Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  
  

Main Discussion

There is no such thing as soft Brexit
Rate it
0
Report as offensive
freek daze
Posted - 13 June 2017 09:43
The idea of retaining access to the free market while controlling free movement is a total joke, a pipe dream.

The government should concentrate on negotiating as good a set of trade terms as it can for the world post a "hard" i.e. total Brexit, and then should put this to the people, with the alternative being to stay put in the EU. I know people think Art.50 is irrevocable, but in practice everyone knows it isn't, and in any event we will be able to specifically negotiate that it isn't, and that we will remain in the event that the terms of Brexit are rejected by the plebiscite.

So, especially given the lack of a parliamentary mandate for anything at the moment, it will be a second referendum: stay put or Hard Brexit.

And, helped by the fact that 123,000 of the dreadful little Englanding gits who voted Leave have already died, replaced by new 18+ voters who will overwhemingly vote Remain; and by the public's increasingly obvious view that the whole idea is a shytshow anyway and that the current government couldn't be trusted to run a bath let alone the most significant trade negotiation in British history, the result will be Remain by, I'd guess, at least 55% of the vote.

And then Farage and 3-ducks and OGR and everyone will have to scuttle off back down their Brexitholes and the liberal establishment will rock the f*ck on for another three political generations.

Brexit's dead y'all. Let's see if THAT'S a constant contraindication, shall we?
The harbinger of sanity
Posted - 13 June 2017 09:48
Report as offensive
Hi risk strategy - I would prefer to see them negotiate a Norway style deal and put THAT to the British public - obviously it has few advantages over what we have now so they will presumably vote to remain but if they don't not the end of the world.

There is no mandate for a withdrawal from Europe 48% wanted to stay and of the 52% who wanted to leave we can presumably assume at least 3 points worth believed the have and cake and eat it scenario which was peddled by Bozza and would want to stay in single market.
hoolie is voting lib dem
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:22
Report as offensive
They can't negotiate a Norway style deal tho. It's all in or all out

Or "come the **** in or **** the **** off" as Malcolm Tucker would put it.
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:25
Report as offensive
why can they not negotiate a norway style agreement?

they could
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:26
Report as offensive
which, thinking of it, would be e great result for the EU, albeit I don't know if that includes freedom of movement
Wellington
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:29
Report as offensive
Norway deal would be ludicrous really.

Basically end up having no veto / seat at the table but still having to pay loads of money into the EU and have free movement of people.

The brexiters would hate it.
freek daze
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:30
Report as offensive
which is why it would be piss funny
Used Psychology
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:32
Report as offensive
Action, freedom of movement = uncontrolled immigration in the eyes of the great British public, thinks to relentless quasi-racist assertions by UKIP.

The fact it means those same U.K. Citizens can move elsewhere the minute it suits them, is neither here nor there.
Keef has political fatigue
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:33
Report as offensive
Wot Laz said.
Le Chiffre
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:34
Report as offensive
One point that no one has actually hammered home is that there are tonnes of restrictions in the treaty on free movement - it is just that no-one has operated them.

So to the extent there is a problem, in the last 7 years, this can all be laid at one person's door. But as we now know she is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:36
Report as offensive
that's why a 2nd Referendum would be good, now they could not put up placards with large crowds of refugees anymore ("the EU has failed us all") because the influx of refugees has been stopped to a great extent
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:37
Report as offensive
Le Chiffre
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:34
Report as offensive

One point that no one has actually hammered home is that there are tonnes of restrictions in the treaty on free movement - it is just that no-one has operated them.


-------------------------

in the norway treaty?
Le Chiffre
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:38
Report as offensive
In the EU treaty. Free movement is not in fact completely free movement
Legal Alien
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:39
Report as offensive
There will be no 2nd referendum you deluded fantasists.
Keef has political fatigue
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:40
Report as offensive
True, but there will be no Brexit either. It's dead.
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:42
Report as offensive
so what will there be?
Keef has political fatigue
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:43
Report as offensive
It will all fizzle out.
Le Chiffre
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:45
Report as offensive
These are the relevant provisions on free movement:

- For stays of under three months: the only requirement for Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country.

- For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.

As you can see the UKIP line about scroungers etc is complete blox.
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:47
Report as offensive
fizzle out? like, People are just going to Forget that there was a Referendum?

or, People are just not going to notice that EU rules, including free movement, still apply but that the UK has no longer any say in EU legislation procedures?
Keef has political fatigue
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:51
Report as offensive
Fizzle out in that hard Brexit is dead, and when presented with the option of Norway or as you were there will be a big shrug of indifference, and general mutteringscabout catching up with that Nige fellow for wasting everybody's time.
sporting_zucchini
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:52
Report as offensive
" I know people think Art.50 is irrevocable, but in practice everyone knows it isn't, and in any event we will be able to specifically negotiate that it isn't, and that we will remain in the event that the terms of Brexit are rejected by the plebiscite."

In this context "think" must be prefaced by "wishful".
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:54
Report as offensive
Le Chiffre - didn't a lot of EU immigrants into the UK apply for benefits (and got them)? or is that also a UKIP lie? genuine question
Keef has political fatigue
Posted - 13 June 2017 10:56
Report as offensive
FAOD it is for all intents and purposes completely revocable.

Let's not get too excited running down that particular cul de sac.
Le Chiffre
Posted - 13 June 2017 11:02
Report as offensive
They do - because successive Home Secretaries have failed to apply the laws. Of which Theresa May was one for the 6 out of the last 7 years.

In other words, you could perfectly lawfully within the treaty meet most of the alleged UKIP concerns* - and you could do so at the domestic level. It is just that May chose not to.

*save for people being brown and furrin. Obviously
Captain Mal
Posted - 13 June 2017 11:22
Report as offensive
I agree with the title.

But a referendum on negotiated hard Brexit vs Remain is a terrible idea. The EU want us to remain so why offer us anything on the hard Brexit side rather than make it as unappealing as possible in the hopes we vote the other way?

The benefits thing isn't a problem simply given the size of the issue / that if you think a social security net is necessary then its kind of necessary for everyone.

But lets have some honesty in the debate - someone coming in with their wife and six children gets full access to UK benefits if they set themselves up as a Big Issue seller or a.n.other self employment gig that may or may not have any chance of actually supporting their family.

Similarly its only in-work benefits that you can deny to someone out of work - and the UK has an atypically small set of in-work benefits vis a vis other European countries (though of course its within our remit to fix that if anyone actually cares about it enough).

I suppose we could deport someone if they don't meet the resources test - but given the legal aid we'd have to shell out on their defence its probably cheaper just to pay them benefits for life.
Action Wurst
Posted - 13 June 2017 11:46
Report as offensive
politicians should fine-tune such Problems before they offer a Referendum!
Le Chiffre
Posted - 13 June 2017 11:55
Report as offensive
You could not let them in - ask for evidence of resources at the border
_ Al _
Posted - 13 June 2017 12:04
Report as offensive
You are two years too late with this unoriginal thought
freek daze
Posted - 13 June 2017 12:05
Report as offensive
But still faster to it than u
Captain Mal
Posted - 13 June 2017 12:09
Report as offensive
Would we get enough people who didn't have resources self declaring that they were intending to stay for more than three months though?

Which doesn't take away from the point that I agree you can't run on a mandate that says "this is really important and we need the power to fix it" when you've taken absolutely none of the steps available to you within your existing powers to try and fix it.