What is next with Brexit.

After the shenanigans of the last few weeks, what next.

Eventually it will dawn on people that what was promised cannot be delivered.
The great repeal bill is testimony to that. "In the interim we will keep all E.U laws". Entirely predictable from the offset. That should tell which way this is headed.
Use the UK net contribution no longer payable to the EU for the NHS? how far will £8.6 billion go in a budget >£100 billion. Any manager worthy of the title should be able slice 8% off his controllable costs without breaking sweat.
That's just for starters. Of course one could adopt the IDS system as on tonight's news. "Well they are wrong aren't they".

It seems to me that the EU are concerned mostly about the loss of revenue. The remaining states will either have yo pay more or the EU budget will have to be cut if they lose the UK contributions.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/european-union-uk-important-brexit.html

In the longer term, a cut in the budget is inevitable, but the problem is for the commitments that have already been made for the next few years.
Britain will need to contribute substantially during any transition period and probably afterwards if we wish to be part of Openair, Euroatom and other agencies, as they are not going to let us in for free.

Had they not tried to build a European State they would not have this expensive bureaucracy to support. People have forgotten that we voted to remain in a common market in 1975, not a European State.

I'm quite happy to remain within the EU and see no reason to leave.

I was living in Germany when Britain joined. We were told that food prices would rise which was worrying as the prices in the German shops were much higher than they were back home.

On the plus side we were promised lower prices on electrical goods, which were very cheap in the German shops. We got the higher food prices, but due to VAT we didn't get cheap electrical goods. I decided then that joining the Common Market wasn't done with my interests in mind.

The only thing which has benefited me has been the worker's legislation.

Some have benefited from Britain being part of the EU and some haven't. That doesn't mean that those who can't see the benefits are 'little islanders', whatever that means.

We've all benefited, particularly in terms of environmental, food and safety standards

I think many brexiteers look back to some mythical golden age and want to go back.

The golden age, whenever that was , was only golden if you were middle class.
If you were a miner or a riveter or a general labourer, life was still pretty shitty

The pollution in our cities is so bad that people really ought to invest in face masks. Councils are being encouraged to allow building in the green belts. We are in danger of having no insects left. Our food comes from goodness knows where and I'm very wary of 'fast' food outlets.

I agree with Travers, we've all benefited - my son just took advantage of all the positives the EU offered to him - which, in future will be denied to those living here very sadly. I took advantage when I went over to Brussels eg I did not take out Health Insurance as I had my European Health Card - EHIC. I had easy journeys on Eurostar as the passport controls at Brussels, also Paris, as at Calais - and for those going, here in London - are in the country from which one travels, not on arrival. I happily ate fruit and veg all year from eg Spain - obviously if you do not wish to eat food from other countries it is possible to avoid that as the source is invariably labelled. etc etc. For me, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Quite what some of the subjects outlined by Grom have to do with the EU I do not see

But because of my situation my concerns for those living here from Europe and the British living there are the most important; as I said, the lives of individuals and families have been totally thrown up in the air

It might have been handy had the politicians told the truth during the referendum.
Getting control of our borders: Immigration from former dependencies is the biggest contributor not EU workers. That will not change.
Member states frame the laws to implement EU directives. If we over egg the pudding that's our look out.
Chris Grayling thinks we can grow more food. His history is appalling. We have not been self sufficient in food since about 1830.
I don't see us being free of Europe for years to come and it will cost us dear.

Travers wrote:We've all benefited, particularly in terms of environmental, food and safety standards

Whats the reason for Khan introducing the new levy on vehicles if the environment has benefitted with more cities likely to follow,safety standards improved not because of Euro legislation,the HSE is quite separate from that although the likes of car safety with air bags is one plus.I suppose the news recently that eggs are now safe to eat runny is an improvement from 1988 (Edwina Curry salmonella),took a while though.

Small is beautiful for me. It's possible to force u-turns if people disagree with government decisions. The poll tax, for example. A United States of Europe would be so large that it would be very difficult to exert pressure on it's decision makers.

enyam wrote:

Travers wrote:We've all benefited, particularly in terms of environmental, food and safety standards

Whats the reason for Khan introducing the new levy on vehicles if the environment has benefitted with more cities likely to follow,safety standards improved not because of Euro legislation,the HSE is quite separate from that although the likes of car safety with air bags is one plus.I suppose the news recently that eggs are now safe to eat runny is an improvement from 1988 (Edwina Curry salmonella),took a while though.

The EU sets minimum standards. It is for member states to implement them. If they fail to do this, it is the fault of the national government, not the EU.

Grom wrote:Small is beautiful for me. It's possible to force u-turns if people disagree with government decisions. The poll tax, for example. A United States of Europe would be so large that it would be very difficult to exert pressure on it's decision makers.

That might be true, but we don't have a United States of Europe.
The Poll Tax was a purely British initiative and nothing to do with the EU.
Even VAT is an attempt to standardise purchase tax throughout the EU, although member countries are free to vary the level within certain limits.

Travers wrote:

enyam wrote:

Travers wrote:We've all benefited, particularly in terms of environmental, food and safety standards

Whats the reason for Khan introducing the new levy on vehicles if the environment has benefitted with more cities likely to follow,safety standards improved not because of Euro legislation,the HSE is quite separate from that although the likes of car safety with air bags is one plus.I suppose the news recently that eggs are now safe to eat runny is an improvement from 1988 (Edwina Curry salmonella),took a while though.

The EU sets minimum standards. It is for member states to implement them. If they fail to do this, it is the fault of the national government, not the EU.

Then we have no need of it,one piece of legislation from the EU that has benefitted us in the working time directive I'll grant you that.

Travers wrote:

Grom wrote:Small is beautiful for me. It's possible to force u-turns if people disagree with government decisions. The poll tax, for example. A United States of Europe would be so large that it would be very difficult to exert pressure on it's decision makers.

That might be true, but we don't have a United States of Europe.
The Poll Tax was a purely British initiative and nothing to do with the EU.
Even VAT is an attempt to standardise purchase tax throughout the EU, although member countries are free to vary the level within certain limits.

There are certainly people who want a United States of Europe and from the point of view of politicians it makes sense. From the point of view of citizens it means being governed by people who can't be reached. I would like to see more democracy, not less. The British Government has to take heed of the needs of the British people. A European Government would have no qualms about taking decisions which didn't benefit the British people if, in their opinion, those decisions benefited Europeans as a whole.

Grom wrote:

Travers wrote:

Grom wrote:Small is beautiful for me. It's possible to force u-turns if people disagree with government decisions. The poll tax, for example. A United States of Europe would be so large that it would be very difficult to exert pressure on it's decision makers.

That might be true, but we don't have a United States of Europe.
The Poll Tax was a purely British initiative and nothing to do with the EU.
Even VAT is an attempt to standardise purchase tax throughout the EU, although member countries are free to vary the level within certain limits.

There are certainly people who want a United States of Europe and from the point of view of politicians it makes sense. From the point of view of citizens it means being governed by people who can't be reached. I would like to see more democracy, not less. The British Government has to take heed of the needs of the British people. A European Government would have no qualms about taking decisions which didn't benefit the British people if, in their opinion, those decisions benefited Europeans as a whole.

It’s what happens in most states of any size, the needs of a constituent part are subordinate to the needs of the state as a whole. The sooner there is a world government then the needs of mankind will take precedence of the needs of states.

I know it’s a bit naive but something to aim for.

British politicians have demonstrated repeatedly recently just how out of touch they are with the electorate. The more distance you allow between politicians and the electorate the more out of touch they are likely to be.

To my mind, the referendum result was so close and therefore so divisive. Had it been a clear result, that would have been different, maybe. But it was not, so it will be virtually impossible to come up with a resolution acceptable to most of the people. I have never known this country so divided and I find that very sad, and it has caused conflict with families, within friendship groups etc. When it affects your family as it has mine, you cannot but feel strongly about it

Indeed CPN.

When I hear discussions or the equivalent elsewhere, it clearly reveals a divided population

Admin wrote:Indeed CPN.

When I hear discussions or the equivalent elsewhere, it clearly reveals a divided population

Isn't that what sets democracy apart,we are a divided population at the polls in general elections but accept it.