Your flavour of Brexit

[Tommygilf]

One of the biggest arguments seem to be about free movement within the EU. I think the first summer that we are withdrawn from the Schengen agreement, and UK Nationals will need a visa to go to Mallorca, Benidorm, Algarve, or France for a game against Catalans, then there will be some disagreement

Correction: the UK has never been in the schengen agreement. Schengen is an addition to the principle of free movement whereby passports aren't required to pass between national borders.

The only similar arrangement the UK has is with the Republic of Ireland "Free Travel Area" dating back to 1921.

[Tommygilf]

We aren't even in Schengen. One of the many carve-outs we have already secured down the years, but which were never enough for the headbangers.

The "headbangers" in the ROI also have an optout over Schengen as large island nations it was judged to make sense to require passports for entry into the country.

[Just Browny]

The "headbangers" in the ROI also have an optout over Schengen as large island nations it was judged to make sense to require passports for entry into the country.

 

Nope, they are not in it because you couldn't maintain a free travel area with another country not in Schengen - it would effectively put us inside the Schengen Zone if they were.

 

So when we decided we weren't joining, we effectively brought the ROI with us. They don't have an opt-out on other JHA measures like we do.

 

By the way I have no problem with us not being in Schengen. It's just another example of a case where we had already won an opt-out but apparently it wasn't enough to get over the nonsense about the EU inflicting everything on us. Just as we aren't part of the Euro or Frontex.

[Tommygilf]

Nope, they are not in it because you couldn't maintain a free travel area with another country not in Schengen - it would effectively put us inside the Schengen Zone if they were.

So when we decided we weren't joining, we effectively brought the ROI with us. They don't have an opt-out on other JHA measures like we do.

By the way I have no problem with us not being in Schengen. It's just another example of a case where we had already won an opt-out but apparently it wasn't enough to get over the nonsense about the EU inflicting everything on us. Just as we aren't part of the Euro or Frontex.

I appreciate your view, however I would highlight the case of Greece as a nation within Schengen yet bordering no other EU nation (save for Bulgaria who currently are not taking up schengen).

For me the idea that we have to celebrate a "win" by getting an opt out of schegen and the euro etc. suggests that we are being restrained. Alternatively, the idea that these two key EU concepts, common currency and passport free travel, are not currently part of the the UKs membership would suggest that historically UK elected governments (of both colours) have not wanted to go down the path of ever-closer union and have been leaning away from this since the word go.

[Just Browny]

I appreciate your view, however I would highlight the case of Greece as a nation within Schengen yet bordering no other EU nation (save for Bulgaria who currently are not taking up schengen).

For me the idea that we have to celebrate a "win" by getting an opt out of schegen and the euro etc. suggests that we are being restrained. Alternatively, the idea that these two key EU concepts, common currency and passport free travel, are not currently part of the the UKs membership would suggest that historically UK elected governments (of both colours) have not wanted to go down the path of ever-closer union and have been leaning away from this since the word go.

 

Thanks for appreciating my view but it is not a view: it is basic fact. If Ireland was part of Schengen and shared a Schengen-esque agreement with the UK, the UK would, de facto, be part of the Schengen area because you wouldn't need to pass any passport controls to get there. Greece has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by being restrained but I agree with most of the rest. It is not as if we were enthusiastically signing up to full-speed European integration before the idea of a referendum came into being. We have been slowly moulding our own participation in the EU for years and that has served us extremely well.

[ckn]

Couldn't really vote for any of your options as they only focus on 2 points, free movement and free market access.

 

For me its about striking a compromise between 4 key elements;

1 - The amount of financial contributions we make into the EU

2 - The level of political influence we allow the EU to have over the UK (whether they can impose directives on us)

3 - Free movement (and the ability to control it I some way) 

4 - Single market access (including how much we pay for it)

 

For me the priority would be points 1 and 2.

I'd want to see significantly lower contributions into the EU coffers as I don't agree with using British taxes to support other EU countries economies. 

Also high on my priority would be the ability to not have any sort of directives imposed on us that we don't want or that are not in the interests of the country (though I would be happy to accept some trade directives in return for full market access).

The ability to have some control over free movement would be nice or at least the ability to be able to discourage free movement by preventing access to our benefits system to those who don't really contribute to the UK economy until they've actually contributed into the system (the unskilled, low paid)

Similarly with the single market, keeping full access would be nice but not at any cost. If the EU ends up demanding more than we pay now then I'd be happy to walk away, but in return it would give us full control over items 1, 2 & 3.

 

Striking a reasonable balance between these 4 items is what I'd be looking for the government to achieve. I don't think we should be going into the negotiations with set demands, leave everything open for discussion but just start with a wish list. But internally have a set of sliding scales whereby if we give up more than we want on one particular item we let it be know that we expect them to compromise more on another.

So for example, if the EU insist there's no movement from them on say free movement then they have to accept we'll contribute significantly less into the coffers. So there's a fair trade off between both parties.

My points were just examples to set the tone.  What you suggest there adds yet more options on the chart of Brexit, I tried my best to keep it to a single 2D line.  If I had to encompass all the different wants & needs from Brexit then there'd be a multi-dimensional chart that would tax the best statistical modeling brains of the world.

 

Edit:  think of it this way, if it helps:  Hard = I want absolutely nothing to do with the EU after our divorce.  Soft = I want to be best buds with the EU after our divorce but accept we are divorcing.  And everything else on the line between hard & soft.

[Hornetto]

I'd vote raw.

However, there is a bit of the barsteward in me that wants the hardest of hard exits to teach the brexiters a lesson in 'beware the consequences of your actions'.

 

 

This.

[Hornetto]

I'm in the 'Raw' camp. The leavers have no idea what they've unleashed.

[Tommygilf]

Thanks for appreciating my view but it is not a view: it is basic fact. If Ireland was part of Schengen and shared a Schengen-esque agreement with the UK, the UK would, de facto, be part of the Schengen area because you wouldn't need to pass any passport controls to get there. Greece has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you mean by being restrained but I agree with most of the rest. It is not as if we were enthusiastically signing up to full-speed European integration before the idea of a referendum came into being. We have been slowly moulding our own participation in the EU for years and that has served us extremely well.

Clearly then, Ireland took the decision that its CTA with the UK was more important to it than the schengen area. This was again reaffirmed in 2011.

My point was that Greece is a Schengen area country that borders an EU member state not currently in Schengen. The same is applicable to Slovenia for example.

As for restraint, my view is that if we are having to celebrate opting out of these measures, then how many more have we opted in to. I'd take the example of independent international financial agreements as just one thing that Britain has been restrained in doing by membership of the European Union, just as the EAW is another example of where Police forces are becoming more integrated.

It depends on what one views as important in the direction the UK takes. Either towards greater European intergration (a United Federal States of Europe if you like) or as a smaller independent nation making its own way in the world and living and dying by its own efforts.

[tim2]

It depends on what one views as important in the direction the UK takes. Either towards greater European intergration (a United Federal States of Europe if you like) or as a smaller independent nation making its own way in the world and living and dying by its own efforts.

 

A fair summary. It's very hard to be truly independent of continental Europe though - economically, militarily and socially. The world has changed enormously since 1975 when we voted to be in something more akin to the EEA.

I think people distrust globalisation - I'm not sure whether every country becoming fully independent and dealing unilaterally with every other one whilst adopting protectionist policies is the way forward. For many years left wing and anarchist groups have confronted globalisation (G7 summits etc.) but have been attacked by our press and politicians as trying to destabilize society. However this now seems to be mainstream thinking.

 

Globalization has brought us accelerated advances in readily available technology, unprecedented ability to travel and work globally and cheaper prices in the developed world. It enables countries to work together and compromise on globally important issues such as climate change, energy provision, food production and poverty.

 

It has however created additional exploitation of poor people around the globe, granting pan-national corporations who are seemingly beyond the reach of elected governments who then wield their power to their own benefit. This exploitation and openness then fuels mass migrations that are not well received in the countries with net immigration despite their reliance on the aforementioned migrants to support their higher living standards. Terrorism/insurrection used to be localized, now it can be global.

 

Is it not possible to constrain globalization whilst retaining all its good points? Are we prepared to sacrifice technological advancement and (arguably) our global safety to reign in the corporations? Are we willing to make other countries better off at the expense of our own?

[shrek]

I'm a fully paid up "remoaner" but if we're going, for me I'd go hard, take the pain now and then slowly roll it back over the years as positions soften on all sides. 

 

I don't think any method of trying to please all the people all of the time is ever going to work and would be fearful of ending up with a total dogs dinner.  We can't even trigger Article 50 without the Supreme Court having to get involved let alone deal with the compicated nitty gritty.

 

It wouldn't be pretty and we'd lose out, but I'd hope my generation would be able to get us back on the right track and who knows, perhaps our children could make a better fist of it and perhaps even one day be in a position to rejoin as enthusastic and bought in members.

[GeordieSaint]

A fair summary. It's very hard to be truly independent of continental Europe though - economically, militarily and socially. The world has changed enormously since 1975 when we voted to be in something more akin to the EEA.

I think people distrust globalisation - I'm not sure whether every country becoming fully independent and dealing unilaterally with every other one whilst adopting protectionist policies is the way forward. For many years left wing and anarchist groups have confronted globalisation (G7 summits etc.) but have been attacked by our press and politicians as trying to destabilize society. However this now seems to be mainstream thinking.

 

Globalization has brought us accelerated advances in readily available technology, unprecedented ability to travel and work globally and cheaper prices in the developed world. It enables countries to work together and compromise on globally important issues such as climate change, energy provision, food production and poverty.

 

It has however created additional exploitation of poor people around the globe, granting pan-national corporations who are seemingly beyond the reach of elected governments who then wield their power to their own benefit. This exploitation and openness then fuels mass migrations that are not well received in the countries with net immigration despite their reliance on the aforementioned migrants to support their higher living standards. Terrorism/insurrection used to be localized, now it can be global.

 

Is it not possible to constrain globalization whilst retaining all its good points? Are we prepared to sacrifice technological advancement and (arguably) our global safety to reign in the corporations? Are we willing to make other countries better off at the expense of our own?

 

Excellent post. Unilateral action is not the way to combat globalisation and its impact with exploitation; there are far too many countries, corporations and people who frankly don't give a hoot what the UK thinks (even the US hence the rise of Trump) and are more than willing to do anything to attract money to their countries. Multilateral action is what is needed to reform the system and we are in the process of removing ourselves from that equation hence my firm belief we'll lose out in the long run; primarily those who are being exploited due to the current issues with globalisation as well.

[GeordieSaint]

However, there is a bit of the barsteward in me that wants the hardest of hard exits to teach the brexiters a lesson in 'beware the consequences of your actions'.

That said, the persistent and increasing petulance of the Brexiteers is making me more willing to watch the world burn by taking my own extreme position.

 

I get what both are you are saying but the societal impact of that would be vast and it's those people who you want to protect who'd be most impacted, not the lead Brexiters. There will be no revolution; just lots of pain and suffering. 

[Saint Toppy]

A fair summary. It's very hard to be truly independent of continental Europe though - economically, militarily and socially. The world has changed enormously since 1975 when we voted to be in something more akin to the EEA.

I think people distrust globalisation - I'm not sure whether every country becoming fully independent and dealing unilaterally with every other one whilst adopting protectionist policies is the way forward. For many years left wing and anarchist groups have confronted globalisation (G7 summits etc.) but have been attacked by our press and politicians as trying to destabilize society. However this now seems to be mainstream thinking.

 

Globalization has brought us accelerated advances in readily available technology, unprecedented ability to travel and work globally and cheaper prices in the developed world. It enables countries to work together and compromise on globally important issues such as climate change, energy provision, food production and poverty.

 

It has however created additional exploitation of poor people around the globe, granting pan-national corporations who are seemingly beyond the reach of elected governments who then wield their power to their own benefit. This exploitation and openness then fuels mass migrations that are not well received in the countries with net immigration despite their reliance on the aforementioned migrants to support their higher living standards. Terrorism/insurrection used to be localized, now it can be global.

 

Is it not possible to constrain globalization whilst retaining all its good points? Are we prepared to sacrifice technological advancement and (arguably) our global safety to reign in the corporations? Are we willing to make other countries better off at the expense of our own?

You don't need to be part of the EU club though to work collaboratively and trade freely. The EU worked better as just a free trade zone and before the EU parliament came into being countries could work together where there was a common goal economically, militarily etc.

[Just Browny]

 The EU worked better as just a free trade zone and before the EU parliament came into being countries could work together where there was a common goal economically, militarily etc.

 

When was this golden era?

[ckn]

I get what both are you are saying but the societal impact of that would be vast and it's those people who you want to protect who'd be most impacted, not the lead Brexiters. There will be no revolution; just lots of pain and suffering. 

Aye, true.  That's why if I had to put my name to something then it'd probably be a very, very reluctant leave but preserving as much as possible.  The inner rebel in me would be disgusted by myself though...

[Tommygilf]

A fair summary. It's very hard to be truly independent of continental Europe though - economically, militarily and socially. The world has changed enormously since 1975 when we voted to be in something more akin to the EEA.

I think people distrust globalisation - I'm not sure whether every country becoming fully independent and dealing unilaterally with every other one whilst adopting protectionist policies is the way forward. For many years left wing and anarchist groups have confronted globalisation (G7 summits etc.) but have been attacked by our press and politicians as trying to destabilize society. However this now seems to be mainstream thinking.

 

Globalization has brought us accelerated advances in readily available technology, unprecedented ability to travel and work globally and cheaper prices in the developed world. It enables countries to work together and compromise on globally important issues such as climate change, energy provision, food production and poverty.

 

It has however created additional exploitation of poor people around the globe, granting pan-national corporations who are seemingly beyond the reach of elected governments who then wield their power to their own benefit. This exploitation and openness then fuels mass migrations that are not well received in the countries with net immigration despite their reliance on the aforementioned migrants to support their higher living standards. Terrorism/insurrection used to be localized, now it can be global.

 

Is it not possible to constrain globalization whilst retaining all its good points? Are we prepared to sacrifice technological advancement and (arguably) our global safety to reign in the corporations? Are we willing to make other countries better off at the expense of our own?

 

I'd agree with a lot of that. I think a major problem is that we equate the actions of governments and corporations as akin to the views of the people that live in those countries. Its the epitome of elite theory. When we say 'the Chinese are investing in Africa', or that 'the Americans are blockading Cuba', in reality we should be saying that its the ​governments ​and perhaps in more recent times the ​businesses of these nations which are the drivers of these policies. By contrast, the people who are often the most adversely affected are not the governments or businesses but the masses. True in both developed and less developed world.

 

This being linked with dependence and independence is natural and true, but I suppose one has to be brave to step out of the shadow of following US policy since WW2. We've dug ourselves into a dependent hole, hopefully we can still dig our way out of it.

 

As for a choice between ours or other countries betterment, I'd argue that it doesn't have to be a dichotomy.

[GeordieSaint]

The EU worked better as just a free trade zone and before the EU parliament came into being countries could work together where there was a common goal economically, militarily etc.

 

We work far better militarily with European nations nowadays than we ever have done.

[Saint Toppy]

When was this golden era?

There's never been one. I just feel that the EU operated better without all the beurocracy of an EU parliament.

Let individual countries trade freely under a basic trade framework and collaborate on whatever individual projects they see as benefitting them. Not be bound by a '1 size fits all' model that creates winners & losers in every situation and binds countries into things that don't benefit them. 

[Saint Toppy]

We work far better militarily with European nations nowadays than we ever have done.

But we don't need the EU to continue doing this, we have NATO (though most EU countries have a complete disrespect for it until they need the US to protect them)

[GeordieSaint]

But we don't need the EU to continue doing this, we have NATO (though most EU countries have a complete disrespect for it until they need the US to protect them)

 

Why has the UK been a driving force and main contributor to the likes of the EU Battlegroups and Military Staff then? Why have we developed the CJEF with the French and the JEF with other European partners; all in NATO? It's because we can't solely rely on the US coming to our aid. The likes of those Generals, Admirals, Air Marshalls, Colonels et al all gobbing off in the press about BREXIT absolutely know this and many have been key advocates/drivers of closer cooperation with the EU in the first place; they are frankly full of ######.

[Niels]

I'd vote raw.

However, there is a bit of the barsteward in me that wants the hardest of hard exits to teach the brexiters a lesson in 'beware the consequences of your actions'.

Of course, living in Greece, that would really be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Still, I've no intention of entering any beauty contests in the near future!

A lot of people in the UK live in poverty anyway and things can't get much worse.

Expats have a personal interest in staying remain as you correctly say, so it doesn't come across well wishing ill on the poor just because they voted differently to you.

[Futtocks]

As well as the various done-nesses listed above, you can also have your Brexit egg addled.

 

[Futtocks]

[ckn]

As well as the various done-nesses listed above, you can also have your Brexit egg addled.

 

Scrambled..