Forum Topic

However, Andy, I hold my stance over sovereignty. It can be full or in can be partial.The Oxford Living Dictionaries give the following definition:Definition of sovereignty in English:sovereigntynoun    1[mass noun] Supreme power or authority:    ‘the sovereignty of Parliament’    ‘The sovereignty of this Parliament is the one thing that underpins everything about this country.’    ‘We no longer had sovereignty over our own credit, currency, and related banking affairs.’    ‘No international authority has any authority over us which diminishes our sovereignty.’    ‘Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights.’    ‘The decision to have a child is a fundamental question of sovereignty over your own body, and a decision that no-one else has any right to make.’    ‘The Government has the right to regulate and the sovereignty of Parliament is assured.’    ‘His life and his death taught all those that knew him of God's wisdom, grace, sovereignty and power.’    ‘Bakhtin does not attribute to the real author anything like sovereignty over the discourse he or she produces.’    ‘Consumer sovereignty meant the greatest freedom of choice for individuals via the widest provision of alternative broadcast goods.’    ‘The individualistic credo grants each of us sovereignty over what we choose as the best kind of life.’    ‘People have a right to sovereignty over their own bodies - even teenagers.’    ‘There are certain things that you must not do to me without my consent and this fact gives me a kind of sovereignty over my life that you cannot legitimately invade or diminish.’    ‘She said that women desire control and sovereignty over their husbands.’    ‘At some point under our system we have to assert parliamentary sovereignty against judicial activism.’    ‘Her pondering presumes a regal power, a lingering vestige of an era when sovereignty resided not in the people but in the monarch.’    ‘As a political system, democracy starts with the assumption of popular sovereignty, vesting ultimate power in the people.’    ‘Here was the judicial reconciliation of Parliamentary sovereignty with the supremacy of EC law.’    ‘It was more than a legitimisation of sovereignty by Brahmanical ritual; it was an assertion of supreme sovereignty.’    ‘For these reasons, many modern Austrian economists reject the doctrine of consumer sovereignty.’    ‘God's absolute sovereignty in history, cosmic and personal, is the greatest comfort to Christian believers.’    1.1 The authority of a state to govern itself or another state:    ‘national sovereignty’    ‘With the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the legal basis for the concept of national sovereignty was established.’    ‘Restoration of that country's sovereignty would lead willy-nilly to the arrival of democracy there.’    ‘Illegal immigration threatens our sovereignty, our security, reverence for the rule of law.’    ‘In 1657 Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, gained full sovereignty over the duchy.’    ‘The two occupying powers cared little for the country's sovereignty and well-being.’    ‘Neither Spain nor Guatemala ever exercised effective sovereignty over the area.’    ‘The treaty grants Britain sovereignty over the sites in perpetuity.’    ‘The Republic of Fiji Military Forces was established to defend the nation's territorial sovereignty.’    ‘Westphalian sovereignty is violated when external actors influence or determine domestic authority structures.’    ‘Many of the world's developing countries were formerly under the sovereignty of a colonial power.’    ‘France, Portugal and Greece allegedly have reservations about ceding national sovereignty over their airspace.’    ‘A head of state must defend his or her country's sovereignty.’    ‘Full national sovereignty was regained in 1992 with the evacuation of most of the Soviet troops stationed in Poland.’    ‘Republican architecture became a proud symbol of Dominican sovereignty.’    ‘The president said that foreign relations were the most important symbol of a nation's independent sovereignty.’1.2[count noun] A self-governing state.            ‘Ancient sovereignties such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Venetian Republic were destroyed: nearly 60 per cent of Germans changed rulers during the Revolution.’            ‘The most it can ever realistically hope for - even if a liberal democracy were to take root on the mainland - is an arrangement along the lines of the European Union that preserves separate sovereignties.’            ‘It was not the supersession of one or several sovereignties by a single sovereignty, but a division and sharing of sovereignty.’            ‘Is ‘confederation’ just another word for two independent sovereignties talking to each other to coordinate, where possible, policy objectives and implementation?’            ‘What we may be witnessing is global capitalism destroying national sovereignties, leading to a global government, much as Marx described capitalism's role in the overthrow of feudalism and the rise of the nation-state.’            ‘The treaties of Westphalia formally recognized the existence of separate sovereignties in one international society.’            ‘An independent sovereignty was thus interposed between the two divisions of his kingdom.’            ‘It took from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century for Europeans to achieve peaceful sovereignties with peaceful transitions of power.’            ‘To the Western Europeans who came to the New World, treaties were documents that essentially codified agreements made between two or more sovereignties.’            ‘Each individual sovereignty has its natural frontiers within which it may operate and outside of which it may not pass without violating other sovereignties.’            ‘Millions have been killed to reach ‘agreement’ about the various sovereignties we now see delimited in our atlases and car-maps.’            ‘According to federalist doctrine, the states are separate sovereignties, not subordinate but equal to the national government.’            ‘Fifteen sovereignties cannot a foreign or military policy make, even though, were they to federate into one sovereignty, they could exert power equal to that of the United States.’            ‘The Liddell plan would create a chaotic parliamentary map of Scotland resembling the petty sovereignties of the Holy Roman Empire.’            ‘If the latter is the case, and if Quebec secedes, two separate national sovereignties result.’            ‘We are all New Zealanders, and there should be a single sovereignty.’            ‘According to Davies, Medieval Ireland was less a unitary commonwealth after the pattern of England than a clustered multitude of sovereignties.’OriginLate Middle English: from Old French sovereinete, from soverain (see sovereign).

George Marquez ● 3186d

'Sadly the 13amp plug scenario is very real.'No it isn't. You are making it up. The EU doesn't have a standard for plugs and sockets and has never attempted to impose one nor have they any plans to impose one. Provide some evidence or stop repeating this falsehood.'I am also right about sovereignty.'No you are not. You don't seem to have the most basic grasp of what the word means. Sovereignty is by definition indivisible.'And no more 40-year-old child refugees thankfully.'Let's just pass over the nonsense point about child refugees for now. Are you seriously unaware that our responsibilities to help out with the refugee crisis will not end when we leave the EU and our policy on refugees is not determined by the EU. We are signatories to the 1951 UNHCR convention on refugees and will remain so outside the EU. Unless you actually think membership of the United Nations also results in a bit of 'sovereignty leakage' and we should leave that and renege on all our global treaty obligations? If taking in fewer refugees is something you think should be the primary aim of government policy, isn't creating a long land border with the EU a bad idea? Even if the aspiration is a closed border, the reality is that it will be highly porous.You shouldn't console yourself with the idea that if we withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights we will simply be able to expel all the people who formerly were in camps in Calais when they come to claim asylum here. We will have other binding legal obligations (not to mention moral ones) which will stop us returning people to their home countries if it is dangerous and our neighbours will not want to take them off our hands. It is therefore almost certain that leaving the EU will result in more rather than fewer refugees coming to this country. Also can you confirm where the current Government have said that they will have a closed border policy post-Brexit? There are unlikely to be any restrictions placed on the movement of EU citizens. What will change is their automatic right to work. At the same time you will get a loosening of the controls on arrivals from India, China, Australia etc as part of the trade deals we strike with these countries. When the Government talks about a post-Brexit 'Open Britain' you should be starting to twig that closed borders aren't on the menu.

Andy Jones ● 3187d

There seems to be a misapprehension that we are part of the Schengen area where there are no checks at borders within Europe. We are opted out of this and the only border where there is no check is with the Republic of Ireland where we have what is called the Common Travel Area.This point has been made before but there is every chance that the Republic of Ireland will join Schengen after Britain leaves the EU. There seems to be no credible argument to be made that there will not be a hard border between the UK and the Republic so they will have nothing to lose and will be put under pressure by the EU to join. This will mean that for the first time we will have an extended land border with the Schengen area. Anybody who has gained access to the EU will now not be faced with the challenge of crossing the English Channel but the fair easier prospect of entering the country through the border counties of Ulster. Even with a quarter of the British Army stationed there it was impossible to adequately police this area.We could reset the border on the other side of the Irish Sea but that would mean that British citizens wouldn't be able to move freely within their own country. It is unlikely under international treaties to which we are signatories that we would be able to confine anyone entering the country to claim asylum within Northern Ireland.On the issue of our legislative powers and the EU, over 80% of our new laws are made by parliament. Of the remainder that are determined at the European level they are overwhelmingly to do with product standards. We haven't given away our sovereignty - we have decided it is better to agree with our trading partners a standardisation of the way goods are provided to ensure consistency. Everyone benefits from this. If you believe the role of the EU in forming laws that apply in this country is such a bad thing can you give some examples of the laws that you would like to see repealed when we leave? In practice it is highly likely that in the area of product standardisation we will have to adhere to EU laws whether we are in the EU or not and that we will continue to adopt new EU regulations after we have left. What would be the point of creating standards of our own if they meant our goods and services couldn't be sold into our largest export market?

Andy Jones ● 3187d

The definition offered by the Oxford University Press in its Oxford Living Dictionaries makes good reading:Home British & World English quislingDefinition of quisling in English:quislingnoun    A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country:    [as modifier] ‘he had the Quisling owner of the factory arrested’    ‘During the 1976-83 period, operations included the assassination of police informers and perceived quislings, bank robberies and attacks on the security forces and police stations.’    ‘They combined military threats and punishing sanctions to destabilise Yugoslavia with the creation of a quisling pro-Western opposition movement they have funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.’    ‘He's undermined our ability to stand up - we'll just be seen as potential traitors and quislings.’    ‘If things were going really badly, and we had a quisling Government in this country - what would he have done?’    ‘But so far the guerilla resistance has eschewed such random violence that hit civilians and instead has concentrated its attacks on U.S. troops and those it considers quislings.’    ‘Genuine democratic and social renewal within the Balkans can never take place under the political tutelage of the Western powers and their local quislings.’    ‘He taught me about the Battle of the Boyne and Cromwell's massacres, about quislings and Black-and-Tans.’    ‘This won't be a quisling government making these choices.’    ‘Most quislings come from the chattering classes, from academics and intellectuals.’    ‘The aim of the conference was to begin consolidating a quisling regime to install after the invasion.’    ‘Unlike Vietnam, we are backing strong, independent leaders, rather than quislings and puppets whose power base rests with our military forces and economic support.’    ‘Then, as now, the occupiers say they were invited to stay by the very quislings they installed.’    ‘His government was replaced by one of quislings.’    ‘They think of him as a quisling, a nuisance and a dangerous acquaintance.’    ‘As far as I am concerned, he is a pinko, quisling traitor.’    ‘By which we ought to mean, the country will be in the hands of a puppet government, a government of quislings and collaborators, a government of pullovers and pushovers.’    ‘Those entrenched enough to deride as fools or quislings anyone who questions war may also be more prone to edit events to fit their version.’OriginSecond World War: from the name of Major Vidkun Quisling (1887–1945), the Norwegian army officer and diplomat who ruled Norway on behalf of the German occupying forces (1940–45).

George Marquez ● 3188d

"Leaving the EU will give the border force more clout and hopefully this government may be the first one in 20 years to sort them out."The border force will certainly need more funding as for the first time we will have a land border with the EU. Our border control will only be as effective as Irish border control. If we are outside the Customs Union, which looks very likely, and we have a radically different tax and tariff regime to the EU then there is no way that there won't be a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. As border checks will become necessary this will effectively put an end to the Common Travel Area and for the first time passports will need to be shown between Ireland and the UK.The real problem comes if Ireland chooses to join Schengen, which it has indicated it may wish to do after Brexit. This would mean that it would be possible for anyone to travel freely on a plane or a ferry from mainland Europe to Ireland. Anyone currently in a camp in northern France looking to claim asylum in the UK would now be able to get in much more easily. "Meeting European standards to export is one thing. Wholesale imposition of their standards for domestic regulation is another matter. "It is unlikely that the UK after leaving the EU will abandon EU standards. It would be fairly pointless to do otherwise as we manufacture a small proportion of the goods we use and if products had to be supplied specifically for the UK market they would become much more expensive. Also are own domestic manufacturers wouldn't want to have the extra cost involved in making different products for domestic and export markets. We no longer have the domestic expertise to set and maintain standards across a range of industries and it would be expensive to rebuild a standards industry. If you look at the countries currently in Europe and outside the EU they all de facto have adopted EU standards. Basically we would still follow EU standards but would no longer have any say in their creation.

Andy Jones ● 3210d

Sepp Blatter is the head of FIFA which at this stage we are not planning to leave. He is not connected with the EU, he is not even an EU citizen.I think you have misunderstood the point about visas for China and India. You are talking about tourists visas and what is likely to change is the number of work visas that Chinese and Indian citizens can be granted in these countries. The Prime Minister went to India last year and it was made very plain to her that the first item in any negotiations would be about visas. It is important to understand that free trade will always to some extent involve free movement of people because our trading partners will want unrestricted use of their own people in an enterprise they set up in this country.We will find out more very soon what the Government's objectives are but they have already indicated that any aspiration to stay in the single market has been abandoned. It looks like a half-hearted attempt will be made to remain part of a customs union with the threat of making the UK an offshore beachhead into Europe with low tariffs and low tax.Not sure how intimidated the Europeans will be by this - multinational companies already pay very little corporation tax due to their use of transfer pricing. It is hard to see how lower taxes will compensate for higher tariffs as one is a tax on profits and the other is on revenue and as you can manipulate the profit you declare much more easily than the revenue the benefits of the UK becoming the industrial Cayman Islands may be limited.Perhaps more important is will these cuts in corporation tax be just for foreign companies or will domestic business also qualify. If the former then it is hard to see many British owned industries surviving. Already many household names have been wiped out by tax avoiding multi-nationals like Amazon and Facebook and this process will accelerate if we are incentivising overseas firms to invest here by offering tax breaks not available to our own countries.If the tax breaks are general how on earth will we afford it? Our national finances are already pretty shaky and the massive hole left by corporation tax reductions will mean some hard decisions will need to be made on spending.

Andy Jones ● 3213d

'Senior civil servants and diplomats are far too professional and clever to nail their colours to any mast. They know what public face they are to wear, neutral. My allegation is based on the preponderance of remain as the establishment position ever since the day of traitor Heath.'Is your suggest then that we should be looking for civil servants who are less professional and clever?Once Article 50 is triggered we will be leaving the EU and the personal opinions of a civil servant will have no bearing. Their job will be clear - to get us the best deal possible and I see no reason to doubt they will all work towards that aim. The problem is not with their secret beliefs but that there will not be enough of them with the requisite skills.Chris is right that we now need to focus not on what we stand to lose but what we stand to gain although he understates the current importance of EU exports - they account for around half of our trade in goods. We are not going to be blockaded from the EU market, we will still be allowed to trade but our goods and services may be subject to tariffs. Exclusion from the single market doesn't mean our are banned just that they will be more expensive. As long as we adhere to EU regulations There are significant economic benefits possible to mitigate any negative impact of exclusion from the single market if we were to unreservedly embrace free trade. However, for this to come anywhere close to representing an overall positive we would face some choices that many might find unpalatable. It is difficult to predict what the attitude of the US is but the election of an avowedly protectionist President does not bode well for any trade agreement. The biggest gains by far must come from deals with China and India. Free trade only works by giving free rein to comparative advantage which means that more access is given to respective markets in areas which either counterparty does better i.e. we take more of their manufactured goods and they open up their domestic markets to our service industries. Also, as must by now be apparent to everyone, free trade and freer movement of people are inextricably linked so any deal with India and China (who are already two of the top three countries in terms of net immigration to the UK) will involve a significant liberalisation of the visa regimes.

Andy Jones ● 3223d

"My point was that exclusion of the UK from the single market would mean a reduction in profits for German car manufacturers but provides and existential threat to the UK's automotive industry."- well IF you're right it's just as well the UK economy doesn't revolve round the automotive industry - particularly in the likes of Yorkshire, which hasn't had a car factory since Jowett of Bradford folded mid last century, and Lincolnshire which has never had one, and which lost out to Sunderland for the Nissan plant. On the other hand they did have the greatest fishing industry in the world till the UK govt gave much of it away to (non EU) Iceland and the rest to the EU under the odious Common Fisheries Policy, which many of us from there heartily look forward to seeing the back of, and to seeing fishermen in the likes of Bridlington being allowed to catch fish in the North Sea again instead of having to settle for the shellfish while helplessly watching other EU nations do the real fishing and hoovering up the fishes' feedstock off the sea bed to take home to use as fertiliser in their own countries.- just one of innumerable examples of how you bremoaners are completely and wilfully out of touch with the views and interests of much of the rest of the country and how the establishment in this remote corner of the island has till now got away with persistently and completely dusting aside other Brits' economic interests ever since the campaign to get us into the EU in the 1970s.

Chris Veasey ● 3224d

Senior civil servants will have served Labour, Coalition and Conservative Governments. They don't have a 'default position' other than to do the bidding of the elected Government. Can you provide any example of a publically expressed view by a top civil servant or currently serving diplomat on the relative merits of Remain or Leave?If you are right that all of British bureaucracy are die-hard remainers who are you proposing will handle the forthcoming negotiations?Sir Ivan's resignation seems to be a result not of him expressing pro-Remain views but pointing out the challenges that Brexit presents. If you talk to anybody who has a connection with the civil service they will tell you that the biggest issue they have with Brexit is not that it is happening but that we don't have the people with the necessary experience. We have contracted out trade negotiations to the EU for over three decades and they have some of the best people in the world (some of whom are British). The people who seem to be working against Brexit being a success in this instance are not the civil servants but the politicians. Sir Ivan pointing out that we should expect a round of negotiations of ten years is not scaremongering. It took eight years for the far more straightforward and totally uncontentious agreement between the EU and Canada to be drawn up. Also he did not say that the negotiations would take ten years but that his fellow EU diplomats were telling him this. For his apparent crime of saying an unsayable truth he appears to have been left no alternative but to resign. The problem is that if the Government will not accept that what he is highlighting is a reality they will not be doing what they urgently need to do, namely recruit as many people with trade negotiation experience as possible as quickly as possible. Without these people the EU negotiators will wipe the floor with our team and the deal we get will be much worse than it could have been. This will be the fault of the Ministers currently briefing madly against Sir Ivan.

Andy Jones ● 3226d

Vlod, there are several problems with your line of argument some of which have been raised on this thread before namely that all EU members have an effective veto on terms and that the final deal will not simply be made on the basis of economic pragmatism.But even if for some reason you can find a reason to dismiss these concerns you need to consider how big a factor the EU surplus will be. The largest part of this is accounted for by cars from Germany with an engine size of over two litres i.e. Mercs, Audis and BMWs. The tariff on these would be 9.8% under WTO rules. The German car manufacturers may have to accept a reduced margin on sales if they don't pass the tariff onto customers but it is unlikely that people will stop buying these cars totally even if they are 20% more expensive than they were before the vote (including the effect of the weaker currency).Also are you confident that a way will be found to stop people simply buying their German car tariff free in a show room in the Republic of Ireland and driving it over here?There is no risk to the German car industry that higher tariffs will lead to the general migration of their car industry to another country because they own and control it. There is a very real risk that this will happen in the UK particularly as the profit margin for the largely Japanese manufacturers is very tight. We don't know the terms that the British Government gave to Nissan to stay but the fact that they haven't been published suggests they are generous to the point of constituting state aid and include an assurance that reciprocal car tariffs will be as low as possible. This means that we will enter the negotiations on this specific product with a very weak hand.Undoubtedly the Germans will be very keen to conclude a quick deal on the tariffs on cars but will the French, the Spanish, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Poles etc who will be eyeing our manufacturing base? We are Europe's second biggest car exporter after Germany and much of our output goes to the EU. If these cars are subject to tariffs it is likely that much of this capacity will slowly move back to the single market. There will be a dozen countries looking to take this chance and all of them have one vote and a veto of any deal that is proposed. Can you explain to us why you are so confident that this scenario ends with the UK's car industry retaining zero or low tariff access to the single market?

Andy Jones ● 3233d

Vlod, I think it is the leading advocates of Leave rather than me who have been contradictory with regard to the single market. The clear implication of talking about a Norwegian or Swiss style solution as nearly all of them did is that they were thinking of an arrangement that involved leaving the EU but remaining it the European free trade area.I'm not saying that they deliberately misled us. They genuinely believed that economic pragmatism would prevail and that the EU would avoid being punitive in the terms they offer as most of us did. Although you are wrong to say that the EU has a trade deficit with the UK it doesn't really alter the point that freer trade benefits both sides. Most of that deficit is down to our two way trade with the Germans so certainly it is the case that they will have a strong interest in supporting our cause in any negotiations. The problem is that for all their economic preponderance in the EU they only have one vote out of 27 and there are political considerations that make the assumption they will act purely in their economic interest a dangerous one.Take how this might work in the area of cars for instance. Obviously the Germans will want tariff free access to the UK but the Spanish, Hungarians, Poles etc will be thinking that if they can exclude UK produced cars from the single market they will see global car producers moving factories to their countries. The Germans might protest but just a reminder they only have one vote.The big concern for the main powers of the EU about their electorates is the rising tide of populism. One way to counter this is to show that leaving the EU hurts so even the Germans can't be relied on to help us out.The problem with dismissing expert forecasts on the future of the economy because they have been wrong on details is that this has always been the case. The economist with perfect foresight doesn't work for a government or a think tank but sets up a hedge fund and makes billions on the back of his or her correct predictions. Such a person doesn't exist because not even the Government seems to know which direction they want to take the country in so any forecasts remain guesswork. The experts are just making more informed guesses than the rest of us. However, the fact that they are unlikely to be exactly right doesn't mean we can dismiss what they are telling us.None of the official forecasts have yet incorporated hard Brexit but there is total consensus that trading under WTO rules would mean profound changes for the UK economy. Any of our domestic manufacturing base which relies on exports to the EU will have major issues - 60% of our exported goods go to the EU and that means that a majority of exporters will have a significant amount of sales to Europe. A 4% tariff may not sound much but it would be terminal to any business that doesn't currently have quite a fat profit margin.The offset to this is meant to be trade with the rest of the world but it remains unclear how export of goods from this country will benefit from trade deals with countries like India and China that have a huge comparative advantage in manufacturing. Any deal would have to recognise that our strength is in services.So my non-expert prediction on this is that if there is a hard Brexit combined with a successful series of trade negotiations with non-EU countries the best possible outcome is a much expanded service sector with huge benefits for the financial sector but a further hollowing out of domestic manufacturing.The experts haven't really started to make their predictions on this scenario yet but we do appear to be drifting towards hard Brexit so they will have to do so soon. In the meantime I'd be interested to hear why you think any of my assumptions are wrong.

Andy Jones ● 3241d

"You can claim Michael Gove said whatever you like but you'll have to back it up with some evidence that contradicts the clear and emphatic view he expressed in the interview with Andrew Marr."Vlod I can't claim Michael Gove said whatever I want. I can only point out what he actually has said. See the link below.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853This may contradict what he has said in other interviews at other times but the point is that he doesn't seem to have a particularly good grasp of the detail.The points here are not arcane. If those advocating leaving EU regardless of the terms are claiming a democratic mandate for this course of action do they not need to show that they made it clear this was a likely outcome prior to the vote?  I can find no clear statement by any leave campaigner that leaving the EU was likely to lead to the imposition of tariffs on all goods currently exported to Europe. Every pronouncement from Farage, Gove, Johnson, Hanaan etc seems to assume that some sort of access to the single market will be retained. Obviously, I don't know what will happen during the Brexit negotiations but are you disputing my overall point that these negotiations will primarily be between current members of the EU and not the EU and the UK? Even the Irish who probably are our closest allies at this point have said they will not be conducting bilateral talks with us. You are wrong to suggest I actually want these talks to go badly but can you provide me any grounds for optimism that European countries are leaning towards treating us benignly? Doesn't the snubbing of Theresa May at yesterday's meeting give you some pause for thought?As for the doom and gloom being proved wrong you seem to have missed the point that we have not yet left the EU nor have we even started the process of doing so. Negative forecasts about the potential impact of Brexit do not just come from the politically motivated but every major economic forecasting unit in the world including the Office of Budget Responsibility. None of these forecasts have yet factored in 'hardest Brexit' i.e. trade with Europe under WTO rules which it increasingly looks like we are heading towards. Why do you think we shouldn't be taking the existing forecasts seriously?

Andy Jones ● 3245d

The evidence suggests that the message that was given out by the leave campaign was much more ambiguous that that. Have a look at the video in the following article.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fceIt is quite clear that most Leave campaigners believed that a Norway/Switzerland option was the most likely resolution. Michael Gove for instance unlike many others did say that we should leave the single market but qualified his view by saying that we would remain part of the European Economic Area suggesting he didn't really understand the details of the issue. Boris Johnson to this day is sometimes saying that we should stay in the single market.The big miscalculation that has been made is that it was assumed that Europe would approach the negotiations from the point of view of economic interest rather than political interest and that the Germans would ensure a soft Brexit in which the UK's access to the single market  along with some face saving concessions on immigration controls. This is what I thought would happen and many on the Leave side believed it too. There is no point pretending that the possibility of total exclusion from the free trade area in Europe is something that was considered likely before the vote. What we all failed to predict was the EU's negotiating stance i.e. single market and freedom of movement are indivisible. This is something we should have foreseen primarily because it is a perfectly logical position but secondly the rise of populist parties in Europe means the EU simply can't allow the UK to cherry pick the rules they want to adhere to. If immigration controls with no significant economic pain are an option then four or five EU members will go down that path as well.The other factor we ignored prior to the vote is the way these negotiations are going to be structured. It is often presented as talks between us and the EU but this is not what will happen. As all of the countries have a veto the negotiations will be between EU members as to what terms should be offered to us. The advocacy of our case will not be made by British diplomats but by the European countries more sympathetic to our cause and with shared interests e.g. the Germans, the Irish, the Danes and the Dutch. The French are going to want to see our cars excluded from the European market, the southern European countries will want our agricultural produce banned and the Eastern European nations will insist on continued free access for their citizens and veto any agreement that doesn't offer that. We saw with the trade deal with Canada how complex these things can get and that was an agreement which was far more straightforward than Brexit. It took eight years and was held up by objections from a regional Belgian assembly.Parliament is trying to insist that the Government outline what their negotiating strategy will be. This strikes me as quixotic because this isn't going to be a deal between us and the EU but a deal within the EU about how they handle their ongoing relationship with us. Our influence on these negotiations will be virtually zero.

Andy Jones ● 3246d