Off Topic Impact of Brexit on Football

I'll see how my next German exam goes in Spring 2017.

 

As per my initial paragraph I just don't have the time or inclination to give you a full answer, hence the reason for the caveats.

What I posted was a dictionary definition, but different dictionaries give different definitions.

This is one of the problems with the pre-vote debate. Too many people trying to use soundbites to raise and discuss very complex problems . The post vote debate hasn't got any better still too many people trying to explain very complex issues with soundbites. The other main problem is both sides are seemingly more interested in telling us what their opponents message is rather than explaining there own.

 

Rob it would be really good if you followed through with your initial points rather than moving the goal posts every time you get an answer you do like or understand.

So to quote you, so not to misrepresent what you said

I replied

So you are still making comments that I'm sorry to say are just wrong.

Personally if we can't get a better deal than Norway,then I'd be happy to accept the WTO trade agreement, not that I think that will happen. We still buy more from the EU than they buy from us.

Just for clarity are you now saying that as well as being anti-immigrant every one of the 17 + million people that voted for Brexit has an IQ of less than 75.

 

This is rather long…



Funny this is possibly the most sensible debate I have seen and it is on a football forum! Anyway I thought that as a UK citizen that lives out of the country it might be of value for others to see my perspective. I was viewing the campaign from Perth in Australia, though actually just got back to my parents in Norfolk when the result was coming through.



My first comment will be about the campaign, terrible and negative by both sides. I thought like more referendums that the status quo was going to prevail in the end despite leave having an advantage a few weeks to polling day. I also noted that the Remain campaign was not fighting the battle it should have fought if it wanted to win. The Remain campaign, like many of my friends were fighting the campaign from their point of view and not expecting the others to have a point of view. If Brexit supporters did have a point it was dismissed with an ‘ist’ word, racist etc. Their real concerns were not being addressed.



The other point I saw from the campaign was that voter demographics became a thing. Now this was mostly done by my Remain friends, the few Brexit friends didn’t bother. They (Remain) were extremely arrogant (or that is how it looked) as to how, because they were young and most more had a university education, that somehow their voice should be heard more. I was shocked at my housemate (also English) that dismissed me when I spoke of the concern I had for the working class man under the EU. It was as if they didn’t go to university so I don’t care about them. It was this attitude that lead to Brexit hanging in there until the end and ultimately winning the vote.



As for me I am glad Brexit won. I might be living abroad, but I am very patriotic. I am only there because there were no jobs for geologists in the UK when I graduated. I don’t know why the EU is obsessed by freedom of movement with free trade deals. Australia recently signed free trade deals with Japan and China (in 2015) and freedom of movement isn’t a stipulation of the deals. The human rights act has become a farce, I would much prefer it were a responsibilities act as when anyone starts going on about rights it ultimately is all about me, me, me.



I know that there might be a short term economic blip caused by the extraction of the UK by Brexit, however I never wanted a European Superstate. If it were a trade block, then fair enough, but there are so many strings attached each government is becoming a puppet of its EU overlords. Australia is the 12th largest economy (GDP) and the UK 5th largest economy (GDP) if we can’t stand on our own two feet then we need better politicians.



The UK has been slowly trading more with other countries outside the European Union the past 20 years we are less reliant on them than them us (hence the French, German and Italian stock exchanges dropped more than the UK on the referendum result). Looking from the perspective of Australia I can see that Europe resamples something like the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empire around WW1 as in bloated, inefficient and with a stagnant economy. Put it this way, would I now as a western country want to join the EU…. Erm no.



I will briefly give a comment on immigration. I am an immigrant in Australia, I went when they had a job shortage for geologists and was allowed in on a 4 year working visa. I have subsequently had it renewed, I could have gone for citizenship, but I couldn’t truly swear loyalty to Australia so remained on a visa. If I was graduating and applying for a job as a geologist in the current economics I would not get a visa as there are currently 1000 geologists unemployed in Perth, these (quite rightly) get priority. The Australian points system works, we should copy it. That way you get hard working people contributing to the system and filling vacancies that are needed. Longer term however we should encourage people to do degrees in jobs that we need, financial incentives for people who qualify and then work for a certain period in the NHS for example.



Finally I am glad that Britain has regained its sovereignty. I’m glad that we can get out of an organisation that is actively supporting rulers like Omar al-Bashir to try and stop a flood of refugees that he is actually causing by trying to bomb the Nuba people out of existence. I am glad that we are not going to have bail out countries in the EU such as Greece other than by our international responsibilities. I’m glad that we can negotiate free trade agreements with 7 billion people in the world rather than 1/10th of that. Rather than whining that the result didn’t go the way people wanted, people need to stand up. I wonder what flack Henry VIII would have got now if he had have split from Rome, this could be the secular equivalent. This is an era of responsibility and opportunity, are we going to stand up and be counted or roll over and let us slip into the mist? I know where I stand.

 

I arrived at the polling booth at 953pm. Asked the clerk whether I should believe Boris' lies or Dave's. He informed me that he wasn't allowed to offer guidance. I stood looking at the paper for a minute, folded it, and put it in the box pristine and unmarked.

 

Good thread, sensible, reasoned debate, balanced viewpoints on all sides
Allow me to drag it down a notch with this piece about 'Suffolkation'
It terrifies me to think I may actually live in the 'Cromer corridor'
http://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/suffolk-liberation-army-sexit/#

 

Most eloquently put ZK I think you have summed everything up brilliantly, take a bow

 

It would help if you actually bothered to quote me properly rather than misrepresenting what I have said, even while saying you weren't!

The Norway model would be delivering none of what the Brexit campaign claimed other than Brexit itself.

Clearly you either do not understand the Norway model or you are being disingenuous with your responses. The Norway model would be freedom of movement, contributions to the EU budget, bound by EU legislation. I.e. nothing the Brexit campaign said they would get apart from technically being outside the EU.

I have not changed the goal posts, I have repeated the same comment over and over again and given lots of detail and evidence. You keep changing the topic or ignoring/misquoting me. You are doing exactly what the Brexit campaign have done - fingers in your ears.

 

You amy be "happy to accept the WTO trade agreement" but there is no such thing. The WTO has confirmed already that if we want to trade on WTO rules, we will have to negotiate individual agreements with each WTO member. There is no WTO trade agreement, there is just a series of recommended caps.

If you're just going to lie and make false assertions about something I quite clearly did not say then you have clearly lost it.

 

Because they're not "free trade deals". They're just "trade deals". Still good, but they're not free trade. You cannot have absolute free trade without freedom of movement.

The UK actually dropped to 6th largest economy after the pound plummeted. And on purchasing power parity we're around ninth.

The very fact that we have had a referendum at all and are capable of exiting demonstrates that, quite clearly, we are not puppets.

That's because the EU has negotiated trade agreements with those countries. The EU itself has helped that happen.

Our trade with the US has also declined and we are becoming reliant on them - are you suggesting we should just cut those ties?

No, the reason for the decline in trade is to do with other countries being brought into the global trade market - the EU market remains as strong and fundamental as it ever was to our economy.

The Australian points system brings in twice the number of immigrants per head than the UK's open border with the EU. Make that of what you will.

In any event, our construction industry, and particularly housebuilders, are heavily reliant on unskilled Eastern European labour. We have a housing crisis and at the same time the country wants to ruin our construction industry. That says nothing for the reliance of the NHS, care homes and all manner of other service industries on unskilled European labour. We have an ageing population.

We have not regained sovereignty. We have lost it. We have given up our ability to create, opine on and veto legislation that binds us. It is the very definition of shooting ourselves in the foot.

In a globalised world regaining sovereignty is only ever going to be an extremist aim - the most sovereign nation in the world is North Korea and even they pool their sovereignty with China. Do you want to be North Korea?

The EU is already miles ahead on negotiating free trade agreements with the entire world. We haven't even started. Much easier to rely on theirs, particularly as their negotiating position is so much stronger than ours.

 

OK Lets try this another. None of us know what deal we are going to be able to negotiate over the next 2 years, we don't even know if the EU will still exist in it's current format or how it might change in that time. None of us know this not you, not me, no one. I may be wrong but I get the impression that you are of the view that Brexit was only about the free movement of people and the economy. Norway is a member of the European Economic Area, the the single market and yes if we got the same deal as Norway we would have to accept freedom of movement and yes there would be a bill for membership. However despite what the remain campaign might want everyone to believe Brexit was not just about the economy and free movement of people. Norway for example is exempt from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. If we got the same deal it would mean that some aspects of what the Brexit campaign wanted would be achieved i.e the UK courts could not be overruled by EU courts.

If we can not get a deal within 2 years of activation of article 50 (when ever that may be) the trade rules would default to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. The WTO sets rules for international trade that applies to all members, no free movement or financial contribution, no obligation to apply EU laws although traded goods would still have to meet EU standards, some tariffs would be in place on trade with the EU, trade in services would be restricted. The UK and EU would be obliged to apply to each other the tariffs and other trade restrictions they apply to the rest of the world. That is because the WTO rules allow countries to discriminate in favour of a trade partner only in a limited number of circumstances - including a full bilateral trade deal. As we import more from the EU than we export it is in the EU's interests to reach an accommodation.

The point is it's up to the UK / EU to negotiate a solution. The EU does not hold all the cards, we are not even in negotiation yet. Although the EU wants us to activate article 50 quickly because they are afraid if things go on too long others may vote to leave. We may want informal negotiations before activation so potentially we start with a decent card. We may want to keep our powder dry and negotiate deals with other countries directly, which we would be free to implement once we left. I understand several countries including Canada & South Korea have already said they would like to do this. Of course if we can start the process of negotiating bilateral with other countries whilst negotiating with the EU we could strengthen our hand.

You seem to be under the impression that we are still in the position of the EU saying jump and we say how high. Talking of highs I notice the FTSE 100 finished higher today than it did on the 31st of May.

 

Erm everywhere other than Europe you can have free trade without free movement. I remember the debate about how the free trade deals in Australia were going to help farmers etc. Anyway here is the address of the Australian government free trade deals if you want to look http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/pages/trade-agreements.aspx

Oh well, when the pound recovers we will go up to fifth again, the point was we are large enough to stand on our own two feet!

No we were not in a political union by stealth, after all we joined a trade pact to begin with that is morphing into an EU state, I see trade a politics as different things.

The EU remains fundamentally strong.... give me a break! Do you know how the EU is seen by the world? It is seen as an over-bloated old man which has very little chance of significant growth that is being choked by unstable broke southern nations i.e. Greece and is being propped up by the wealth of the north especially Germany. As for trade agreements I am pretty sure the coalition government sent a delegation off to India to help sort a trade agreement as their economy is growing much faster than EU.

Australia is a nation built on immigration, if it wasn't for immigration the Aboriginals would still be in the stone age. They needed migrants to fill their booming economy, as a migrant myself I was very grateful for a job, but what I'm saying is that the UK has jobs that it needs to fill, go out and get them to fill the roles. However this doesn't mean an open door to every Tom, Dick and Harry, it just means that we get the people in that we have a shortage of to fill the roles needed. Something that was impossible with the EU.

Seriously? So you take something to the absolute extreme? You start talking about North Korea? Does USA allow Canada to over-rule its Supreme Court? Does New Zealand let Australia over-rule its highest court? or Japan? For years the European Court of Human Rights has made a mockery of our laws so that we couldn't kick out people to countries like Jordan or Albania. I can understand not kicking out an illegal immigrant Christian to Afganistan as being a Christian in that country is a death sentence, but Jordan or Albania, come on!


This is the online dictionary definition if you needed help as you clearly don't understand national sovereignty "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state"


Anyway, I am glad we are out again we are seeing from the argument that Remain continually try to argue from their position without even trying to comprehend that someone may have a view that is not their own. I understand that Rob is scared of the unknown. I know there will be a small time of uncertainty, but also great opportunity, we have got ourselves out of being absorbed into a superstate and can go to thrive as a global player. I am not going to reply for a while as I'm going on a trip to the West Country and London.



....On a side note we could always become a new state of the USA, rename ourselves Airstrip 1 and can go all 1984 on the world

 

My god you're rude and patronising when you've been called out for being wrong. I'm a lawyer, I have studied EU law, I am the Brexit representative in my department. I know full well what the EU is and does. I'm not a moron who is coming with zero knowledge.

Agriculture, fisheries and justice are of minute importance to the UK's economy and I won't go into the detail but it's safe to say we will be bound (practically) by about 98% of EU law in the Norway model. We would still rely on ECJ judgements (and in fact our judges would use them anyway).

So you are utterly wrong, sorry.

I've already explained about WTO rules. Yes, that would work. But you don't just fall back on them. You have to negotiate individually with each one of the 162 members. They are guidelines. They won't just happen without agreements.

It's nothing to do with the EU holding all the cards, I've never said that. It's that we have to prioritise certain matters if our economy is going to be ok - for instance 12% of our tax take relies on passporting financial services to the EU. Without full access to the internal market, which means WE need freedom of movement, that is all lost. It's not like we can just say "oh France, just add on 2% in tariffs mate", it's that without freedom of movement it cannot be done - passporting is essential.

And that's just financial services. As I said, WE need freedom of movement for our construction industry, our health service. It is us that is going to be asking for it.

All this uncertainty is just extending the damage to our economy. The decision is in danger of destroying the prime career years of people aged between 25-40.

The FTSE100 is a bad representation of the U.K. economy, as we've already discussed.

It's now got to the point where we're going round in circles and I'm being forced to repeat the points I've already dealt with.

 

If it doesn't include freedom of movement, it's not free trade. Restrictions on movement are a barrier to trade and therefore you cannot have a true "free trade" agreement if you include those barriers. Of course, you can call it a free trade agreement if you want to, but that is just misleading.

I've looked at the Australian trade agreements, incidentally. The EU agreement with South Korea aims to reduce 98% of barriers within 5 years. Australia's sets out a similar aim but takes 20 years as South Korea want to protect their exports while their economy realigns - the EU's negotiating strength gets much better deals.

This has nothing to do with being scared of the unknown. It is interacting that when Brexiters run out of responses they turn to petty insults and suggestions that others are wimps and unpatriotic.

As I have already explained, sovereignty is a red herring in the modern globalised economy. We have already pooled our sovereignty across the globe with NATO, the UN and all manner of bilateral relationships we have. Not least with the US.

Even if we don't have full access to the EU internal market, after leaving the EU we will still be, practically, bound by large swathes of EU law. The difference is we will have lost control of making it.

Once again I feel myself being forced to repeat points.

As for your comments about aborigines, I'm going to pass getting into anything on that front... It's in danger of getting disgusting. The inability to kick out a few loathsome individuals and merely having to lock them up is, in my view, a very small price to pay to guarantee the future prosperity and influence in the world of the United Kingdom (and to guarantee the United Kingdom itself).

 

Personally, I think the problem here is that you are trying to deal with each and every point of disgruntlement you have with the EU in one go in a single post. So what I and others have responded ends up being lost in the confusion. We should agree a list of topics and then we can discuss each one, individually in turn. E.g. have a discussion about immigration. Then one about sovereignty. Then one about democracy. Then one about the economy. Then one about justice.

Just a thought. Because otherwise this gets unmanageable and everyone feels like they're repeating themselves.

 

Okay Rob I've tried my best and been nothing but polite. You keep making statements that are just not true. I then point this out supplying facts and links to support what I'm saying. You don't accept what I'm saying. I try and explain again. You don't like it and rather than accept you're wrong you call me rude and patronising because I preservere in trying to challenge your misconceptions.

So you said

The Norway model would be delivering none of what the Brexit campaign claimed other than Brexit itself.

I then point out that it would i.e. agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. So UK courts have primacy, No common agricultural policy, control of UK fishing grounds, No EU army etc. etc. I hate to break it to you but these were all aspects of the Brexit campaign. Brexit campaigners were not just concerned with the economy and free movement of people.

Rather than accept with good grace that you made a mistake you carry on repeating you incorrect points.

You are also wrong about the WTO rules. it is written into the EU exit procedure that if after 2 years of negotiations following article 50 being activated no agreement is reached then we fall back to WTO rules therefore we would continue to trade with the EU only using WTO rules. This is not negotiatable for either side No agreement WTO rules apply.

If the FTSE is such a bad measure why use it as part of a claim to say we're on the eve of economic oblivion. The truth is it is a measure. But I also noticed that the FTSE 250 & 350 rouse as did many markets across Europe and the pound. That's not to say there won't be further volatilite ahead there will be until markets and the pound find there level

I accept you never said the EU held all the cards, but you do seem to have already accepted after a few days that the best deal we can get is what the EU is currently offering. I have never said I'm a lawyer, I have studied EU law, I am the Brexit representative in my department. However I must admit that I did do some research before making a decision which way to vote. I thought it was important to make an informed decision. I'm just a guy who according to some remainers is racist and does not come for the right social class or have the right educational background to be trusted with a vote. Nor have I said you are a moron or you have zero knowledge.

But you are right we are going round in circles, so I will stop challenging you directly if you make incorrect or incomplete statement as you are clearly happy with you're current level of knowledge.

 

That's because I have not made any incorrect points.

There was very little in the Brexit campaign about leaving the common agricultural policy or controlling UK fishing grounds, apart from Farage (who was not official Leave). A bit on justice and home affairs as I have said. The EU army was a lie anyway. However, the Norway model would see us practically bound on each of those matters in any event, and I already pointed out the effect on our justice system. The home affairs matters we have pooled sovereignty in the form of our international commitments outside of the EU, so very little would change of any practical effect.

Note: it is the practical effect I am talking about. Even in the EEA we would be heavily restricted by Norway itself, as well as the common fisheries policy coming up for renegotiation in 2020 - access to the EU is integral for the fishing industry and they simply would be bound by large swathes of legislation. Not only that, but pressure from environmental groups (bear in mind the Tory position on this) is the other thing driving these limitations, not just the EU. That won't go away. Similarly, agriculture relies heavily on exporting to the EU, but also on the farming subsidies it receives. Our agricultural policies are very much unlikely to change given that it simply is not a profitable business, and there are many moral constraints which the EU has simply written down - those won't go away either. So the idea that we will simply be able to fish all the cod out of the North Sea or chemical our crops as we like just because we are out of the EU is a pipe dream.

If you have any doubts about how the Norway model is not a good idea - read the Norwegian PMs views on it...

So I was absolutely bang on in the statement above, in every respect.

I've already explained how wrong you are on this. There is no "fall back". We have to negotiate with all other members - all 161 of them. The WTO has told us this. I have now told you that three times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/745d0ea2-222d-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html#axzz4Cz0q9ZqM

This would be a good point, if I had actually used it to claim we were. The reason we are on the eve of economic oblivion is that if the article 50 notice is submitted without a clear game plan of how we assure our economic success, we face truly disastrous consequences where barriers to trade are thrown up everywhere which hinder both imports and exports, causing massive job losses (amongst a world of other pain). Investment transactions across the UK are on hold or cancelled. We are already (time will show) in recession.

I have never said you were racist. And I strongly disagree with the suggestion that everyone should not get the vote - so not a claim I have made.

However, the points I have made are:
(1) if we fully "Brexit" we will lose sovereignty, control and face economic oblivion. Therefore it will not happen.
(2) What will happen (assuming Brexit of some form goes ahead, which I think it has to given the democratic decision) is that there will be some sort of hybrid. However, the reality of that hybrid is that in some way we will be worse off than previously - if we want to guarantee the same economic advantages we have now, we will massively lose sovereignty. On the other hand, if we want to limit immigration and "unpool" our sovereignty, we will have to accept a significant economic hit.

Now I agree with you that none of us (not even those in charge) know what the outcome will be. However, what everyone does know (or is deluding themselves if they don't) is that raising new barriers to trade is always unpleasant for the economy. This is a given.

 

Life after BREXIT: What are the UK’s options outside the European Union?

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf

 

Yep, this article appears to be quoting me!

"By leaving the EU to join the EEA, the UK would give up its influence over all EU decisionmaking,
including how to govern the Single Market. In this sense joining the EEA entails
giving up even more sovereignty than being part of the EU. EEA members must agree to
implement legislation that they have no say in deciding."

 

Yes assuming the best we get is a Norway deal then this is what will happen, but I never disputed that. It's some of the other things you said that were incorrect.