It would certainly cut the tax load and put then in control of their own immigration and trade policies.
Split over Bexit....Chaos in UK.
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
It would certainly cut the tax load and put then in control of their own immigration and trade policies.
That depends entirely on the kind of Brexit. The Norwegian model is like being in the EU but without being in the EU for example. I suspect that the writer of the referendum question was a remainer who'd never considered that the majority would vote leave. Had he considered that possibility, he would have written a more clearly defined leave option into the referendum question.
Last edited:
Once the limeys are absorbed by the EU this world will be a better place.
You can blot them up from the beaches in Spain.
They did deport my DNA however and it is eternally gratefull that it no longer has to abide by them.
A people long long past thier expirey date.
A people long long past thier expirey date.
Some of my DNA was deported at the end of a bayonet during the ethnic cleansing of the Highlands.
I think the remainers need to be careful not to become too complacent. Even if the UK decides on a Norwegian-style soft Brexit, that could lead the way to the people voting for a hard-Brexit Parliament in the next election which in turn could lead to a new but this time more clearly defined referendum question leaving no room for ambiguity. Should the majority again vote for Brexit but according to the more clearly-defined referendum, we could very sell see the soft Brexit just serving as a stepping stone for a few years before the UK finally follows through with a well-thought-out hard Brexit which would probably mean unilateral free trade since I don't see any other viable alternative.
I would probably do it this way.
First, make sure the alternative option in the referendum question explicitly states unilateral free trade. Should the majority vote for that, it would clearly slam the door shut on any possibility of another soft-Brexit option.
Secondly, campaign on the truth and don't sugar coat it. Make sure the people understand that voting for unilateral free trade, while it may bring long term benefits, will inevitably mean short-to-medium-term pain in the transition period.
Thirdly, give people reassurance. Promise for example that the government would invest heavily in trades and professional education for the unemployed as a way to reassure them that the government won't just leave those who are displaced from the transition on the lurch.
Fourthly, give businesses time to plan. For example, since the referendum question would already have clearly specified unilateral free trade, businesses would now have a clearer option of what's coming. When the government starts the second Brexit process, it could give its two years of notice and businesses could plan with a clearer understanding two years earlier of what's coming with at least some clarity. Since unilateral free trade would mean dropping all tariffs and subsidies unilaterally, any new agreement with the EU would need to allow the UK to do this or there simply would be no deal. And if there is an agreement, it would address things other than tariffs and subsidies (since the UK would address those unilaterally anyway) and so would focus more on common standards in packaging and labeling, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and other technical standards and that's it.
At least that way the UK would leave with a clearer plan.
One possible plus of a Norwegian-style agreement is that it would almost guarantee a second (and I hope more clearly written) hard-Brexit referendum.
The British should be finnally ans inorexible harnesed to the EU and systematically be bled to death,in the worst dealof course, preferably they should be efficiently consum,ned in the various mines and in munitions disposal.
Will it? I doubt that there will be the slightest change in taxes in the UK. As for immigration, given the UK's low birth rate immigration is going to have to remain high or it will face serious population aging and eventual population decline.
I think another big Brexit error was the suddenness of it. For example, if the UK really wants a hard Brexit, it could have adopted a 70-year plan for a hard Brexit. for example, it could have negotiated an agreement that, at least for the time being, would maintain Eu product and other standards but would allow both the UK to gradually drop tariffs and subsidies and the EU to gradually raise them against the UK over a 70-year period. Seeing how the EU itself would have appreciated such a gradual approach, it would probably have happily agreed to it. It would also have given UK businesses 70 years to adapt to a long-term gradual Brexit.
Perhaps ironically, stopping immigration would slow the UK's economic growth which in turn could lower birth rates. More open borders could stimulate economic growth and so increase birth rates, as paradoxical as it might seem.
Perhaps ironically, stopping immigration would slow the UK's economic growth which in turn could lower birth rates. More open borders could stimulate economic growth and so increase birth rates, as paradoxical as it might seem.
A declining population does not require economic growth ,they only require stability . You greens call it sustainability.
It will when May is ousted as PM and Jacob Rees-Mogg takes over.
May spent the first several months of her premiership telling us "Brexit means Brexit" - that became her catchphrase - implying that she will take us completely out of the EU as per the democratic vote: full control of our borders and our laws and out of the customs union and single market and a return to full control of our trade policy, which is sovereign sovereign states have.
She's now come up with a plan which will effectively be "Brexit in name only". She wants full alignment with the EU on goods, which means that the UK would only be able to import goods from anywhere in the world only if it has permission from the EU, even though the UK would no longer be in the EU! It would just reduce the UK to an EU vassale state; an EU colony. And that is certainly not what the British people voted for. They voted for full independence and sovereignty, not to leave the EU but then become its vassal state in return.
Thankfully, it looks as though May's plan is already starting to fall apart.
The UK has the third-highest birth rate, and one of the youngest populations, in the EU.
Coffee House
The EU is terrified that Britain will make a success of Brexit
David Green
David Green
13 July 2018
The Spectator
Now that the EU white paper is out we can see that terms like vassal state, colony and homage were well chosen and that Donald Trump’s doubts are valid. The commitment to a common rule book that includes a pledge to enforce state-aid rules is effectively promising not to try too hard to be economically successful. And yet state aid has hardly been mentioned in the debate.
Freedom from the EU straitjacket gives us the chance to show how an independent people can create prosperity but instead of seizing the day the Government is worried about disrupting integrated EU supply chains, which may involve a car component being made in Italy, then taken to Germany for finishing, before being installed in a car in a UK factory. This remarkably wasteful practice is also environmentally harmful because of avoidable transportation costs and is already being replaced by shorter supply chains.
It makes economic sense for components to be manufactured near the car factory, but there is an initial investment that may involve the Government. Under the white paper, our Government will have to get permission from Brussels before it can support investment in a home-based supply chain and the high-paid jobs that go with it. What will happen when we apply to Brussels for permission to spend our own money? Rival German car manufacturers, some of whom have already shown how unscrupulous they are on emissions testing, will lobby the EU to prevent British investment. Suppressing innovation serves the interests of existing manufacturers but prevents new entrepreneurs from developing the technologies and industries of the future.
The EU is terrified that we will make a success of our independence. It knows perfectly well that its iconic policies have proved disastrous. The eurozone is fatally flawed and the Schengen agreement on immigration is in tatters. If we prosper, it will send a message to countries such as Italy and Spain, where unemployment is high, that there is another way. The EU’s negotiating strategy is to make British success as difficult as possible. They are scared stiff that we will flourish and show the world how misguided the EU project is. Instead of pressing home our advantage, Theresa May’s white paper plays into the hands of the fearful and defensive EU oligarchs. It’s as if she wants us to enter a race while making a solemn promise to the other contestants that we will not run at full speed. Leaving without an agreement would be better than accepting the white paper.
David Green is Director of Civitas
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/...d-that-britain-will-make-a-success-of-brexit/