Brexit thread - what happens next

[Bonjour]

The sad thing is, many leave voters, particularly in the last week leading up to the referendum, were using TTIP as a reason to vote leave. I don't know where they'd got the info, possibly from one of their BriLeave! websites, but they seemed to think TTIP in the EU was a done deal and the only way to protect us against it was to vote leave.

This ignores the fact that a number of EU states are against TTIP and would most likely use their veto on the deal. The Tories on the other hand, are generally favourable towards TTIP, and would most likely be sitting at the negotiating table with the USA to draw up our new trade deal.

 

[dalehitchy1]

So what are YOU going to do about it?

I will absolutely protest it. I dont get your point.

TTIP is far worse than the EU because it means giving our sovereignty to businesses. It means they will be in charge of any new laws.

Whenever I have spoken to leave voters about TTIP... They didn't even know what it was. I'm not saying they all dont know about it. But for a group that is so passionate about sovereignty why are they not protesting this just as much and far less informed on this (even more so than brexit.)

 

[Burnsy2023]

Where did you get that rubbish from(link please) The French PM vetoed TTIP from their NHS. Cameron wouldn't.

My point is simple, when you negotiate with 28 countries, you have less movement to negotiate than when you have one country. That allows EU countries to get better deals than the UK otherwise would.

As for concessions about the NHS, as part of any negotiation, you need to decide what you are willing to give away and what you aren't. I'm not sure the NHS would be ruled out by any Conservative lead administration.

Any trade deal we negotiate with the US will be much better than TTIP for us imo. Why? well firstly I expect the process of negotiation to be much more transparent - no more keeping the drafts secret and only allowing elected officials to read it if behind closed doors. Secondly it'll have to go through our parliament which is a considerably more rigorous process than being rubber-stamped by MEPs in Brussels. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, whatever deal is negotiated will have to be put in front of the British public by the British government. If it's a bad deal, people will remember that at the next election and ministers will know that people will remember - they won't be able to blame Brussels for every unpopular piece of legislation any more.

Trade deals will not be transparent. They never are due to not wanting other sides to know your negotiating position.

I agree that parliament can more rigorous than many other national governments and possibly the EU parliament as well, but out legislature has passed plenty of bits of bad legislation too.

All that bad trade deals will do is shift the mistrust of some people from the EU to parliament. If you think it will fundamentally change what is passed, you're naive.

All of this doesn't mean we'll get a better deal, that'll mean we get no deal at all. That doesn't fit the narrative that leaving the EU will mean we'll forge all of these new trade deals.

 

[scorza]

Strange that I don't recall this forum being so pro-NHS when it overwhelmingly backed the Tories in the 2015 general election.

 

[Bonjour]

Strange that I don't recall this forum being so pro-NHS when it overwhelmingly backed the Tories in the 2015 general election.

Not in my name

 

[a1ex2001]

I'm not sure the NHS would be ruled out by any Conservative lead administration.

A conservative government would happily privatise the NHS and education and sell both to the wolves given half a chance especially if there was a few quid in it for their mates! They have already effectively done this with education by making all schools academies and will complete the process when they remove parent governors from the system so the companies running academies are only accountable to themselves.

 

[Hades]

Strange that I don't recall this forum being so pro-NHS when it overwhelmingly backed the Tories in the 2015 general election.

Why, what was being said about the NHS on the forum in 2015?

 

[Trifid]

My point is simple, when you negotiate with 28 countries, you have less movement to negotiate than when you have one country. That allows EU countries to get better deals than the UK otherwise would.

As for concessions about the NHS, as part of any negotiation, you need to decide what you are willing to give away and what you aren't. I'm not sure the NHS would be ruled out by any Conservative lead administration.

Do you think a deal where there interests of all 28 countries on one side have to be listened to would be better then one between just 2 parties? Remember the UK isn't exactly small on its own.

 

[Freakbro]

Any trade deal we negotiate with the US will be much better than TTIP for us imo. Why? well firstly I expect the process of negotiation to be much more transparent - no more keeping the drafts secret and only allowing elected officials to read it if behind closed doors. Secondly it'll have to go through our parliament which is a considerably more rigorous process than being rubber-stamped by MEPs in Brussels. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, whatever deal is negotiated will have to be put in front of the British public by the British government. If it's a bad deal, people will remember that at the next election and ministers will know that people will remember - they won't be able to blame Brussels for every unpopular piece of legislation any more.

You mean apart from the fact TTIP is in tatters with the EU.....doesn't seem like they just 'rubber stamped it' to me. And also weren't the Tories one of the few pro-TTIP parties within the EU?

That's problem when you just use such a biased and pejorative viewpoint, your argument isn't really reflective of reality

 

[FoxEye]

I will absolutely protest it. I dont get your point.

TTIP is far worse than the EU because it means giving our sovereignty to businesses. It means they will be in charge of any new laws.

Won't be too different from how it is now, then?

MPs get "lobbied", then decide it's in everyone's interests to pass a law that the lobbyists wanted. Ooh, quelle surprise.

 

[[TW]Fox]

"A bilateral trade agreement between the UK and India would be a deal “made in heaven” and would pave the way for increased trade in the wake of Britain leaving the EU, the head of India’s business group has said."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2e0eb278-4372-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d.html#axzz4DlMRSKjy

Stay positive UK

A deal made in heaven for who?

Will you be complaining when tariff free ultra cheap Indian made goods push domestic stuff out of the market?

We probably already sell most of what we can to India.

 

[Dr Jack]

The problem is, it's not as simple as that. There are certain EU laws that will simply have no effect on leaving the EU. There are also many domestic laws that reference EU agencies and bodies, which can't continue to do so if we leave. Working out which ones those are isn't easy, quick or simple.

I still don't think we'll actually solve it. We'll put in some kind of general resolution rules, and then let the courts bash out the bits that don't work when they come up. The common law system is an absolute mess, bits of law accumulated over hundreds of years and stuck together with duct tape.

This will just bolt on a new raft of irregularities.

 

[Trifid]

A deal made in heaven for who?

Will you be complaining when tariff free ultra cheap Indian made goods push domestic stuff out of the market?

We probably already sell most of what we can to India.

Got any examples?

 

[scorza]

You mean apart from the fact TTIP is in tatters with the EU.....doesn't seem like they just 'rubber stamped it' to me. And also weren't the Tories one of the few pro-TTIP parties within the EU?

That's problem when you just use such a biased and pejorative viewpoint, your argument isn't really reflective of reality

The reason TTIP is in tatters is nothing to do with the European Parliament though. The EP loves Jean-Claude Juncker - they'd have agreed to anything with his stamp of approval.

 

[a1ex2001]

The reason TTIP is in tatters is nothing to do with the European Parliament though. The EP loves Jean-Claude Juncker - they'd have agreed to anything with his stamp of approval.

I thought Merkel was the EU overlord has she been usurped by Junker! Crikey it's had to keep up with this stuff!

 

[jas72]

It's not just about repealing laws, it's about checking each and every law and rewriting reference to EU law out of it. Either way it's a huge job.

/open word
/open document
/CTRL H
Search for EU replace with British

job done.

 

[Mr Badger]

No thanks as the EEA wants free movement of gimmigrents.

This nicely illustrates a point I've been making to Leave voters since well before the referendum, although with little apparent result. With no clear plan for Brexit you don't know what you will get and almost certainly won't be happy with it. The only thing we can be sure of is that it will be expensive, complicated and lengthy and that it will not be possible to please all the Leave voters - to say nothing of the 48.1% that voted Remain.

 

[dalehitchy1]

Won't be too different from how it is now, then?

MPs get "lobbied", then decide it's in everyone's interests to pass a law that the lobbyists wanted. Ooh, quelle surprise.

Except the EU prevented this. As they will have to lobby a whole lot more countries. The EU seemed far more pro consumer / workers than it ever did pro business.

Now that we are little England.... Expect business having far more power. That means less workers rights for you. If TTIP comes..... Expect only new laws to benefit them.

 

[deuse]

My point is simple, when you negotiate with 28 countries, you have less movement to negotiate than when you have one country. That allows EU countries to get better deals than the UK otherwise would.

As for concessions about the NHS, as part of any negotiation, you need to decide what you are willing to give away and what you aren't. I'm not sure the NHS would be ruled out by any Conservative lead administration.

Sorry no. Each EU country can veto anything for it's own country.
As France already did. So saying there are more so it will be better is rubbish as proved.

That's one of the reason people wanted to leave because Cameron wouldn't veto it on the NHS.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Got any examples?

Examples of what?