Merged Now What?

[MCel58]

3 months seems ridiculously generous to be honest. The 7 or 8 years it takes the EU to negotiate something is probably at the other end of the extreme but somewhere in the order of a year or three sounds more realistic.

We might get back to where we started in 20 years time.

I was being very generous and it may take 20 years but perhaps with the right negotiating teams in place we can put approx 3 per year in place that means just to cover our existing trade approach of 28 deals external to the EU will take us at least 9 or 10 years.
This does not count any deal with the EU itself which may take the 2 years that Article 50 allows or may take less or more time, particularly if any deal has to be ratified like the Canadian deal by each of the national parliaments.
Also, given that this Government are acting as if the trade deal talks being offered by various countries post Brexit are actually new rather than just replacing existing trade deals (for example we already have trade deals through the EU with Australia) and no-one in the press is challenging that, we will probably not get a comparison of whether the deal struck is better or worse than the existing terms so will be left in the dark re it's true effect on the economy.
Whilst we might be a player in a lot of these existing EU deals, we cannot offer access to a market of more than 65 million people and therefore may not get quite the same terms as we have at present.
What is certainly true is this is going to take at least 2 more parliaments to just get back to the status quo.

 

[The Don]

I think that things will sort of balance out and while I'd be surprised to see tariffs introduced, currency fluctuations, and the cost of transportation as fuel prices will rise as a result of currency changes, are going to mean food prices rise, for the next several years at least.

Unless we end up with some kind of unilateral free trade agreement (where we allow tariffs to be imposed on our exports by the EU but don't implement reciprocal tariffs on EU imports) then tariffs are almost an inevitability.

Even without tariffs we will have significantly increased prices on imported goods. Increased inflation (which will either be accompanied by wage rises, resulting in increased costs and/or lower living standards) is another undesirable result of Brexit.

The UK is headed for recession in the short term while everything settles out and the economic outlook isn't going to be good until we've untangled ourselves from the EU and have a clearer idea of how post Brexit EU trade is gong to look.

Yes, a short term recession is a given - the long-term situation is less clear but the trade agreements will take years, if not decades, to put in place.

Another undesirable result of Brexit.

We're still 6 months away from triggering article 50 and there's going to be a bunch of off the record informal pre-negotiation talks, and the EU in general and France in particular are going to threaten us with big sticks, and the economy is going to bounce up and down quite a bit in the next 6 months.

We're looking at years of economic uncertainty, another undesirable result of Brexit.

In 5 years time though things ought to be a lot better, we ought to have a good base of trade deals hammered out with our main trading partners, there'll be a special visa type system to allow migrant workers short term access to the UK and some kind of points based permanent visa system.

Sort of "pseudo Free Movement of people"

Which will leave us in a "worst of all possible worlds" situation.

The ardent Brexiteers who want low or zero net migration will be unhappy because we have "pseudo Free Movement of people".

People like me who rely on selling services into the EU will be unhappy because "pseudo Free Movement of people" will not allow us to place people into EU positions with the same freedom as EU companies.

"Pseudo free Movement of people" also does not guarantee that people from the UK will be able to study, work, live, retire to EU countries.

The model of Brexit you have outlined increases red-tape for UK companies, reduces freedom of movement for UK citizens and yet will not address Brexiteers' concerns about the level of immigration.

So certain economic downturn in the short term - massive economic uncertainty in the middle to long term, increased red tape and hassle for employers, reduced freedom of movement for UK citizens, increased inflation. Remind me again of why Brexit was such a good idea

 

[MCel58]

Which will leave us in a "worst of all possible worlds" situation.

The ardent Brexiteers who want low or zero net migration will be unhappy because we have "pseudo Free Movement of people".

People like me who rely on selling services into the EU will be unhappy because "pseudo Free Movement of people" will not allow us to place people into EU positions with the same freedom as EU companies.

"Pseudo free Movement of people" also does not guarantee that people from the UK will be able to study, work, live, retire to EU countries.

The model of Brexit you have outlined increases red-tape for UK companies, reduces freedom of movement for UK citizens and yet will not address Brexiteers' concerns about the level of immigration.

So certain economic downturn in the short term - massive economic uncertainty in the middle to long term, increased red tape and hassle for employers, reduced freedom of movement for UK citizens, increased inflation. Remind me again of why Brexit was such a good idea

Completely agree and as a UK citizen already in the EU, I find all this talk of quotas very disturbing particularly as a post Brexit, post article 50 UK citizen, many of us could find ourselves already in the EU suddenly without employment and without reciprocal health insurance unless it can be proven that we have a skills mix (and the personal means to insure ourselves) not present in the EU citizen skills market. This is a precondition of many EU countries non EU work visas schemes.
When asking for advice on this the consulates are just saying they don't know and it depends on the Art.50 negotiations.
There is definetly a move on here for as many of us to gain EU citizen rights by applying for citizenship of various member states prior to any moves by the UK government because of the uncertainty. However, the health insurance issue alone may force many Brits back to the UK particularly where people need a high degree of medical care or medication as prior to gaining new citizenship many EU countries want proof of comprehensive health care insurance.
There is already some movement by EU employers looking at whether it is a good investment to employ UK staff who may not be able to remain in those jobs in the future. So I would also like to understand who on earth thought this referendum was a good idea.

 

[ceptimus]

Remind me again of why Brexit was such a good idea

To get control over immigration.

The people were offered a choice in the referendum: Would you rather have control over immigration and be a bit poorer, or would you prefer the status quo of uncontrolled immigration and maintain your current financial situation?

The people opted to control immigration, even though that means they're poorer - at least in the short and medium term.

Some people who are not concerned about immigration or are more concerned about their finances don't want to accept the decision that was made. Tough. This is the way that democracy works.

 

[MCel58]

To get control over immigration.

The people were offered a choice in the referendum: Would you rather have control over immigration and be a bit poorer, or would you prefer the status quo of uncontrolled immigration and maintain your current financial situation?

The people opted to control immigration, even though that means they're poorer - at least in the short and medium term.

Some people who are not concerned about immigration or are more concerned about their finances don't want to accept the decision that was made. Tough. This is the way that democracy works.

And if it turns out that control over immigration cannot be achieved, what will happen then?

 

[The Don]

To get control over immigration.

The people were offered a choice in the referendum: Would you rather have control over immigration and be a bit poorer, or would you prefer the status quo of uncontrolled immigration and maintain your current financial situation?

Except the immigration was never uncontrolled. 50% of net immigration is from outside the EU - we have complete control over that.

The people opted to control immigration, even though that means they're poorer - at least in the short and medium term.

It's not entirely clear what people voted for. Some people were under the clear impression that they were voting to have immigration stop IMMEDIATELY - and that immigrants would be sent home. Some people voted for an extra £350m a week for the NHS. The Leave campaign also gave the clear impression that people would be BETTER off following Brexit.

I'm not aware that people were given the clear choice of "control over immigration (which doesn't necessarily mean lower net migration immediately or at all) at the expense of being poorer". Instead they were offered low or no net immigration and being far better off.

OTOH the leave campaign were quite clear that Brexit wouldn't necessarily result in significantly lower net migration but would result in an immediate economic downturn. Seems like it's not necessarily a good idea to ignore experts.

Some people who are not concerned about immigration or are more concerned about their finances don't want to accept the decision that was made. Tough. This is the way that democracy works.

I think there's a variety of factors at play. Those of us on the Remain side who said that the Leave campaign was spinning a tissue of lies when it claimed £350m a week would go to the NHS, that immigration would stop, that not only would there be no negative economic consequences of Brexit but that we would enter a new age of prosperity have unfortunately been vindicated.

The Leave campaign did a great job of persuading people but it's become very clear, very quickly, that they had no clear plan for "what next ?" - not least because of the breadth of views covered by the Leave campaign - and that there will be rocky times ahead.

 

[Craig B]

The people were offered a choice in the referendum: Would you rather have control over immigration and be a bit poorer, or would you prefer the status quo of uncontrolled immigration and maintain your current financial situation?

Who offered them that option?

 

[Aepervius]

OTOH the leave campaign were quite clear that Brexit wouldn't necessarily result in significantly lower net migration but would result in an immediate economic downturn. Seems like it's not necessarily a good idea to ignore experts.

I think you meant remain. The "Leaver" kept telling us all and in media that remained were painting a brexit dark to try to sell a remain vote.

 

[Craig B]

My memory of the Leavers' propaganda is that ithey predicted that wages would rise because immigrants wouldn't be working for low pay, and that pressure on social housing and health services would be reduced. They claimed that in general the Remainers were interested only in the better off classes, while the likes of Gove and BoJo had the interests of the "little people" at the forefront of their campaign ... and so on and so forth.

They didn't say, if you throw out the immigrants you'll be poorer, as far as I can recall. At least that wasn't presented as the clear option which was to motivate voters in the Brexit referendum. In other words either the leaders of the Leave campaign lied, or they were utterly irresponsible, or they are unthinking fools.

ETA Here's John Redwood. is he offering voters the ceptimus option?
ETA 2 This diatribe is from Spiked gloating over the result of the referendum.

Let us dwell for a moment on the failure of the establishment. It pumped an extraordinary amount of energy, money, time and intellectual resources into the campaign to keep Britain in the EU. It deployed the politics of fear, issuing dire warnings about a post-Brexit recession and a possible surge in racism and violence. It sent experts to explain to our tiny minds all the things that would happen if we made the wrong choice. It rallied big business, corporates, its global partners and allies, all of whom insisted that it is in Britain’s interests, and Europe’s interests, for the EU to stay intact. And yet it didn’t work.​

Is this pseudo-populist cretinism celebrating the victory of a "financially poor but racially pure" UK option? I would say it isn't.

 

[catsmate]

The people were offered a choice in the referendum: Would you rather have control over immigration and be a bit poorer, or would you prefer the status quo of uncontrolled immigration and maintain your current financial situation?

Really? Where was this choice laid out

 

[The Don]

I think you meant remain. The "Leaver" kept telling us all and in media that remained were painting a brexit dark to try to sell a remain vote.

derp, that's the second time I've done that.

 

[Aepervius]

Really? Where was this choice laid out

It was laid out post-hoc, in an attempt to make leaver look less reckless and borderline idiotic in their choice than they were in reality.

 

[catsmate]

It was laid out post-hoc, in an attempt to make leaver look less reckless and borderline idiotic in their choice than they were in reality.

Ah, thanks.
Unfortunately, like most people, my memories follow the arrow of time and thus this wasn't available to me.

 

[cullennz]

No offence but when are you lot going to accept the dubious referendum and work with the outcome?

It is done

 

[The Don]

No offence but when are you lot going to accept the dubious referendum and work with the outcome?

It is done

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at....

The UK government is apparently working on Brexit.

Various organisations are lobbying the government to present their vision of Brexit.

I'm talking continuously with my EU clients to try and keep my contracts - but until we have some idea as to what Brexit may look like, there's little concrete that can be done.

What more do you suggest doing ?

 

[cullennz]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at....

The UK government is apparently working on Brexit.

Various organisations are lobbying the government to present their vision of Brexit.

I'm talking continuously with my EU clients to try and keep my contracts - but until we have some idea as to what Brexit may look like, there's little concrete that can be done.

What more do you suggest doing ?

Sorry. I'm sure you lot in the deep end are. And good luck.

It is just the continuous still arguing about the basics of a referendum that is done

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sorry. I'm sure you lot in the deep end are. And good luck.

It is just the continuous still arguing about the basics of a referendum that is done

Well the problem is that while 'it' is done nobody seems to know what 'it' is. So telling us to get on and implement 'it' is quite hard.

A month or so on we're none the wiser as to what 'it' will be. But 'it' will definitely be 'it'. We've been told that at least.

 

[The Don]

Sorry. I'm sure you lot in the deep end are. And good luck.

It is just the continuous still arguing about the basics of a referendum that is done

It's very much live on the grounds that the possible shape of the post-Brexit solution is still very much in play.

At one end of the spectrum is the Norway version, where it's business as usual but for many reasons we don't "get our country back". Assuming that not leaving is not an option then from my perspective this is the least worst option - given the rhetoric from the UK government it's also unlikely.

At the other there's the out-out-out option where the UK leaves the EU, EEA and the European Council (so we can say goodbye to the ECHR). We close the borders, accept default terms and make our own way in the world. There are many in the Leave camp who would choose this option but it's by no means the consensus view.

The whole strawberry discussion is pertinent to this.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Really? Where was this choice laid out

To be honest if you take the entirety of the Leave campaign then you'll find just about every choice laid out so you should be able to find someone who said this version somewhere.

I do vaguely remember some Leave voices saying something like 'we might be worse off for a short while' and I do remember many saying 'we can control immigration' (note that control is carefully chosen not to be synonymous with reduce so that its wonderfully non-committal)

The beauty of Brexit was it meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

 

[Craig B]

No offence but when are you lot going to accept the dubious referendum and work with the outcome?

It is done

Who's not accepting it? Accepting doesn't meen liking or thinking it's sensible decision, or agreeing with this.

Some people who are not concerned about immigration or are more concerned about their finances don't want to accept the decision that was made. Tough. This is the way that democracy works.

Well, we agree it's "tough" but God help us if it's an example of "the way that democracy works". Personally, I'm "working with the outcome" already, by informing the Irish consulate in Edinburgh that one of my grandparents was born in Ireland, and obtaining a copy of her birth certificate from the Civil Registry in the Republic of Ireland; and I bet over the next few months I'll be "working with the outcome" by promoting as vigorously as I can a Yes vote in Scottish Indyref2 if and when it is launched.

What will you be doing, cullennz, to work with the outcome of the "dubious referendum"?