British Indy: What Happens Now?

Because there would be no rules in place. Britain's economy is heavily reliant on trade with the EU for both financial services and physical trade of goods.

Goods travelling from the EU generally travel via sea and through a port or the chunnel. That relies on fast and efficient movement through both. Once you put customs checks in place, that is slowed dramatically.

That would mean it would no longer make any economic sense to manufacture ( or sell financial services) in the UK and sell to the EU. It would be much cheaper to do that within the EU. We would no longer have any say on what tariffs would be applied once goods exported, nor any control over the customs checks on the other side. Its pretty straight forward economics.

 

Yes but that's because you are a Leaver. Comprmise was always the way forward. Leave were worse at that with all that Leave means Leave bollocks.

Anyway enjoy your day, there is far more important things to concern ourselves with than this shit.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...VKaebh7_18KbDTo51z9O4RVza1NqDeZ1SmWy1MF-eQtv4

 

Maybe I am understanding it wrong then. I'm saying there are bigots on both the remain and leave side, but that, in my experience, remainers for example (6 million odd of them) seem to just want to revoke article 50. That doesn't look like they have taken any notice of other viewpoints.

Yes - have a good day, there certainly are more important things, please tell the politicians that - they seem to think the UK is in a state of crisis.

 

At a time when we needed lions, we got lol cats

 

Oh dear

That is the whole point of the eu, to make you dependent on them and think it's the cursed earth outside of that gated community. Only the foolish think no other countries exist, morning fool

 

What she said: “So today I am taking action to break the logjam: I am offering to sit down with the leader of the opposition and to try to agree a plan — that we would both stick to — to ensure that we leave the European Union and that we do so with a deal.”

What she meant: Time to dip your hands in the blood, Jeremy. Do you lead a second referendum Remain party or a soft Brexit Leave party? Your choice — if I’m going down, so are you.

 

Rules for what?
Why would trade with other European countries stop overnight? It existed before the UK joined the EU and I see no reason for it to simply stop.

There are still customs checks today. All that would change is those transporting would have to declare what they’re transporting in order the correct import tarif could be applied. In 95% or more of cases customs officials would take at face value that what’s declared is what’s on the lorry, just as they do today. There is an oft held and to my mind unsubstantiated belief amongst many that lorries would be held up for days at ports whilst every single one of them is searched. In reality I simply cannot see that happening. However, even if it did happen businesses would go through a very short period of adjustment and then be back to normal service levels.

I don’t see why other European countries would suddenly stop buying from the UK. After 46 years of EU membership if there is a particular widget made in the UK which a company in another European country has been buying why would they suddenly stop buying it? Where are they going to buy the widget from? It may very well be, due to tariffs that the UK widget now is as expensive as a Chinese widget but does that mean the purchaser will switch from a known supplier to an unknown supplier? I don’t think so. The price of the finished good will rise and the consumer will pay but trade between UK and A.N.Other European country will continue. Also, that manufacturing/services capability cannot be recreated in another EU country overnight.
Re tariffs being applied to exported goods, no exporting country has control over what tariff will be applied the control always rests with the importing country so there’ll be no change there.

Ps I apologise for the lack of eye candy pics in the post but I’m using my phone and have no control over where it gets inserted, said the drunk bishop to the actress

 

Politics from Ian Dunt
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/04/02/no-10-statement-look-out-for-theresa-may-s-no-deal-trap

No.10 statement: Look out for Theresa May's no-deal trap

It all sounded so reasonable and open. And that was probably the first indication that something could be wrong. Theresa May's statement in Downing Street today, just like all her Brexit commentary, was extremely murky and unclear. It sounded like one thing, but could entail something else entirely.

"Leaving with a deal is the best solution," she said, "so we will need a further extension of Article 50 - one that is as short as possible and which ends when we pass a deal."

That sounded positive. She said would go to the EU next week and request the extra time. It sounded a lot like she was ruling out no-deal.

And there was more. The prime minister seemed to have given up on getting the ERG and DUP onside, so instead she would reach out to Jeremy Corbyn and try to find a deal they could both agree on.

If they could find agreement on one proposal, they would bring it forward together. If not, they would lay out a series of proposals and have the Commons vote on them, as they had recently during the indicative votes process. "The government stands ready," she promised, "to abide by the decision of the House."

It all sounded so reasonable. A realistic timetable. Cross-party cooperation. It was like a whole new prime minister. But then came the dangerous part. She got to that bit in her statement where, if you were looking hard enough, you could see the tactical sleight of hand.

"The government would then bring forward the withdrawal agreement bill," she said, referring to the domestic legislation enacting the deal with Brussels. "We would want to agree a timetable for this bill to ensure it is passed before the 22nd of May, so the UK need not take part in European parliamentary elections."

And that's when the alarm bells started ringing. That is the bit that will define if this is a real attempt to turn the page on how she approaches Brexit or another cynical trap based on deception.

The European elections are a crucial moment in the Brexit process. The EU has been clear that if the UK does not take part in those elections, it cannot remain inside, because it would mean that the European parliament would potentially be illegally constituted. The danger was always that May would use this fact to pivot parliament into a place where it had to choose between her deal or no-deal.

The elections are on May 23rd. But the last date Britain can pass the domestic legislation to take part is April 12th. This creates a kind of danger zone, a time window in which May could put her deal to parliament in the knowledge that no further extensions of Article 50 were possible.

This is not paranoia. It is simply a description of her standard approach. Throughout Brexit she has tried to force MPs to choose between her deal and no-deal, because the only situation in which a specific Brexit deal would look attractive is if it was compared with the disaster of the cliff edge. At the start it was by denying parliamentarians a meaningful vote. Now it may be using trickery around the extension offer.

This was why the EU set two deadlines. One was for May 22nd, just before the elections were held, in the event the prime minister got her deal through and needed more time to pass legislation bringing it into effect. The other was for April 12th, when the UK would need to decide to take part in the elections. The expectation was that if no deal had been agreed by then, the British team would go Brussels, request a longer extension - probably to the end of the year - and propose some sort of process for figuring out how a deal might eventually be agreed. May is now playing around with those dates in an interesting way.

You have to pay very close attention to her speeches. She hides her strategy in the precise wording of the text.

Look at this sentence again:

"We would want to agree a timetable for this bill to ensure it is passed before the 22nd of May, so the UK need not take part in European parliamentary elections."

Sounds simple, but it isn't. It has two potential meanings and the difference between them could mean everything to Brexit endgame.

In the best case scenario, it means she will ask for a long extension, possibly to the end of the year, pass the domestic legislation to take part in the European elections by April 12th, and then try to get the deal through before May 22nd so we can leave before the election actually takes place. That would be fine. It would simply be a political ambition, rather than a legal trap.

There is some evidence she might intend this. De-facto deputy prime minister David Lidington yesterday wrote to the Electoral Commission instructing them to prepare for the election as a contingency measure.

But there is a worst case scenario too. She could be planning to only request an extension of Article 50 to May 22nd. This would take the EU's deal timetable offer and apply it to her no-deal circumstance. All the talk of working with Jeremy Corbyn and an indicative votes back-up mechanism would, in this interpretation, not really be meaningful. It would simply be there to convince the EU to extend their offer without the UK having to pass legislation to take part in the elections.

This strategy would be intended to get the UK into the danger zone - that window of time between April 12th and May 22nd when no further extension of Article 50 are possible. Then she could do what she has always wanted to do and force MPs to pick between her deal and no-deal.

There is evidence for this too. Just look at her proposal for the first extension of Article 50, in which she outlined two time periods, but then only asked the EU for the shorter one. You would, let's be frank, be mad to trust her.

The decency and acceptability of May's strategy hinges on the meaning of that sentence. If she requests a long extension but intends to get the deal done quickly, it is perfectly honourable, truthful and sensible. If she only requests the extension until May 22nd, it is a trap. Neither MPs nor Brussels should allow her to spring it.

 

Stolen from elsewhere, but worth sharing...

Theresa May went to Dublin and met with Leo Varadkar
"Leo, “ she asked him. “I am finding things way more difficult than I could have imagined with this Brexit thing. May I ask you - how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give me?”
“Well," replied Leo, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."
May frowned. "But how do you know the people around you are really intelligent?" he asked.
"Oh, that's easy” Leo replied. “You just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle”.
He pushed a button on his intercom. “Please send Simon Coveney in here."
Simon walked into the room. “You called for me, Leo?"
"Answer me this, if you would, Simon. “ Leo said. “Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?”
Without pausing for even a second, Simon answered, “That would be me."
"Yes! Very good,” said Leo.
May went back home, returned to the House of Commons and the very next day called for Michael Gove to come and see her.
Gove duly trotted in to her office. “Michael, answer this for me,’ said May. “Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?”
"I'm not sure," said Gove. “Let me get back to you on that one.
Gove went panicking off to his advisers and asked everyone, but none of them could give him an answer.
The next night, as it happened, the silent assassin ran in to Boris Johnson in a restaurant. By now, desperate for an answer to give to his boss, he approached him – much to his surprise.
“Boris, I know we haven’t always seen eye to eye but I would really appreciate it if you could answer this riddle for me
“Sure, Boris said. “I’m not one to hold a grudge. What is it?”
“Thanks, said the silent assassin,” It’s this. Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?”
Boris answered right back, “That's easy, it's me!"
Gove smiled, “Thanks!"
Gove then went back to speak with May. "Say, boss, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It’s Boris Jonson.”
May got up, stomped over to Gove, and angrily yelled at him. "No, you idiot! It’s Simon Coveney!"
... AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS PRECISELY WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ! .

 

i guess different areas have different markets. we have a hard won trade surplace in scotland around 3bill, mostly achieved by SME's. much of it in perishable goods and tourisim, every barier makes it that much harder. we have universities that offer degrees not compatible with UK immigration policy, we have a deciling yet higher than average ageing population that incur higher than average costs to maintain that require a higher than average nombers oif staff plus a geography that costs more to impliment these services.
posts aint getting filled even tho we offer the higest rates to public sector workers in the uk because people have stopped coming.
everything we spend here, is raised here through a partial refund, tho we can raise tax over and above that payes for our supirior services.
we recieve a lot of EU funding for infrostructure and bussness ect that i doubt will be replicated. not if the big two want to be elected in the south where Govs are elected.
here is the scot gov analyisis, which is actually not as catostophic as the UK analysis for scotland.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/deal-brexit-economic-implications-scotland/.

 

@PaulPhillips
The question is serious.
The question is aimed at any and all Remainers not just you Fin, you’re just tagged in it as you posted it.
This is all one hears from the Remainers but why will things pan out this way?
I voted to remain back in 2016, on economical grounds, (well done ) although I did have serious misgivings about the federalisation of Europe and the ever growing loss of sovereignty but I thought it better to be in the tent pissing out than the other way round. However, over the past 3 years the scales have fallen away from my eyes and I now see the EU in its true colours.What is wrong in having a federal Europe with only 1 common parliament? Please consider the size and power or other global players.... What are EU true colours? Based on your posts you have enough common sense as not to expect same benefits of being a club member once out.
UK already had a deal done by TM with the EU back in November, only to find out that our own PM negotiated on behalf of f@ck knows who?. Could you imagine one business director negotiating a deal and then shareholders turning it down.
What would you believe about that company's internal structure, strength?
So why?
Why would there be massive job losses? Because a lot of the main UK businesses are owned by EU companies, why would they want to manufacture here if there would be export tax to pay when moving the product to EU? Also how would they sale to the other countries in the world if let's say EU has better deal with those?.
Why would there be no food or medicines available? Agree on this one there would be no impact once we know what is happening. The might be a change in prices going up. (if import tax is to be paid)
Why would the economy tank and there be a recession for 10 years or so? 9billions worth in assets have been moved out. Let's say this is a fake figure and divide by 1/2 still a lot of monies and at this moment in time investors/factories/building developers are holding back a lot of monies not knowing what is to come. This will take 6-10 months and we will start to feel the consequences.
Why would things be so bad? They won't be as bad as a lot of remainers claim but it definitely won't be better either, I would gues 5% worse. But let's be optimistic and assume all will be the same. What did we gain?
I am not a believer of the picture draw by some leavers that uk is some sort of "chap" in a dark cell hold by the EU chains whilst on the other side of the wall there is a beach with young ladies and free beer
We have the same play ground as any other EU, it seem some are better at the game(maybe??) so cannot see any "chains" nor the "beach"...just an increase in pointless nationalism/protectionism(when it suit us) and couple of power hungry muppets.
Ignoring politics and nationalism aside just consider below.
We can do better deals? With whom and what would be the products?
We can give the NHS the monies we pay the EU.
200 millions net is peanuts. We also give financial aid to India, whilst they can afford to shot down satellites.
A lot of chaps here are bring up that germany and france are struggling, well so are we..do they have the same austherity measure like we have here? (police force cuts, NHS, lack of investment and so on)
Is there going to be an increased in UK owned major companies within UK?
What is going to happen with products that are manufactured 1/2 in Uk 1/2 in the EU?
Is it really difficult to do business with the US whilst in the EU? it seems we are using Exact belts made in the US. (or at least purchased from there).

Did you know this?
The Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government committee said ministers should prioritise making sure that EU funding will be fully replaced after the UK leaves the EU.
Its report said plans for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund need to be fast-tracked to fill the gap.
The UK is currently due to leave the EU on 12 April.
The government has said that after Brexit it will replace EU funds for poorer parts of the UK with the proposed UK Shared Prosperity Fund to reduce inequalities across the country.

 

Why don't you ever mention the city deals scheme fin where the U.K. government gives grants to all of the four nations for key infrastructure projects with the queensberry crossing being one of the most recent and many before it?

To listen to you, only the eu has ever contributed to the projects of Scotland.

 

of course they will.

 

I can answer this one, when companies get too big, governments break them up claiming they are a monopoly, restrict choices and have very little accountability. The same governmental organisations see no problem doing the exact same things under the eu flag, themselves

 

hmm, a wee gaurdian? figure.
i think you wiill need to show me what you know about the bridge financing. .
maybe you could detail how much effort it took to get the bridge built in the first place due to the opposition just doing what they do and how they proposed to finance it. .
i have mountains of info on this, fire away.
as for city deals, every penny we get back is a partial refund, we also have to match penny for penny.
national infrostructure projects are an interesting subject. perfectly happy to pay a poplution share of yer sewrage system in london, but why reguritate it here?, i also know there will be a bennifit to me from cross rail and HS2...