Brexit will we leave in 2019?

[R181]

Over here the Trumper keeps threatening to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, closest thing we have to the EU. If/when he does so it will create more turmoil than anyone can imagine because the economies of the 3 countries involved are so intertwined now. I do not see any good coming out of that.

Brexit is a far more complicated situation and is going to take far more work to accomplish successfully for all parties involved.

Bob

 

[sɐǝɹpu∀]

Voters didn't hear the alarm bells when politicians explained the details of Brexit with "Brexit means Brexit".
Making important decisions based on a mantra is never a good idea.
You've made your bed, now lie in it...

 

[Eeyore]

We have been thoroughly F***ed over and lied to. IMO obviously...

Has that ever been different?

Politicians lying is business as usual, and nothing new.

Since nobody involved wants to lose face, continuing Brexit is the only option for the politicians on both sides.

Edit: given that I get business directions from the UK within our company, it will be interesting to see what is going to change (we might even be moved over to Germany).

--
Pitralon forever - Real pens have a nib - If it doesn't tick, it's not a watch.

 

[Barry1963]

Voters didn't hear the alarm bells when politicians explained the details of Brexit with "Brexit means Brexit".
Making important decisions based on a mantra is never a good idea.
You've made your bed, now lie in it...

I couldn’t agree more Andreas.

 

[Wayne]

The complexities of extracting ourselves from the European Union are purely financial. Losing face has nothing to do with it. The U.K are one of the biggest contributors to the EU, rebate or not and they do not want to let that money go. We are not just an EU cash cow in the sense of what we put in we are also a cash cow in respect of what others take out. There are an estimated 1.2 million U.K people living freely throughout Europe. There are 2.9 million Europeans living in just the UK. Europe is massive at the side of the U.K.

 

[Eeyore]

@Wayne at least for Juncker it is about ego, and not financial trade-off. And I guess May is in a position where she primarily must save her face as well.

About whether it is good for Britain to be out? I think in the (very?) long term yes. If only because this hopefully also forces the EU to change. In the short term I think it very much depends on what kind of agreement can be negotiated. My guess is that the next few years will be difficult and require good leadership.

--
Pitralon forever - Real pens have a nib - If it doesn't tick, it's not a watch.

 

[p.b]

so no, we didn't (for better or worse)

 

[les24preludes]

I haven't heard any British political party actually talk at length about what an amazing achievement the EU actually is. It's almost a miracle to have created a forum of nations that are able to vote as a team. And - amongst many other things - what is really important about the EU is that it is almost single handedly moving other nations towards facing up to Global Warming and actually making meaningful changes. What could be more important for the world than this? Do I want us to lie in the same bed as USA, India, China, Brazil and all the other nations that are catapulting us towards irrevocable changes in the Earth's ecosystem? Not in a million years. And we won't have anything like that long if we don't start making changes now, and change requires unity and action, something the EU is leading the world in right now.

 

[p.b]

@les24preludes we've had 40 years of the UK Press telling us how poop the EU is - few politicians who have a real chance of power would swim against that tide. It's only ex-politicians or those with nothing to loose who would dare extol the benefits of the EU.

 

[Holyzeus]

I haven't heard any British political party actually talk at length about what an amazing achievement the EU actually is. It's almost a miracle to have created a forum of nations that are able to vote as a team. And - amongst many other things - what is really important about the EU is that it is almost single handedly moving other nations towards facing up to Global Warming and actually making meaningful changes. What could be more important for the world than this? Do I want us to lie in the same bed as USA, India, China, Brazil and all the other nations that are catapulting us towards irrevocable changes in the Earth's ecosystem? Not in a million years. And we won't have anything like that long if we don't start making changes now, and change requires unity and action, something the EU is leading the world in right now.

Do you think the EU can make any difference in the climate change against the countries you mention??
No
They don’t give two hoots, the Amazon will soon be gone and the planet is going though a natural cycle anyway

 

[les24preludes]

Do you think the EU can make any difference in the climate change against the countries you mention??
They don’t give two hoots, the Amazon will soon be gone and the planet is going though a natural cycle anyway

Put it this way - the EU is the only real force that is standing up to the myopic, egocentric nations that are destroying our future. If it's a question of taking sides, I take sides with the good guys every time. Progress is being made - slow and too late, but steps are being taken nevertheless. When nations start to really panic there will at least be an infrastructure that can be used to make changes.

I think it's tragic that the UK press and politicians have been mindlessly depicting the EU as a nanny state obsessed with petty regulations. Are they REALLY that stupid and short sighted?

 

[Holyzeus]

the only real force

 

[Missoni]

Put it this way - the EU is the only real force that is standing up to the myopic, egocentric nations that are destroying our future. If it's a question of taking sides, I take sides with the good guys every time. Progress is being made - slow and too late, but steps are being taken nevertheless. When nations start to really panic there will at least be an infrastructure that can be used to make changes.

I think it's tragic that the UK press and politicians have been mindlessly depicting the EU as a nanny state obsessed with petty regulations. Are they REALLY that stupid and short sighted?

The most important thing about the EU is not any individual policy, but rather what institutions it has for error correction. The EU does not have a system in which you can correct errors quickly, learn from things fast, adjust. Error correction has been one of the great strengths of the angloamerican system over the last 200 years. What you do have in the EU, is a system in which bureaucrats and a judicial system entrench ideas in a bureaucracy which is extremely slow to move, change, adjust, adapt to errors. An example of which is the clinical trials directive; 10 year’s of Nobel Prize Scientists saying, the EU clinical trials directive is "killing people" and yet nothing happens.

We have been in the EU for 40 years and they have not made any real progress with any kind of sensible trade agreement. Rather the EU props up the interest of various multi-national corporations. The UK can now negotiate it's own trade agreements with the “five eyes” these countries have been our friends for over 200 years it will be much simpler for us to negotiate these things than it will be via a French middleman in Brussels which has scuppered trade deal after trade deal. EU trade negotiations have been dominated by the French for over 50 years that’s the case now, it’s why recent trade negotiations with India have been scuppered yet again over the French film industry which happens about every seven years; it is a tradition. If you look back at the history of this continent, one things for sure, Europe needs pluralism, it does not need centralisation and group think and all power being lumped together. Currently the menace of the charter for fundamental human rights gives the ECJ the power to rule on practically anything that they want to.

The fundamental story since the creation of the single market is clear it was sold as a project which would lead to a huge boost in intra EU trade which has not materialised. It has not materialised for the UK and it is has not materialised for France, Germany or the EU core countries. EU procurement laws have turned out to be hugely destructive - "200 days and 30% to the cost of projects" (Price Waterhouse).

One of the great benefits of the UK leaving the EU is that the UK will regain its seat on many international institutions (e.g. WTO) where we are currently represented by Brussells, and be able to argue our own case. The world has changed, regulation is increasingly moving to the global level it is a good time to leave.

I for one, would rather be governed by left / right wingers in the UK who we can get rid of, than an unelected bank.

 

[Benz3ne]

An example of which is the clinical trials directive; 10 year’s of Nobel Prize Scientists saying, the EU clinical trials directive is "killing people" and yet nothing happens.

It has not materialised for the UK and it is has not materialised for France, Germany or the EU core countries. EU procurement laws have turned out to be hugely destructive - "200 days and 30% to the cost of projects" (Price Waterhouse).

I for one, would rather be governed by left / right wingers in the UK who we can get rid of, than an unelected bank.

Just a couple of points I'd like clarification on (apologies for skimming down your post). Hoping I don't cause a rift at all, just want some more depth to your thoughts.

What are the alternatives to clinical trials? Ultimately, and this may come across callous, clinical trials are designed (regardless of who has generated the directive/guidelines) to give a full understanding of a drug's effect before reaching the intended populous. Unfortunately, there are going to be cases of drugs which work well on 'paper' but exhibit complications that have been otherwise unforeseen, even with the development of computational modelling. Is this an issue that spans only EU-wide? Yes, things are slow to change but it's still the case of slow-to-change in 'independent' countries such as USA where law cannot keep up with technology.

How have procurement laws turned out to be destructive? I can understand that there's a time and cost implication as per your quote, but how might this differ to being outside the EU and still (potentially) relying on EU members for procurement? Could there be an added time/cost implication for trading with a country outside of 'the' trade agreement?

Would a constant chop/change be beneficial? I do appreciate the democratic approach, that we can vote in the majority verdict, but would matters slow down if we're ending up becoming bored of a government (or their front-man/woman) on a 4-yearly basis and subsequently voting in an opposing viewpoint? If we're completely reliant on this, might it muddy waters for plans going ahead? I guess having an 'unelected' group can help rule out anomalous views?

 

[Missoni]

Just a couple of points I'd like clarification on (apologies for skimming down your post). Hoping I don't cause a rift at all, just want some more depth to your thoughts.

What are the alternatives to clinical trials? Ultimately, and this may come across callous, clinical trials are designed (regardless of who has generated the directive/guidelines) to give a full understanding of a drug's effect before reaching the intended populous. Unfortunately, there are going to be cases of drugs which work well on 'paper' but exhibit complications that have been otherwise unforeseen, even with the development of computational modelling. Is this an issue that spans only EU-wide? Yes, things are slow to change but it's still the case of slow-to-change in 'independent' countries such as USA where law cannot keep up with technology.

How have procurement laws turned out to be destructive? I can understand that there's a time and cost implication as per your quote, but how might this differ to being outside the EU and still (potentially) relying on EU members for procurement? Could there be an added time/cost implication for trading with a country outside of 'the' trade agreement?

Would a constant chop/change be beneficial? I do appreciate the democratic approach, that we can vote in the majority verdict, but would matters slow down if we're ending up becoming bored of a government (or their front-man/woman) on a 4-yearly basis and subsequently voting in an opposing viewpoint? If we're completely reliant on this, might it muddy waters for plans going ahead? I guess having an 'unelected' group can help rule out anomalous views?

If you google "EU Clinical Trials Directive" countless examples of why the directive is failing so badly will be listed. A brief example regarding critical care research only, may illuminate a few of the problems for you. The European Clinical Trials Directive aims to simplify and harmonise the regulatory framework of clinical trials throughout Europe, thus stimulating European research. It has had the opposite effect. Significant complexity and inconsistency remains due to disparate interpretation by EU member states. Critical care research has been particularly impacted due to variable and often restrictive consenting procedures for incapacitated subjects, with some countries requiring a court-appointed representative, while others recognise consent from family members and still others from professional representatives. Furthermore, the absence of a waiver of consent threatens to put an end to emergency research in Europe. Approval procedures by ethics committees are equally inconsistent, particularly those relating to provision of a single opinion for multi-centre trials. This complexity as well as a general increase in administrative and financial burden following the Directive has been shown to cause a significant reduction in clinical trial activity in Europe, particularly academic trials giving countries outside of the EU a huge advantage.

With regards to procurement; future large infrastructure projects in the UK will not be subject to EU procurement rules once the UK leaves. The UK can decide it's own rules, for example it will be free to invite only UK companies to tender.

I am not sure I understand your last point; are you asserting that you prefer dictatorship to democracy?