That is very true. The Remain campaign was woeful. It didn’t address the desires of potential Leave voters, nor did it do much to point out the downsides. I think, as you say, they felt they didn’t need to do much campaigning because they were bound to win. The bookmakers and the opinion polls certainly gave that impression (although in retrospect the warning signs were there in the polls).
The problem is that the Remain campaign was too insular. It failed to look outside the London and Home Counties bubble where the idea of voting to leave was never going to happen.
Having said that, the referendum result did show me how you can live in an echo chamber without noticing. Only two people in my social circle voted to leave, as far as I am aware, and yet my (well off, Home Counties commuter belt) local constituency, which I would have expected to be vastly in favour of staying in the EU, was only just in favour, at 52.4% Remain.
You’re missing the point. The EU bent over backwards to pander to the UK. It agreed to an indefinite opt-out on the euro and from Schengen, to name but two. So yes, we already had our own currency and our sovereignty, AND all the benefits of being in a huge trading block. Now we have thrown away the benefits, for no additional gain, and if we want the trading benefits back, you can bet that we will have to give up the preferential treatment that we formerly had as a respected member of the original EU.
If this is such a onerous regulation then could you provide a cite rebutting the article there?
As someone not in the EU, I have never heard of the issue, but if the article is correct, then it does not seem to be much a big deal.
There should be some published source which could quickly refute that article if the article is fake news.
Even if a single article can’t be found, a quick summary would be helpful and I cannot imagine a circumstance where you providing general information could jeopardize your anonymity or provide any kind of clue to the nature or place of employment.
I didn’t read the article, as my argument is not to dispute or rebut it - it is that the points Ramira made are not relevant to the situation I was describing. To be honest, that particular regulation is not especially onerous, it is the principle of it that annoys me. As I said, many people would view that as an acceptable, minor irritation and they are free to do that.
We are already sovereign, and we have our own currency within the EU. That wouldn’t change within the EU without the explicit consent of the British Parliament, and likely, due to recent constitutional changes in the UK, with a referendum.
With Brexit, we’re less sovereign, weaker, poorer, and we’ll likely rejoin after a spell to undo the damage, and re-enter the irresistible superiority of the Single Market. Out of necessity, we’ll have to negotiate our re-entry, and the EU won’t be in a mood to humour the British, given the special treatment they gave us over forty years was spat back by an ungrateful country. Plus, being poorer, weaker, and more humble, we’ll have less to bargain with in return.
Jesus. You can’t eat ‘pride’, Ultra. Nor are we told what to do by Brussels. That makes us much sense as claiming that California is told what to do by Washington DC, ignoring the huge number of Representatives it sends, its two senators, and its major economic clout within the US.
Just so we’re clear - the hit that Britain is going to take from Brexit will likely be between 4% (a really bad year) and 10% (about as bad as the 2008 crash).
You seem to accept that the regulations in question are not particularly onerous, and that you’re simply “irritated about the principle”. Well, how irritated are you, really? Because shortages of food and medicine and an extremely hefty recession aren’t a matter of “irritation”, unless you’d consider a smallpox rash an “irritation”.
Our economy has already dropped below France’s, and there’s no reason to think that it will recover. Being part of the EU, but with our own currency, put us in an extremely strong position, but that’s all being jeapordised now.
Whatever happens in the next few months/years, the UK will remain strongly tied to the rest of Europe socially, politically, and economically. That will be the case whether we remain in the EU, whether the EU somehow collapses entirely, or anything in between. The only thing leaving will accomplish is removing any possibility of influencing the direction of the EU.
Given the massive bureaucratic overhead that will appear overnight, I don’t think the gloomy predictions are scaremongering. Merely accurate.
The problems with referendums is that they are hopeless at dealing with complicated questions. The general public, and possibly even Nigel Farage, will come to realize that the EU was well worth the niggles and costs because it simplified and promoted inter-European trade. Without that, the UK is not competitive.
A serious misunderstanding. The UK was not forced to change its currency, and did not do so. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the UK obtained a large number of concessions over the years, including Schengen (which was not a big issue in the EU, and note that it can be overruled, as the Danes did recently).
The UK people are independent? OK, then show me an EU country whose people are not. Proud? True, but some other nationalities come to mind first. And price can be uncommonly close to arrogance. Do not “need” to be told what to do by Brussels? A matter of opinion, to say the least. Many EU governments say that they can only introduce important but unpopular legislation (especially that on ecological issues) by saying “Brussels made us do it.” Consider that Hungary and Poland both have governments that want to play fast and loose with the norms of the EU and the Council of Europe and the European Parliament by perpetuating their current right-wing regimes while enjoying the commercial benefits of EU membership.
Perhaps you meant “do not want to be told what to do”. Very understandable. But no British gummint, of any flavor, has been notably touchy-feely, and much of the human rights legislation of the EU is far ahead of what the UK has - and will have. We are talking about a surveillance state, and I don’t mean Brussels.
And Brexit involves the parts of Britain. What about Northern Ireland? With an open border, thanks to the EU, EU subsidies propping up a not so affluent part of the UK and paying for the reconciliation work to mend the wounds of “The Troubles”, it is quiet and peaceful at the moment. That will not last long after a Brexit. And then Scotland. While many Scots voted to leave, they might well reconsider it if the UK takes the predicted economic hit. An independent Scotland would have to apply separately anyway, so … look for another Scottish referendum within a few years.
What part of the presention of Bird & Bird, a leading British law firm is wrong then? How do you expect without a heavy bureaucracy to have the Opt Out for the online trading?
The ‘money saved from not subsidising the EU’ claim is also faulty. We’d be losing money, a lot more money, by not being within the Single Market and Customs Union.
It’s like saying you’d save money on your rent by moving further away from the city centre, ignoring that you now have to take a much more expensive train.
In fact they were relevant to your sweeping assertions / complaints about the EODR, which unlike the inaccurate descriptions you made, I gave the technical description of the well respected UK law firm. Your Statements:
The article which you did not bother to read to inform yourself is from one of the leading UK law firms, Bird & Bird. It is apparently more important to make the complaints based on some personal understanding than to to engage on the objective analysis and facts. This is quite a pattern from the Brexit-desirious…
The observations I made were relevant as based on the objective analysis by the legal observers and the simple observation that unless you have some kind of Great Internet Wall of English Internet, the online sales of necessity is exposing to non English consumers and it is more burdensome and more bureaucratic to have a mecanism of triage and oversight (as the mere self declaration of “I only have the domestic customers” - which is something that is going to be having to be controlled across all the jurisdictions and is so obviously and painfully open to the abuse… so the general obligation rather than the expensive control mechanisms is very logical.
This is without making any representations about whether the EU mechanism - as I already said - works well or is well functoining. It addresses only your non factual assertions about the logical applcibility of such mecanism, which resemble in fact the same ones you were (are) making around the international trade rules,.
Of course perhaps it is insulting to point out this incoherence.
No, you are still wrong and your condescending tone is therefore even more misplaced than usual. It has nothing to do with the words you are putting into my mouth like “English Only internet”.
The point that you are missing is that some businesses/industries are already prevented by existing regulations to sell their products to consumers outside their own country. Those are the ones for whom a Europe-wide platform is not only completely pointless but unnecessarily burdensome, regardless of cost.
This really will be my last word on the subject otherwise I will be forced to take it to the Pit (unless you learn some humility), and it’s not worth it.
Really, what specific English businesses are forbidden to sell their products outside of their own country within the EU free trade in services and goods zone?
I am very interested to learn.
(and also how this new goal posting shifting corresponds with your quoted complaints initially)
FYI, California is being told what to do by the Trump Administration, and a successful campaign plank in the recent election was to promise to sue the hell out of Washington to stop this.
But that’s the result of irrational rules in Washington, which doesn’t seem to be the case in Brussels. And California is still better off than if we didn’t have any representation in Washington at all, so your point stands.
Some military stuff, I guess, would need specific UK government permission for any export. Those kinds of businesses aren’t going to have an online shop though.
Of course this mechanism is aimed at the consumer business.
His original complain I cite again:
And he complained they did not think of exemptions.
My responses addressed this (as why it is actually a more complex and heavier approach, the idea of trying to carve out a company selling to consumers online claiming only in their own country inside of the EU trading zone - for a coordination service that is trying to address the problem and the challenge of the consumer redress inside of a big common goods market with the online sales sites - and the referalal mechanism to the arbitration bodies, this is some how some great burden and sin)
Now the goal posts of the complaint seem to have morphed into some kind of English goods business (selling to consumers) that is forbidden to sell into another country… (although this is 100 per cent absent from his original complaints).
And the British law firm note, responding to it or reading it, it is avoided.
Apparently it is insulting to question the Brexit assertions and the non responses to the objective factual information.