When considering in or out:

[Gerrydelasel]

Do you approve of shared standards and qualifications, then?

Yes. And before you say "Ha! But that's what the EU does! Got you!" Yes, indeed, but I don't believe that agreeing standards also requires total political collusion and federalisation, nor that agreed standards between certain countries must be to the exclusion of agreeing standards with other countries, or domestically.

Do you share his belief in freedom of movement?

No, I believe in the sovereign choice of countries to allow movement and make agreements as they see fit.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

nor that agreed standards between certain countries must be to the exclusion of agreeing standards with other countries, or domestically.

So you are content with bi-lateral agreements, but not multi-lateral agreements?
"Bi-lateral trade agreements aren't worth the value of the paper they are written on."

After all, many bilateral trade agreements aren’t worth the value of the paper they are written on because, just like the Australia-U.S. deal, they reshuffle trade rather than create more of it. They don’t come with much liberalisation. That’s also why the British government first rejected the idea of a transatlantic trade agreement – now known as TTIP – when the idea first emerged in 2012.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...lking-nonsense-about-britains-trade-policies/

No, I believe in the sovereign choice of countries to allow movement and make agreements as they see fit.

Then why bother with agreed standards on, say, vocational qualifications? The shortage of certain vocational skills is dynamic, therefore the need for certain skills is temporary and also dynamic. Why should not the recognition of vocational qualifications also be temporary, dynamic, and/or temporary adjustments be available?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Just an additional snippet of information, for those who say UK will have a fall-back position of WTO rules for trade. This is not a fall-back position, but a completely new set of negotiations:

Roberto Azevedo, the director-general of the WTO, has indicated that resetting the terms of the UK’s membership could take years if not decades, and that the UK would be naïve to expect smooth sailing or quick results. Negotiations over the terms of a country’s WTO membership can easily become contentious and get hung up for years.
Russia’s recent accession negotiation took 20 years, while China’s took 15. Further complicating matters is the WTO’s fractious environment – the Doha Round of trade talks has broken down in repeated stalemate since 2001. The consensus-based process means it takes very little to impede an argument, and the UK will have to negotiate terms with, and gain the assent of, all 161 other WTO members.

http://theconversation.com/why-uk-c...rs-without-proper-access-to-world-trade-61782
So instead of UK negotiating its position in the EU with 27 other nations, the fall-back is to negotiate its position with another different 161 nations.
Edit: Sorry it might be 162 other 'organisations.'

Tricky subjects
The complexity comes from the EU’s strange situation in the WTO. The EU is 29 WTO members: the 28 member states plus the EU itself. They have combined “rights” (e.g. to be able to export to other countries, and not to be discriminated against), balanced against shared “obligations” (e.g. to open up to imports from them, and not to discriminate against them).

http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-simple-about-uk-regaining-wto-status-post-brexit
So the EU and its member countries could delay/oppose UK's membership/renegotiation of WTO membership! Our bargaining position is becoming ever weaker!


It looked like Mrs May had read the following paper, but only understood the first principle, "No deal is better than a bad deal!"
The second principle concerns patience. The side that can hold out longer gets the better deal. UK does not hold that card in negotiating exit from EU!
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/david-davis-muddled-understanding-of-trade-policy/

 

[Gerrydelasel]

So you are content with bi-lateral agreements, but not multi-lateral agreements?

Where did I say that? I've no objection to multi-lateral standardisation, so long as it doesn't also require federalisation in other areas too (and why should it?).

Then why bother with agreed standards on, say, vocational qualifications? The shortage of certain vocational skills is dynamic, therefore the need for certain skills is temporary and also dynamic. Why should not the recognition of vocational qualifications also be temporary, dynamic, and/or temporary adjustments be available?

Not sure what you're getting at. If it needs to be dynamic, make it so. If we're happy to agree to freedom of movement with a certain country until further notice, make it so. None of this ipso facto requires a membership fee, customs barriers, tarriff walls, laws/rights harmonisation, a continental army/fiscal model/single curreny/envionmental policy, automatic freedom of movement with additional countries, and so on. Some of these things go together, some don't, but in the EU it's all or nothing and painfully hard to change once it's happened.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

. Some of these things go together, some don't, but in the EU it's all or nothing and painfully hard to change once it's happened.

So is Brexit.

If anyone had any misunderstanding about the complexities involved, consider this:

The EU’s quotas — allowing quantities of certain products to be imported at special lower-duty rates — are for the whole single market, not any individual country such as the UK. Limits on agricultural subsidies are also for the entire EU.
To be an independent WTO member, the UK would be creating its own rights and obligations out of the EU’s. That’s not as simple as it sounds...
Take just one hard-fought issue: low-duty import quotas for high-quality beef, just two of almost 100 EU quotas. The EU opened these beef quotas after lengthy negotiations with Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the US.

Extracting UK beef quotas out of the EU’s would require negotiations with all of them, plus possibly other suppliers such as Botswana, India, and Namibia, and definitely the EU itself — Ireland, Germany and France have particularly strong beef lobbies.

While the exporting countries are pressing for the UK’s quota gates to be opened wider, and jostling with each other for paths through the opening, UK farmers would be pushing in the opposite direction. Remember, to reach agreement, the WTO’s consensus rule would apply.
The EU’s black hole

Now comes the surprise. We don’t know what most of the EU’s current commitments in the WTO are. The UK would be negotiating a share of key quantities that are unknown.

The only confirmed commitments on tariffs, quotas, and farm subsidies are from before 2004 when the EU had 15 member states. The EU has expanded three times since then, but in 12 years it has been unable to agree with the WTO membership on revised commitments.

That in itself is a warning. The UK will be negotiating a share of numbers that are unknown, with no guarantee of agreement...

http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-simple-about-uk-regaining-wto-status-post-brexit

I think it was Lord Hannay who commented in the House of Lords yesterday something along the lines, "Brexit was championed by those with the least able managerial and intellectual ability, and it will be those with the most managerial and intellectual ability that will have to complete it."

 

[Gerrydelasel]

So what are you saying? That we should not leave the EU because it is 'too hard'?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

So what are you saying? That we should not leave the EU because it is 'too hard'?

That is not a valid reason, even reduced to such simplicity.
The complexities of negotiating Brexit, coupled with the complexities of negotiating some potential alternatives, are not a valid reason to avoid the issue, provided that we are in a strong, stable economic/geopolitical position.
We are not, and now is not an opportune time to consider Brexit. It was not sufficiently considered prior to the referendum. It has only been seriously considered post referendum, and only as a political appeasement due to the anti-immigration sentiment whipped up by UKIP and other far right movements.
Take immigration/migration out of the equation and Brexit is a non-starter.
To destroy the economy in order to resolve the migration issue is ludicrous. But absurdly, the former will resolve the latter.

 

[wobs]

Yes. And before you say "Ha! But that's what the EU does! Got you!" Yes, indeed, but I don't believe that agreeing standards also requires total political collusion and federalisation, nor that agreed standards between certain countries must be to the exclusion of agreeing standards with other countries, or domestically.

You mean like agreeing to use micro-USB plugs in mobile phones across different makes? Oh wait, that was not mandatory:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/micro-usb-to-be-universal-eu-phone-charger/
"However, there is no legal reason why these companies can go ahead with using other ports. The agreement undertaken by these companies is not legally binding and only voluntary."

No, I believe in the sovereign choice of countries to allow movement and make agreements as they see fit.

The UK parliament already is sovereign
"The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. "
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf
Or are you saying that feelings are more important than facts?

We chose not to impose certain controls on EU immigration, as it benefits the UK.
We benefit from the many trade agreements that the EU has, and as the largest trading bloc in the world, the EU holds a fair bit of bargaining weight.
As the UK on its own in a post Brexit world?: not so much.

"The essence of trade deals is how much market you have got to offer the other side? So, if Switzerland wants to go and have a trade deal with China, it says, "here’s our market, quite small, your market’s enormous, we need a trade deal with you". And China says, as they’ve done, "fine you can give us completely open entry into your economy, and we will open up for you to trade into ours in 15 years- time" …


"So my point is that for Britain, if everybody in the world believed in a free market as a matter of religious faith, Britain might have a chance, but that’s not how trade negotiations work. Countries say "how big’s your market?" and that’s the deal we’ll do with you. And that’s why Britain as part of a European market of 500m is part of some very successful trade deals with more than 60 other countries. And that’s Britain’s market. Now if Britain wants to try and negotiate those alone there’s two big problems: one it will always be the rule-taker. The big economies will always just dictate the terms. And second, it takes a lot of time, it takes on average 28 months to come up with a trade deal. And the reason that’s important is all these flourishing sectors…they need investment.

http://www.nfda-uk.co.uk/_assets/EU Referendum Report 9 - The Penultimate Chapter.pdf

 

[wobs]

So what are you saying? That we should not leave the EU because it is 'too hard'?

We should not leave because all the evidence points to us being worse off if we do leave.

 

[durhamplumber]

lets just get the hell out.no single market.go our own way with the whole world.im no xenophobe.idiot.uneducated.dreamer.I have not been brainwashed by anyone.I listened to all the arguments and voted out.Democracy.the majority won.its not PR....we cant be half in...

 

[wobs]

lets just get the hell out.no single market.go our own way with the whole world.im no xenophobe.idiot.uneducated.dreamer.I have not been brainwashed by anyone.I listened to all the arguments and voted out.Democracy.the majority won.its not PR....we cant be half in...

OK then, where is your evidence that we will be better off overall? I mean other than benefitting a few billionaires/millionaires obviously.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

OK then, where is your evidence that we will be better off overall? I mean other than benefitting a few billionaires/millionaires obviously.

I don't think durhamplumber mentioned being better off...
But if he did, how do you define 'better off'? In terms of money? Freedom? Lifespan? Self esteem? Sovereignty? Democratic accountability? If you answer is only 'money' then you may have missed the point...

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

.Democracy.the majority won...

Again I think it was Lord Hannay who pointed out last night in the House of Lords that a Scottish golf course required a two thirds majority to allow females to become members.
On the In/Out referendum I think it was 34% voted to Remain and 37% voted to leave. Hardly a majority. Only a majority of those that voted, and then only by 3%.
The Scottish golf course mentioned required a two thirds majority to change its constitution. Brexit is the biggest economic/geopolitical change in our lifetime. For it to be decided by the slimmest of majority is absurd.
Mrs May was a weak Remainer before the referendum, she is now an eager and staunch Brexiteer, going for the hardest Brexit possible!
What changed her mind? I doubt it is a reflection of the 3% majority!

 

[JohnD]

'better off' ...

How about "being part of a co-operative community of nations."

We've seen the alternative.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I don't think durhamplumber mentioned being better off...
But if he did, how do you define 'better off'? In terms of money? Freedom? Lifespan? Self esteem? Sovereignty? Democratic accountability? If you answer is only 'money' then you may have missed the point...

Money makes the world go around, the world go around.....
Already families are starting to experience high price rises in their grocery bills. (Channel 4 Dispatches last night. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/64584-005 )

This will make it easier for those 'just about managing'?

What will they think when they feel king of all they survey, but it is bu99er-all?