In or out?

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

Has the UK made a U-Turn over the Brexit timetable?

[Alan H]

I'm finding it difficult to tell whether there's misunderstanding here and just how much we're talking at cross-purposes.

I see the situation as a simple one: during the referendum campaign, we were told that if we voted to leave the EU, everything would be rosy and we'd be better off. Where's the evidence for that?

Nobody is saying that there aren't problems with being outside the EU :-)

But what, precisely, are those problems, are they surmountable and will they result in us being better off? If so, when will this happen? How can we have decided to leave without any clue whatsoever on these matters? If someone does have even half a clue, I've still to read it.

[Zeff]

I'm finding it difficult to tell whether there's misunderstanding here and just how much we're talking at cross-purposes.

I see the situation as a simple one: during the referendum campaign, we were told that if we voted to leave the EU, everything would be rosy and we'd be better off. Where's the evidence for that?

Nobody is saying that there aren't problems with being outside the EU :-)

But what, precisely, are those problems, are they surmountable and will they result in us being better off? If so, when will this happen? How can we have decided to leave without any clue whatsoever on these matters? If someone does have even half a clue, I've still to read it.

Well they have been articulated by Nick as well as any Brexiteer could explain them. Maybe re-read his posts? I understand the Brexit viewpoint I simply favour EU membership.

I agree it would be better not to leave the EU, but I think that insistence that the EU bears no responsibility for Brexit would be a mistake. Further, I think it is important for the EU's success that its supporters accept that it is for the EU to encourage membership and not penalise those who don't wish to join. I don't see how I can express it more simply than that.

Maybe the UK is looking the wrong way anyway. Ultimately, if Europeans see only the benefits of multilingualism and not the great benefit of one language 'in the home' throughout Europe (or at least the EU), then maybe the UK should consider a future with the N American economic block instead. From that point of view Brexit could be turned from disadvantage to opportunity. Admittedly I'm no expert of international trade.

[Alan H]

Well they have been articulated by Nick as well as any Brexiteer could explain them. Maybe re-read his posts?

No, I don't think they have at all: by Nick or anyone else.

As I asked my Tory candidate: what significant and tangible benefits will the best Brexit deal bring to constituents. I got no cogent answer.

I understand the Brexit viewpoint I simply favour EU membership.

Other than the Daily Mail view of the EU, I really do not understand the Brexit viewpoint.

I agree it would be better not to leave the EU, but I think that insistence that the EU bears no responsibility for Brexit would be a mistake.

I've not made that claim.

Further, I think it is important for the EU's success that its supporters accept that it is for the EU to encourage membership and not penalise those who don't wish to join. I don't see how I can express it more simply than that.

That's as maybe, but it still does not answer the fundamental question about the supposed benefits of leaving!

Maybe the UK is looking the wrong way anyway. Ultimately, if Europeans see only the benefits of multilingualism and not the great benefit of one language 'in the home' throughout Europe (or at least the EU), then maybe the UK should consider a future with the N American economic block instead. From that point of view Brexit could be turned from disadvantage to opportunity. Admittedly I'm no expert of international trade.

But most Europeans - certainly in business - already speak English. I worked for a Dutch company for several years: just about everyone in their lab in The Netherlands spoke perfectly good English - and German. I also sat on European technical committees for about ten years and had meetings all over Europe: they were all conducted in English and we argued on precise technical issues and we were writing European Standards in English - we were pulled up on many occasions by non-native speakers about our use of English. I can't see that language is the problem here. Besides, I don't think that was raised as an issue during the referendum campaign.

[Alan H]

Brexit Is Dead A Wave of Anger Crashes over Britain

Great Britain may be an island, but economically it is the most interconnected country in Europe: The financial center in London, the country's carmakers, what's left of British industry and even the country's infrastructure. France delivers electricity, water sanitation facilities in southern England belong to Germans and large airports such as Heathrow are owned by Spaniards. One quarter of the doctors who keep afloat the NHS -- Britain's comparatively deficient health care system -- come from the Continent.

The promise of Brexit was steeped in ideology from the very beginning, a fairy tale based on dark chauvinism. The Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Hitler and now the Polish plumbers who allegedly push down wages -- when in reality they ensured that, after decades of lukewarmly dripping showers, the country's bathrooms gradually returned to functionality. Brexit was never a particularly good idea. Now, following the most recent election, Brexit is defunct. That, at least, is what a member of Theresa May's cabinet intimated last weekend. "In practical terms, Brexit is dead," an unnamed minister told the Financial Times.

[Alan H]

Labour is clear: Brexit would be better with single market membership

To sacrifice membership in negotiations, as the Conservatives have promised, jeopardises jobs and does little to address voters’ concerns over immigration

Since the election result became known, there has been some debate about Labour’s approach to Brexit, especially in relation to our membership of the single market.

All of us will want to take notice of the message delivered by the British people last week. When the prime minister called the snap election, she said that the country was united behind her Tory government’s vision of Brexit, but it was not. The result on 9 June showed how patronising, complacent and simply wrong that analysis was. If the public has said anything, it is that it does not trust this government to deliver Brexit, and it fears the extreme and chaotic plan outlined by ministers.

[Zeff]

.

[Zeff]

".. I think that insistence that the EU bears no responsibility for Brexit would be a mistake."
I know you haven't 'made that claim' (that the EU bears no responsibility for Brexit). Your response to this on the previous page was that it wasn’t relevant, so I explained the relevance.

Obviously many Europeans speak English, especially in the business world. I think 'free movement of peoples' is much facilitated by a shared language 'in the home' and what I wrote was that I think this is an important economic advantage on the N American continent.

[Alan H]

".. I think that insistence that the EU bears no responsibility for Brexit would be a mistake."
I know you haven't 'made that claim' (that the EU bears no responsibility for Brexit). Your response to this on the previous page was that it wasn’t relevant, so I explained the relevance.

This still gets us absolutely nowhere in answering what must surely be the fundamental question and one I've been asking for over a year: what are the tangible and significant benefits of leaving the EU?

What do you see as the main benefit?

[Zeff]

...This still gets us absolutely nowhere in answering what must surely be the fundamental question and one I've been asking for over a year: what are the tangible and significant benefits of leaving the EU?

What do you see as the main benefit?

Better people than me have tried to explain the Brexit viewpoint to you Alan. It seems you will never understand it. In fact, I believe you said as much a few posts ago.

Just one benefit? The main benefit I see from Brexit (and I am pro-Remain) is that the UK has the opportunity to join a different trading bloc, or make independent deals with them. Currently 44% of our trade is with the EU. Only about 9% of imports and 17% of exports to the USA. This may change significantly especially if Brexit is "hard". Brexiteers argue that may be painful only in the short or medium term but better long term. Trade deals elsewhere don't come with unpopular Euro-baggage such as commitments to the 'four principles' and the ECJ, or pressures to join a European Army or the Euro. No talk of a bill if we leave or anyone making sure that we don't get a better deal than people who stay in the deal. The deal is expected to be beneficial enough overall to be worth signing, which is the principle on which the EU or any trading bloc should work.

The main benefit of EU membership is access to the single market. (Arguably, that's the only significant benefit). If the UK loses that, which seems likely to me, then new trading arrangements will be built over the years. If free movement of people, goods, etc is the key to economic prosperity then it may be possible to build that with N America, which is why I mentioned it. The USA, Canada and the UK are only three countries and speak one language (essentially). It seems a trading block as natural as the EU and could potentially make the four principles work better, in time.

You and I may not be convinced by such arguments but we should understand them okay. Why keep asking if you don't know by now?

[Alan H]

...This still gets us absolutely nowhere in answering what must surely be the fundamental question and one I've been asking for over a year: what are the tangible and significant benefits of leaving the EU?

What do you see as the main benefit?

Better people than me have tried to explain the Brexit viewpoint to you Alan. It seems you will never understand it. In fact, I believe you said as much a few posts ago.

No, I don't think I have. However, I live in hope.

Just one benefit? The main benefit I see from Brexit (and I am pro-Remain) is that the UK has the opportunity to join a different trading bloc, or make independent deals with them. Currently 44% of our trade is with the EU. Only about 9% of imports and 17% of exports to the USA. This may change significantly especially if Brexit is "hard". Brexiteers argue that may be painful only in the short or medium term but better long term. Trade deals elsewhere don't come with unpopular Euro-baggage such as commitments to the 'four principles' and the ECJ, or pressures to join a European Army or the Euro. No talk of a bill if we leave or anyone making sure that we don't get a better deal than people who stay in the deal. The deal is expected to be beneficial enough overall to be worth signing, which is the principle on which the EU or any trading bloc should work.

The main benefit of EU membership is access to the single market. (Arguably, that's the only significant benefit). If the UK loses that, which seems likely to me, then new trading arrangements will be built over the years. If free movement of people, goods, etc is the key to economic prosperity then it may be possible to build that with N America, which is why I mentioned it. The USA, Canada and the UK are only three countries and speak one language (essentially). It seems a trading block as natural as the EU and could potentially make the four principles work better, in time.

You and I may not be convinced by such arguments but we should understand them okay. Why keep asking if you don't know by now?

My apologies in advance for this probably incoherent rant. There are immense problems to be solved - and we've barely scratched the surface here. We do not have the resources to resolve them and certainly not in the timescale we have. I appreciate these are not your arguments, but those of the Brexiters, but telling me how great deals with Trump are going to be just doesn't cut it. Sorry.

All we've seen is speculation on what we may be able to achieve if we were somehow able to negotiate some deals or other sometime in the future. It is devoid of and divorced from reality. It is wishful, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Pressure to join a European Army? Seriously? Pressure to join the Euro? Seriously? We're jettisoning everything that has been built in the past 40 years because of a bit of pressure on something that may or may not happen in the future and is entirely optional to member states? Brexiters argue it may be painful? What trading bloc will we join? If we have no agreement, we will fall back onto WTO rules: we know it will take years to negotiate just about anything: and we know some countries will take advantage of those rules to extort their price for agreeing to those deals: it could take decades to sort out that mess. In the long term (whatever that means) we might, just might be better off. Give me strength. How much will the UK lose while we secure those deals? What will happen to prices? Wages? Will the economy just sit back and wait? Will companies just sit back and wait? Will investors just sit back and wait, confident that we'll get a better deal that we have now?

What happens to the Irish border on 31 March 2019? What happens at Dover if we haven't been able to agree something with the EU over the CU? The backlog could stretch back to London within days. What happens to that 44% trade? Are businesses expected to just sit around in the sure knowledge it'll all get sorted out in a few days?

The negotiations star tin a couple of days: we know the Government have about 300 people in the Brexit department: the job they have to do is staggeringly immense. Now, they might just be able to pull something off, but the incompetence of the Tories does not give any confidence: I'll repeat: the task before them is immense. They can't even agree the main elements of the negotiations: we have 18 months (or less) to sort out one almighty mess of a situation and Davis, well, he's hardly up to the job, is he?

Sorry, Zeff, but it's the same BS the Brexiters have been peddling for the last 18 months: it does not tell me if we will be better off compared to what we are now; it does not tell me what we will be losing or how or when this nirvana will become a reality; it does not tell me the cost of Brexit. All you've said is that we should be able to make deals with others who speak English and somehow-or-other that will definitely compensate for the loss of access to the SM and CU. Somehow.

And the bill is irrelevant: if we have signed up to commitments, then do you really think we can just walk away from them? The Daily Mail won the PR battle over that by calling is a 'bill for leaving' but it is no such thing. The EU are not going to punish us by demanding money: these are commitments that are ours. Didn't that factor into the Brexiters costings of how much better off we'll all be? But what costings? Where are they? We voted to leave the EU on the back of a PR campaign that lied to us. Twelve months on, the Brexiters still can't tell us how much it will cost the economy and what the benefits will be: why not? This is a monumental decision - we made it in ignorance, but there is no excuse now. We know the pain we will have to suffer for several different scenarios: but we still don't know whether it will be worth it because no one can tell us. All we get is hand-waving platitudes about Britain being a great trading nation with Rule Britannia playing in the background...

[Alan H]

Let's line up some of the many issues that Brexit has created and need to be resolved. Now, some might think these are not issues or that they don't necessarily need to be resolved before 31 March 2019 or even at all or that they are trivial. The onus is on them to explain why.

The following is a list of EU agencies. We may not need to replace the function of all of them or not all of their functions. Some may fall by the wayside, but many carry out absolutely necessary duties and functions. Some may be considered just things to do with the EU and therefore things we can do without. If anyone thinks that's the case, a cogent explanation would be good. However, even if just some are required, what needs to be done to set up a parallel or replacement agency to carry out the functions they currently do and what's the implications of them not being in place and fully up and running by 31 March 2019? With costs, of course, so we can add that to the Brexit bill to help us calculate just how much better off we are going to be.

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
Authority for European political parties and European political foundations
Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications
Community Plant Variety Office
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
Euratom Supply Agency
European Agency for Reconstruction
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union
European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of freedom, security and justice
European Asylum Support Office
European Aviation Safety Agency
European Banking Authority
European body for the enhancement of judicial co-operation
European Border and Coast Guard Agency
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
European Chemicals Agency
European Data Protection Supervisor
European Defence Agency
European Environment Agency
European Fisheries Control Agency
European Food Safety Authority
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency
European Institute for Gender Equality
European Institute for Security Studies
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy
European Maritime Safety Agency
European Medicines Agency
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
European Network and Information Security Agency
European Public Prosecutor's Office
European Railway Agency
European Research Council Executive Agency
European Securities and Markets Authority
European Systemic Risk Board
European Training Foundation
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
European Union Intellectual Property Office
European Union Satellite Centre
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Fundamental Rights Agency
Research Executive Agency
The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training
Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union

This doesn't include EU initiatives such as the Single European Sky initiative: we will need to set up something that interfaces with that if we want to fly to an EU state on 31 March 2019, but we'll maybe look at that later.

We already have some UK agencies that have similar sounding names or functions. One example might be the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does some of the same functions as the European Medicines Agency (which is currently also based in London: they are just eight miles from each other), but it does not provide all the same functions. They will probably need to be expanded massively. I suspect the same applies to the likes of EFSA and the FSA.

[Zeff]

...This still gets us absolutely nowhere in answering what must surely be the fundamental question and one I've been asking for over a year: what are the tangible and significant benefits of leaving the EU?

What do you see as the main benefit?

Better people than me have tried to explain the Brexit viewpoint to you Alan. It seems you will never understand it. In fact, I believe you said as much a few posts ago.

No, I don't think I have. However, I live in hope.

Just one benefit? The main benefit I see from Brexit (and I am pro-Remain) is that the UK has the opportunity to join a different trading bloc, or make independent deals with them. Currently 44% of our trade is with the EU. Only about 9% of imports and 17% of exports to the USA. This may change significantly especially if Brexit is "hard". Brexiteers argue that may be painful only in the short or medium term but better long term. Trade deals elsewhere don't come with unpopular Euro-baggage such as commitments to the 'four principles' and the ECJ, or pressures to join a European Army or the Euro. No talk of a bill if we leave or anyone making sure that we don't get a better deal than people who stay in the deal. The deal is expected to be beneficial enough overall to be worth signing, which is the principle on which the EU or any trading bloc should work.

The main benefit of EU membership is access to the single market. (Arguably, that's the only significant benefit). If the UK loses that, which seems likely to me, then new trading arrangements will be built over the years. If free movement of people, goods, etc is the key to economic prosperity then it may be possible to build that with N America, which is why I mentioned it. The USA, Canada and the UK are only three countries and speak one language (essentially). It seems a trading block as natural as the EU and could potentially make the four principles work better, in time.

You and I may not be convinced by such arguments but we should understand them okay. Why keep asking if you don't know by now?

My apologies in advance for this probably incoherent rant. There are immense problems to be solved - and we've barely scratched the surface here. We do not have the resources to resolve them and certainly not in the timescale we have. I appreciate these are not your arguments, but those of the Brexiters, but telling me how great deals with Trump are going to be just doesn't cut it. Sorry.

All we've seen is speculation on what we may be able to achieve if we were somehow able to negotiate some deals or other sometime in the future. It is devoid of and divorced from reality. It is wishful, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Pressure to join a European Army? Seriously? Pressure to join the Euro? Seriously? We're jettisoning everything that has been built in the past 40 years because of a bit of pressure on something that may or may not happen in the future and is entirely optional to member states? Brexiters argue it may be painful? What trading bloc will we join? If we have no agreement, we will fall back onto WTO rules: we know it will take years to negotiate just about anything: and we know some countries will take advantage of those rules to extort their price for agreeing to those deals: it could take decades to sort out that mess. In the long term (whatever that means) we might, just might be better off. Give me strength. How much will the UK lose while we secure those deals? What will happen to prices? Wages? Will the economy just sit back and wait? Will companies just sit back and wait? Will investors just sit back and wait, confident that we'll get a better deal that we have now?

What happens to the Irish border on 31 March 2019? What happens at Dover if we haven't been able to agree something with the EU over the CU? The backlog could stretch back to London within days. What happens to that 44% trade? Are businesses expected to just sit around in the sure knowledge it'll all get sorted out in a few days?

The negotiations star tin a couple of days: we know the Government have about 300 people in the Brexit department: the job they have to do is staggeringly immense. Now, they might just be able to pull something off, but the incompetence of the Tories does not give any confidence: I'll repeat: the task before them is immense. They can't even agree the main elements of the negotiations: we have 18 months (or less) to sort out one almighty mess of a situation and Davis, well, he's hardly up to the job, is he?

Sorry, Zeff, but it's the same BS the Brexiters have been peddling for the last 18 months: it does not tell me if we will be better off compared to what we are now; it does not tell me what we will be losing or how or when this nirvana will become a reality; it does not tell me the cost of Brexit. All you've said is that we should be able to make deals with others who speak English and somehow-or-other that will definitely compensate for the loss of access to the SM and CU. Somehow.

And the bill is irrelevant: if we have signed up to commitments, then do you really think we can just walk away from them? The Daily Mail won the PR battle over that by calling is a 'bill for leaving' but it is no such thing. The EU are not going to punish us by demanding money: these are commitments that are ours. Didn't that factor into the Brexiters costings of how much better off we'll all be? But what costings? Where are they? We voted to leave the EU on the back of a PR campaign that lied to us. Twelve months on, the Brexiters still can't tell us how much it will cost the economy and what the benefits will be: why not? This is a monumental decision - we made it in ignorance, but there is no excuse now. We know the pain we will have to suffer for several different scenarios: but we still don't know whether it will be worth it because no one can tell us. All we get is hand-waving platitudes about Britain being a great trading nation with Rule Britannia playing in the background...

It's not a rant and I agree with you.

There is still a need to persuade people of the value of the EU and I am simply trying to point to reforms that would help and which may be important if the EU is to prosper (or maybe even to survive).

I also think people need to consider why UK GDP per head is far less than in the USA or Ireland even when the UK is in the EU. And why European countries cannot match US PPP individually or collectively. That involves changes to the EU. UK PPP will probably be lower when outside a trading bloc. Why can Norway husband its fossil fuel resources to build a US$900bn national fund but we couldn't? I won't pursue those points as it appears anything that doesn't directly support or oppose the Brexit case is irrelevant to the discussion but this thread is preaching to the converted.

The EU does need reforms to make it more attractive and less objectionable. (So does the UK and Westminster government). You do seem to accept the point that the EU must aim to attract members and not try to penalise those who reject membership. Thank you for that. As you say we have commitments to keep, not 'Brexit bills' to pay.

[Alan H]

Weak and wobbly: Theresa May cancels 2018 Queen’s Speech as DUP pact hangs in the balance

Theresa May has cancelled the 2018 Queen’s Speech to smooth the path for Brexit reforms as a deal with the DUP hangs in the balance.

The Prime Minister announced that a two-year parliamentary session will be launched on Wednesday rather than the traditional one-year session.

The step breaks with historical precedence and was last taken in the early days of the Coalition as it scrambled to create stable government in 2010.

Government sources last night insisted the move was planned before the election and would give time for laws needed for Brexit to be fully debated.

However opposition figures with a knowledge of parliamentary procedure claimed the move was an attempt to shore up Mrs May’s position after failing to win a majority.

[Alan H]

It is up to ministers to prove why Brexit is in the national interest

Time to reverse the burden of truth and scrutinise Brexit negotiations

The European Movement believes it is now for Parliament to play its proper role. The government may claim executive privilege in the Brexit negotiations, but Parliament should require ministers to explain, one by one and day by day, how each proposal which emerges from the negotiations serves Britain’s national interest.

Why is it in our interests for research funding to be redirected towards continental universities? Why is it in our interests for new manufacturing investment to be redirected to locations within a customs union of which Britain is not a member? Why is it in our interests for regulation of European pharmaceuticals to be relocated out of Britain? Why is it in our interests for the City of London to be denied passporting rights for financial services across the continent? Why is it in our interests to make Britain less open to the best and brightest minds in the world? Why is it in our interests to undermine our global competitiveness in pursuit of short term party political advantage?

Not too much to ask, surely? Let's take back sovereignty.

[animist]

... which basically complained that the EU was not the USA, ignores the differences between the historical genesis of the two entities....

That entirely misreads my post and I ignored nothing. To clarify further: what makes the USA successful? I think the two main ingredients are a common language and low impediments regarding the four principles of goods, services, people and capital. In my view, the latter cannot advance much further without the former unless the EU somehow becomes a more attractive proposition. 'Better than nothing, most of the time' about sums the EU up.

Thanks for the replies but I think they just illustrate the complacency about EU inefficiencies and unresponsiveness. It also illustrates that those who support EU membership don't even accept that the EU needs to aspire to attract membership and to take care not to penalise non-members.

The EU will be whatever 27 independent nations can make it and others join on their terms or stay out. I find that a hard choice for the UK - economic benefits but unwelcome conditions such as less control over immigration. (It is widely supposed leaving the EU will give Westminster more control over immigration). We'd probably prosper more if we applied to be the 51st US state. (I should make clear that I know that isn't politically feasible at this point and they likely wouldn't have us. It seems I've engendered an extremely low opinion of my level of historical and political awareness).

The future will tell if the EU will prosper or decline and both continents have their problems. Despite its greater population, I think the EU will struggle on as the weaker, poorer relation to the USA. The EU may crumble if immigration and economic crises increase, especially with Putin seeing advantage in its demise. If events go that way, perhaps history will record Brexit as an unheeded warning.

Zeff, I did not mean, by using the word "ignore", that you had somehow wilfully neglected to consider that different nations develop from the myriad conditions which shape all history, I simply meant to point out the incredible complexity of life. You come up with two reasons for US success: a common language and low impediments to the four principles. Only one of these, the first one, can be regarded as "reason", and even then this is debatable, since most countries of South America shared a common language (Spanish) but failed to create a nation like the USA. Re the low impediments to integration, ISTM (partly as a result of reading your post) that the EU is actually trying to replicate the US's success (which simply "happened") in a rather artificial way, and that this may be a genuinely valid criticism of the EU, ie that it is trying excessively to emulate the unique historical event which is the USA.

Very few of us have a high "level of historical and political awareness" (and those that do still disagree between themselves) so please don't feel discouraged that we disagree in some respects over the here-and-now issues of Brexit

[animist]

Labour is clear: Brexit would be better with single market membership.

I don't see this as much more than an extended aspiration for what Labour should do over Brexit. Umunna may be clear in what he wants, but he does not lead the Labour Party!

[Alan H]

Brexit Talks Set to Begin amid Chaos in London

Britain's crippled Prime Minister Theresa May is stumbling into Brexit negotiations, which are set to finally begin next week. She is doing all she can to cling to power, but recent elections mean it isn't even clear what kind of Brexit Britain wants.

A Facade of Resolve

To be sure, it has never been completely discernible what London's plan for the negotiations might look like. But right up until the election day, Theresa May entrenched herself behind a facade of resolve and repeated over and over again her mantra that "no deal is better than a bad deal." Yet what strategy her government might pursue -- or whether there is a strategy at all -- remains unclear. Nor is it obvious whether those who begin negotiating on Monday will still be in office a few months from now.

[Alan H]

British people have changed their minds on Brexit, poll finds

he majority of Britons now want a second referendum on the UK quitting the European Union, according to a new survey.

Fifty-three per cent of people would back a vote on whether to accept the terms of the final Brexit deal, with 47 per cent opposed, a Survation poll found.

When the same question was asked in April, a majority of 54 per cent were against a second referendum.

The survey results suggests there is increasing opposition among the public to a 'hard Brexit'.

Only 35 per cent agreed with Theresa May that "no deal is better than a bad deal" in EU negotiations, the research for The Mail on Sunday found.

Some 69 per cent of people were against Britain leaving the EU customs union, a key issue in the talks.

[Alan H]

What is the price paying for whatever it is we might gain from Brexit? Brexiters have voted for a poverty even worse than austerity

The terrible thing about the prospect of Brexit is that our underlying economic situation is already bad enough, and the Brexit decision, if not reversed, is guaranteed to make things a lot worse. In economics there are time lags between announcements and their consequences, and under George Osborne the Treasury overdid its warnings about the timing of the referendum’s effects. Only now are people beginning to realise the consequences of the decision made last year by the world’s financial markets that Britain had, in effect, voted to become poorer and less secure. The devaluation constituted a reassessment of this country’s economic prospects.

It was Philip Hammond, Osborne’s successor, who, in challenging Theresa May’s obsession with a hard Brexit, maintained that the people who voted for Brexit did not vote to become poorer. But that is what the 51.9% of those who voted in effect did.

[Zeff]

... which basically complained that the EU was not the USA, ignores the differences between the historical genesis of the two entities....

That entirely misreads my post and I ignored nothing. To clarify further: what makes the USA successful? I think the two main ingredients are a common language and low impediments regarding the four principles of goods, services, people and capital. In my view, the latter cannot advance much further without the former unless the EU somehow becomes a more attractive proposition. 'Better than nothing, most of the time' about sums the EU up.

Thanks for the replies but I think they just illustrate the complacency about EU inefficiencies and unresponsiveness. It also illustrates that those who support EU membership don't even accept that the EU needs to aspire to attract membership and to take care not to penalise non-members.

The EU will be whatever 27 independent nations can make it and others join on their terms or stay out. I find that a hard choice for the UK - economic benefits but unwelcome conditions such as less control over immigration. (It is widely supposed leaving the EU will give Westminster more control over immigration). We'd probably prosper more if we applied to be the 51st US state. (I should make clear that I know that isn't politically feasible at this point and they likely wouldn't have us. It seems I've engendered an extremely low opinion of my level of historical and political awareness).

The future will tell if the EU will prosper or decline and both continents have their problems. Despite its greater population, I think the EU will struggle on as the weaker, poorer relation to the USA. The EU may crumble if immigration and economic crises increase, especially with Putin seeing advantage in its demise. If events go that way, perhaps history will record Brexit as an unheeded warning.

Zeff, I did not mean, by using the word "ignore", that you had somehow wilfully neglected to consider that different nations develop from the myriad conditions which shape all history, I simply meant to point out the incredible complexity of life. You come up with two reasons for US success: a common language and low impediments to the four principles. Only one of these, the first one, can be regarded as "reason", and even then this is debatable, since most countries of South America shared a common language (Spanish) but failed to create a nation like the USA. Re the low impediments to integration, ISTM (partly as a result of reading your post) that the EU is actually trying to replicate the US's success (which simply "happened") in a rather artificial way, and that this may be a genuinely valid criticism of the EU, ie that it is trying excessively to emulate the unique historical event which is the USA.

Very few of us have a high "level of historical and political awareness" (and those that do still disagree between themselves) so please don't feel discouraged that we disagree in some respects over the here-and-now issues of Brexit

No problem Animist. I just think where we appear to disagree is on what can be done and what cannot. The history is probably widely agreed on.

For instance, I think it should be easy for you, Alan and I to readily agree that the EU needs to encourage membership and not penalise non-members. I think it is important that is seen by most people to be the EU approach.

I think I understand the historical and cultural differences that has led to the absurd Strasbourg/Brussels situation. I don't accept the EU cannot solve it, nor that is a responsible way to behave if the aim is to make EU membership attractive.

That leads to another point. Many Remainers like me (quite apart from Brexiters) are concerned that the aim of many in the EU is to make it more than an attractive trading bloc. Some seem to want to go much further towards integration and federalism. That force has probably run its course and pushing it harder will only result in more internal conflict and possibly further loss of membership. If people really want a federal EU they need to start by achieving a common language in the home throughout the EU. It seems to me that nobody in the whole of the EU except me is even talking or thinking in such terms. It isn't that I don't know how off-beat this sounds, it is that I genuinely believe this to be true. In time, I think history will be on my side. Greater integration makes sense but that will require freer communication across the entire electorate.

I think we also may not agree exactly on what makes the USA successful. We both know the history and see how it explains why American countries and European ones are where we are. I didn't say there were only two reasons, I said those were the two to focus on first and from which most may be learned and applied in the EU. I hope we might all agree that history is for learning from and not just an endless stream of excuses why controversial, difficult political decisions can't be taken. Again history aside, the resolution of the Strasbourg/Brussels conundrum, for example, needs to be considered possible. Such problems should not be calmly dismissed as understandable, tolerable or mere distractions from what's important. That situation has been going on far too long for that.

History obviously explain why we are where we are. That's a given. What interests me is: can the EU electorate collectively learn why we're always inevitably poorer or isn't it able to? The four principles are effectively hostage to the language barrier, but I suspect most Europeans would disagree with me on that. I think that majority is seriously wrong and language should be the first concern now of those who want the EU to be anything more than strictly a trading bloc.