ship used to transport cars. Do you see any containers?

www.nissancarrier.co.jp/en/ship_01.html

I don't want to be part of an organisation that decides so many important things about our country without listening to us or allowing us options.

I think it's completely understandable not to want to be part of an organisation that decides important things without listening.

But membership of the EU has conferred huge trade and peace benefits. Ok we agreed to delegate some rules regarding good, agriculture, environment in return for trade. However they aren't the most important things- the U.K. govt always retained complete autonomy over the vast majority of matters, health, elderly care, benefits,housing ,pensions, education, policing, crime, defence , fiscal policy etc.etc.

Other EU countries have no more say over us than we have over them.

We have been one of the leaders in the EU and therefore having a say in food , environment etc in Germany and in France. It's reciprocal but only in limited sunburnt areas. We can't dictate French inheritance law any more than they could specify ours.

The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999
Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

Subject areas not sunburnt areas!

Oh - here's a picture of another PCC having disgorged it's cargo of cars. What did they do with the containers? Stack them out of picture? Throw them over the side into the sea? :-)

www.cmport.com/news-and-media/newsletters/201504/hawaiin-highway-sv

But @OutsideInTheGarden , stuff doesn't get in without the right paperwork. This isn't "Dunkirk" and the little ships.
And if we have No Deal we have to start from scratch with getting the paperwork in place. For everything in the load. Even if we do it electronically, it still means delay. And one delay has a knock on affect to our Just In Time food supply network.
Ever been ina traffic jam? It's like that.

Containerization was used as a shorthand term for mass shipping, your point about the "extra cost" was nonsensical because it ignores the economies of scale. I would have used RoRo but it might have escaped you what it meant.

Do try harder.

I imagine you are furiously googling right now.

What was the Early Learning Center like as an Alma Mater?

lonelyplanetmumm - "The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999
Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%."

No. The important thing with these votes is not the times you are on the winning side. Many of these votes were on matters of little import and hence the UK (particularly under Bliar) went with the flow. The thing to look at is votes where the UK was vehemently opposed to the motion. On these occasions the UK lost much more often (it could be claimed every time).

A clearer picture is given when you look at figures for a longer period:

In short, the official voting records of the EU Council suggest that there has been a significant shift in the positions on the UK in the Council between 2004-09 and 2009-15. In the latter period the UK government has voted more often against the majority, and is hence now on the losing side more often than any other EU government. There is some variance across policy area, the UK has some powerful allies, and Germany also often votes against the winning majority. Nevertheless, on average, these data suggest that the UK government has often had to accept policy outcomes from the EU for which it did not vote.
You also must understand that most decisions are agreed by “consensus”, meaning that member state representatives work together to seek an agreement that most countries will be able to support. As a result, most votes are recorded with either no or only few countries abstaining or opposing legislation. Quite often unless a country feels extremely strongly about an issue there's no point in voting against when it's clear you are in a minority and won't win a QMV. Most likely this is done for reasons of domestic consumption (i.e. not to lose face in front of your euro-sceptic population at home - "look how we are always on the winning side, isn't the EU great?" whilst serving up a shit-sandwich to your country).

"The thing to look at is votes where the UK was vehemently opposed to the motion. On these occasions the UK lost much more often (it could be claimed every time)."

Can you name them?

BTW between 2009 and 2015 the UK was more likely to vote against minor items because it had a government that was seeking to appease its Eurosceptic wing.

Still no economic arguments for brexit, or corrections of your misuse of data, or corrections of your misunderstanding of trade agreements.

BorisBogtrotter - "Containerization was used as a shorthand term for mass shipping, your point about the "extra cost" was nonsensical because it ignores the economies of scale. I would have used RoRo but it might have escaped you what it meant. "

I love it when people resort to insults, it means they've lost the argument. I've had people pick me up on my spelling on here because they can't win the debate.

Anyway - you've entirely missed the point about the Japanese car plants. Why would Japan set up factories in the UK which export 80% of their production to the EU27 merely based upon the UK being in the EU? It is not so simple a decision as "oh the UK has unfettered EU27 access so we'll build there" because, guess what? The EU27 has unfettered EU access so why the hell would you base an 80% EU27 export car factory in the UK when all you are doing is

1. adding extra sea transport costs (and yes of course large ships make this cheaper (but not as cheap as not shipping the cars at all)

2. adding additional exchange-rate risk to the equation.

From the grasp of economics displayed by Remainers on here, all the UK Japanese car makers in the UK should never have been here in the first place. The fact that they are (and have recently invested another few billion in the UK) suggests that the play-school economics trotted out by Remainers is well off the mark.

Why the hell indeed @OutsideInTheGarden . Maybe they didn't think we'd be so stupid as to leave.

BorisBogtrotter - "Still no economic arguments for brexit, or corrections of your misuse of data, or corrections of your misunderstanding of trade agreements."

Give me time, I've got a full-time job to do on top of posting on random internet fora. Hold on, I've got an email from President Putin to read, back in a mo......

BorisBogtrotter - "BTW between 2009 and 2015 the UK was more likely to vote against minor items because it had a government that was seeking to appease its Eurosceptic wing."

That's entirely plausible. It does show that you can't infer too much from these voting records so the 97% on the winning side argument doesn't mean a lot either.

If you’re going to directly quote text it’s usually a good idea to quote your source:

ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does-the-uk-win-or-lose-in-the-council-of-ministers/

And the final paras:

Finally, for a fuller picture of the success or marginalisation of the UK in EU decision-making this evidence needs to be put together with other types of evidence, such as the actual bargaining over policy outcomes (which was addressed in the first post), and votes and bargaining in the other main legislative body in the EU: the European Parliament (which will be addressed in future posts).

For example, UK opposition in the Council might not be too costly if the UK MEPs won concessions or were on the winning side when the legislation was amended in the European Parliament. In addition, the UK government can also seek to influence politics in the European Council – where Heads of States and Governments meet – and through its representatives in the European Commission.

There was a Guardian (I think) article about the Nissan plant in Sunderland. It was there rather than in mainland EU partly due to the government practically giving the land and some buildings as a form of regeneration of the area. Being in the EU, having a port and having a skilled but 'redundant' workforce (following the collapse of other industry in the area) made it ideal.
The fact that a significant number of the workers voted to leave which risks being made redundant is peculiar to say the least. The persuasive power of the red bus and a failure of critical thinking.

*My DH votes remain but would now vote leave. He feels the EU is being dictatorial and totally intransigent.

I totally disagree so we just don’t talk about it. *

This is the situation in my house. In fact my "d"h has gone so far as to say he thinks a "no deal" would be the best result.

Apparently all the potential "problems" are made up. Ireland? There is no problem. It is easy to put in a soft border between NI and Ireland, he has no idea what all the fuss is about. Economic crisis? Well, it didn't happen after the vote, so why would it happen after Brexit itself? Problems at the ports and with customs and duties and imports? It is ridiculous, we would default to WTO rules and life would go on exactly as normal. It is all lies told by people who don't want Brexit. And lefties.

I don't recognise the man I married any more.

bellinisurge - "But @OutsideInTheGarden , stuff doesn't get in without the right paperwork. This isn't "Dunkirk" and the little ships.
And if we have No Deal we have to start from scratch with getting the paperwork in place. For everything in the load. Even if we do it electronically, it still means delay. "

Well Southampton manages to clear non-EU imports in an average of six seconds. Even a crispy lettuce won't go limp in that time.

Besides, the French PM has been saying recently that they are pulling out all the stops to ensure that even in the event of no deal the Dover-Calais crossing will be pretty much an open door.

Buteo - my last paragraph did mention the aspect of consensus and the fact that many proposals don't ever get to a vote and even if they do, you can't infer that a country supports it even if they vote for it.

I'll happily include sources in my posts, though it does make for longer posts.

1tisILeClerc - and you think that EU27 Governments don't give sweeteners to foreign companies to invest in their countries? I think you'll find that the French and Germans are past-masters at this. I seem to recall Boeing has had a bit of a spat with Airbus about these illegal state subsidies.

In terms of explaining the presence of Japanese car plant in the UK - nice try, but no cigar.

Oakmaiden - your husband sounds like a sensible man. Apart from initially voting Remain but I can forgive him for that now that he has come round.

Because they have the right paperwork. Which they have to redo if we leave with No Deal. It isn't a seamless jump from one to the other unless all parties agree. We have made deals with third countries as members of the EU. Once we stop being members of the EU our status changes and any deals we made as members of the EU will not be valid.
Not saying with good will it can't be sorted. Am saying it isn't seamless. As you seem to think it is.

"I love it when people resort to insults, it means they've lost the argument."

Then you lost the argument in one of your first posts, in fact all of your posts are adversarial.

" Why would Japan set up factories in the UK which export 80% of their production to the EU27 merely based upon the UK being in the EU?"]

Because they were offered other incentives to be here, but they wouldn't have done soley for the UK market. The Japanese themselves have stated that the EU market was the driving factor for setting up here, and its why they are worried about issues with customs.

The Japanese car markers are here because of the access to the single market, both for JIT components and for the export of final products. The JIT components element mean that they don't need to have built extra factories in the UK with large capital outlay, or vast storage areas.

This is especially important when you consider the Nissan-Renault partnership.

BTW people are worried about Japanese car firms because the Japanese car firms have made it clear that single market access is very important, as did the SSMT prior to the vote.

Shipping from further afield than Calais or other French ports has a 'luxury' of being at sea for several days at least so with sealed containers, trusted traders and other ploys, paperwork can be done largely 'in transit'. Dover/Calais is too short a time, the goods are more diverse (can be from anywhere in Europe , not just EU countries) and security is more difficult. Dover/Calais, EU originating trucks are random/intelligence checked, a pretty small percentage. Goods from Europe but outside the EU are 100 percent checked.
The malarkey with the M20 is all about the difference in checking as it is done now, to having to have 100% checked, around 8,000 vehicles a day. They all have to be opened and inspected.

"Well Southampton manages to clear non-EU imports in an average of six seconds. Even a crispy lettuce won't go limp in that time."

Southampton is a major port for non -Eu imporst That's the ones they currently have, it doesn't mean that they will be able to process all of the EU imports if they have to follow rules of origin and checks on this, 53% of imports come from the EU.

Most of the industry experts disagree with you btw.

"I seem to recall Boeing has had a bit of a spat with Airbus about these illegal state subsidies. "

In which Boeing didn't have a leg to stand on, it is massively subsidised to the tune of $64 billion in state loans and loan guarantees.