As debate continues over how the UK should leave the European Union and what future relationship it should have, we once again ask our readers their opinion
As the clock continues to run down on negotiations over the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the country seems as divided as ever, and although many are now weary of it, this is still the biggest political event facing the country. Moreover, it is one of greatest importance to the manufacturing and engineering sectors, as changes over the past decades have made them ever more reliant on global supply chains and just-in-time delivery of components. We would like to know once again how Engineer readers see the current most likely options for the UK’s relationship with the European Union in future years.
Yesterday, Sky News published the results of a poll of 1466 customers, weighted to the profile of the population, which found that 50 per cent of respondents would support a second leave-remain referendum and 40 per cent would oppose this. The same poll said that 78 per cent of respondents thought the government was doing a bad job of negotiating Brexit, and 52 per cent thought Brexit would be bad for the economy.
Although it now seems very unlikely that the UK will not leave the European Union and its institutions, we must offer that as an option. However, on the Leave side of the equation, the options have become so fractured it is no longer practical to just say “Leave”. Should we leave under the terms of the agreement thrashed out at Chequers, despite it being the cause of much fallout and the resignations of two of the leading Brexit supporters in the Cabinet? Should we leave and trade in the future under the terms of the World Trade Organisation – the practical conclusion of what is commonly referred to as “No Deal”? Should we only leave if terms can be agreed that would be based upon the EU’s trading relationship with Canada or the European Free Trade Area? This last option might require some explanation of what its supporters envisage would happen if no such agreement can be made.
We think that these are the most likely options available to the UK, even though some of them are not currently being discussed by the government or even the opposition. If readers have any ideas what other options might exist, they should feel free to mention them in the discussion section. As always, we urge all commenters to read our guidelines on the content of comments and remind everyone that feedback is always moderated.
We will publish the results of this poll on 7 August.
Democracy should take its course and let the Government negotiate a deal without Brexiteers/Remainers interference as well as our well meaning media…….. 1466 respondents very democratic………………..
It can’t be avoided that only a bit over half of the Electorate voted ( misguidedly) to leave the EU. So it’s not surprising that half of the Electrorate aren’t happy about this chaos generated solely by a Tory ex-PM with insecurity issues.
Even last night on Newsnight a so-called Govt. spokesman couldn’t give any positive reassurance about continued availability of fresh tomatoes year-round because he hadn’t any data from the Cabinet- only the usual platitudes. The Brexit process is the biggest dive into the Unknown since the South Sea Bubble governed by a Committee who couldn’ even design a camel.
Anyone who claims that they KNOW what will happen after Brexit is just making it up!
The frauderendum wasn’t democratic it was an advisory gerrymandered opinion poll. Held when Glastonbury was on and the young were distracted and manipulated by psychops and Russian dark money. Brexit wrecks democracy.
We have a massive trade deficit with the EU, and a trade surplus with ROW, so why do we need the single market ? Under no deal, we’d have to source more from the UK and be freer to source more competitively from the ROW
Perhaps because this little island can only feed about half of its population and the
EU feeds us? The single market and EU standards (red rape to the brexit mob) provides high quality food at decent prices and sustainable farming. Yes we can buy cheap chicken full of antibiotics and chlorine from the US, or beef full of hormones but personally i would rathe stay healthy. Leaving the EU will mean food prices go up and that is going to hurt the poor hardest. The EU was made to take the blame for all sorts of things which should have been laid at the door of the U K govt
A trade deficit isn’t necessarily or totally a bad thing – it merely reflects that we need to source certain products from abroad that we don’t produce ourselves.
The single market enables us to import food free of tariff from our closest geographic neighbours. With or without the single market, we’d still want to import lots of our fresh produce (for example) from Europe. Being realistic (often not a feature of brexiteer arguments), there is not much scope to massively increase UK food production (and of course, the labour needs to be available to harvest & process it..) We really would find iot hard to source all our fresh food requirements from outside the EU.
Being a member of the EU doesn’t much harm our ability to trade with ROW (look at German exports – they don’t feel any need to leave the EU to export to the ROW). Can you point to any specific examples (let’s keep the debate grounded in realism) where we can significantly improve our ability to purchase at a good price?
I’m a remainer but until recently reluctantly reconciling myself to living with this stupid decision – however, I now want to see the whole sorry Brexit folly kicked into touch, stay in the EU, and hope the damage it’s done so far doesn’t run so deep that we exist in a polarised state for decades to come. Incidentally Tim, 1000 respondents is sufficient to give an accuracy of within 3%, so long as the source demographic is sound.
Well said sir. I am part of the online movement to stay. That so many engineers cannot see the folly of leaving saddens me. No one here has mentioned the lying and cheating by the leave camp. The referendum result should be declared null and void and lets get back on track.
Given the pedestrian pace of negotiations I suggest we temporarily co-opt one D.Trump to conduct the Brexit negotiations on behalf of HMG. A couple of hours would do it. Failing this we could:
1) Declare war on Luxembourg, surrender immediately and let the Dutch and Germans run the railways and other government functions for us
2) Apply to become a US state
Becoming a State of the USA sounds fine we would get to Vote on a Senate (Parliament) and get a Vote in the Presidential race. Something sadly missing from our EU membership.
Problem is that these suggestions are only marginally worse than the current policy.
It might have been possible to negotiate a ‘not completely disastrous’ Brexit. But we didn’t have the right people, and that ship sailed long ago.
Time to apologise and try and turn the clock back 3 years or so.
Let’s have new SDP ! Selective Democracy Party. The nation voted to leave. Not for a soft remain. Unfortunately the economy has been mismanaged for decades and Europe has not protected the interests of Europeans..
Really? What sort of brexit did they vote for? During the campaign the leave side were always touting the Norway model, a very soft brexit indeed compared with what is on offer now. No, rhe electorate was duped, and this lie alone is enough to require a second vote. One without the lies and prpaganda this time.
We are a democracy. Whether I voted remain or leave, we must follow the wishes of the electorate. Simplest at the moment to plan for WTO rules at the point we leave. Anything else managed to be negotiated will then be a bonus. Industry should plan based on that contingency, IE the worst case scenario. Just my two penn’orth (lol)
The first big bank has gone. I guess if you want engineering work and to be paid don’t stay in the UK. Even at this late stage; pay a fine, say sorry we made a mistake, we want in. I’m in Amsterdam.
Similarly there is no real reason for the Japanese car industry to stay in the UK now that they have a Trade Deal with the EU direct. Who are these ‘ Rest of the World’ who we will trade with after Brexit? Not the U.S. who don’t want to trade with anyone on equal terms, not China who are extremely parochial and one-sided, not , unfortunately Oceania, who are too far away for low energy export, certainly not Russia and South America is broke. Who’s left?
Europe? 🙂
The “Leave vs Remain” ballot was crazy. In the lead up, on Radio4 campaigners were saying “we should leave but of course we’d keep free trade” and so on. People were saying Leave could mean “Norway or Switzerland or Canada or something else”. The option to leave the EU is the smallest step (i.e. to be like Norway) and that is what was on the referendum paper. Now “Leave” is being taken by some to mean : leave the EEA, leave anything beginning with E.
America wants us in its orbit (probably with everything defined in feet, USgallons, etc.).
We are giving up our “European Lordship” and preparing to be vassals, and we just have to pick who our lords will be!
I was in two minds whether to write anything. This is so amazingly distracting, we exist in the world’s largest free trade block. This works for industry and services, most of which do not “understand” outdated national boundaries. If we turn our national borders into trade barriers “just in time” manufacturing will struggle, and probably simply move the other side of said border, services are already decamping. What do we gain from brexit? So far as I can see we simply lose.
As regards what we voted for, please remember that a little under 30% didn’t vote or spoiled their ballot, this presumably means that they were happy with the status quo?
There should be no more debate, it’s absolutely crystal clear that any split with the EU will be damaging at best, and most likely catastrophic – it’s as if ‘Project Fear’ was actually and factually correct all along. However, who needs experts..?
Please define Crystal clear and list any factual sources that will backup your comment?
This needs clarification. The question “Leave EU & trade under WTO terms (“no deal”) 25.4% ” is actually two seperate options:
1. Leave the EU with agreement, have a transition period, and then move to WTO terms (and maybe even try and negotiate a CETA type deal)
2. No deal, crash out in March 2019, without WTO terms in place, then try and agree WTO terms.
Option 1 is forcecast to cost 8%-10% of GDP, but would allow industry to relocate in an orderly manner. It would be perfectly acceptable to most of the EU, apart from Ireland, as it breaches the Good Friday Agreement.
Option 2 would be much, much worse. I haven’t seen any damage estimates, as it’s a process of chaos, so hard to predict.
I just can’t believe that our government, charged with doing its best for the country as a whole, is making such a pig’s ear of these negotiations, and spending so much time getting nowhere. It they were a profit making company they would be out of business long ago.
Can we clear up one thing first: the Government (at least that presently purporting to be such) has no such ‘charge’ – lovely though such would be: it has a single purpose: to get re-elected and ‘S*D’ the national interest. Jointly and severally they will have gone long before the S**t really hits the rotating blades. Your grandchildren will be paying the bills (and mine!)
It is too late to consider a second referendum – either on the terms of agreement or for a ‘rematch’ . The act of parliament that enabled the 2016 referendum took ten months to pass – by a majority government, enacting a manifesto pledge. To draft controversial NEW legislation, get it through both houses, arrange a vote and allow reasonable time for canvassing would take at least 18 months in my estimation, by which time we will have left …
and I’m slightly puzzled by calls for a parliamentary vote on ‘no deal’ as the UK along with most of the rest of the world are already signatories to the WTO, so in the absence of EU membership or any other negotiated trade agreement ‘superset’ of rules, default WTO applies. If we cannot strike a deal and reject no-deal as well, what is there left to default to … ?
Government has to be responsible for negotiating, but that doesn’t mean that the country has to accept something that may end up making us worse off. We need a vote on their efforts and the negotiation outcome. Following the referendum mandate Brexiteers seem to think they can do what they want without regard to the consequences, mainly because they will be insulated from them. Their role is to do what is best for our country collectively taking all things into account, not merely what suits them. And if they haven’t done a good job then they should go, the same as any employee has to put up with!
The fact is that no one, repeat no one has a complete handle on the impact of leaving the EU – all we do know is that it’s going to be damaging at best and catastrophic at worst – the government’s own research and subsequent forecasts predict such outcomes. We can be bloody minded about it and continue over the cliff or we can take stock and think again.
As a close and concerned neighbour, – I and most others here in Ireland have been mesmerised by UK government as it emanates from No 10. It’s difficult to be objective, because we (and right now we’re doing pretty well thank you) are going to take a hammering if Britain, – and it’s really England, – insists on going ahead with Brexit. Note that the majority vote in NI was to stay, as in Scotland. The present UK paralysis may be an inevitable consequence of a first-past-the-post electoral system. Take a look at the electoral systems in your neighbouring consitutional monarchies, – Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, – they manage OK. Referenda (I’m an old man!) are just that, refer to the electorate and ask for an opinion, – you don’t have a written constitution the result may be advisory, not binding. Above all, keep an open mind, there’s nothing wrong with changing it, – always taking good note of the evidence. In the light of better knowledge, or social change, or a younger and fresher electorate at the hustings, ask again. It is utterly wrong and damaging not to do so. Next time, please think a bit more of (a) your neighbours and (b) the coming generations. We here would be delighted and relieved if the UK stayed with Europe, – we need you there, and working to improve it. NB NB, climate change is happening. Now there’s a real and serious challenge, for us all.
Kindly stop trying to split the UK and finger England to ‘blame’. Wales also voted to leave on aggregate, and a million Scots did too, while major areas of England voted to stay in. There would have probably been more, Scottish leavers, but it is thought many were concerned about the fillip it would give to Scotland’s secessionists and backed away from a Leave vote.
William – referendums in the UK are held when an Act of Parliament is passed saying they can be held. Parliament also decides whether the result is binding (such as the 2011 referendum on an alternative voting system – incidentally 2:1 to KEEP the first-past-the-post system) or not binding, in the case of the 2016 EU referendum. The fact that the government NEED not have respected the result is academic – Article 50 WAS triggered and the UK will leave the EU because there is simply not enough time for the necessary mechanisms to take place for any other outcome.
Much is made of the Scottish ‘remain’ majority yet had Scots been favoured with TWO votes each, the result would STILL have been leave
Many years ago we voted to join a trading group, the Common Market. I was one of those who voted for this. Since then successive politicians have turned this trading group into a political group, the EU. I voted to leave the EU to get away from the political aspect of the group. If it had stayed as a trading group I would have voted to stay, as I suspect would have many others.
We must stay true to leaving the EU for the political reasons but must give our current government every backing to negotiate the best trade deal for Britain.
Unfortunately I suspect there will be some sour grapes from Europe and they will want punitive conditions imposed on Britain, partly to tell us off and partly to discourage other countries from trying to leave.
“ever closer union” was there right from the start – and not exactly hidden away in the small print either. Second paragraph preamble to the Treaty of Rome http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html
In the 1975 referendum, both Wilson and Heath were very careful to ensure that the ideal of a united Europe was not mentioned in the government leaflets ….. and it was not! You are quite correct that both currency and political union were there in the Treaty, but that was carefully not mentioned as the move to open trade looked attractive and was sellable.
Well written 20 cents, I totally agree with this.
Politics seems to find a way to ruin everything, using and manipulating all worthwhile improvements to further their own dubious agendas.
I am in Australia, but to me looking at the situation it appears that you have the same problem as the U.S.A., that is that the loosing side in the election, or referendum will not accept that they lost, and now will do every thing possible to damage the winning side, from having a fair go at implementing there agenda. England survived before the EU, and will no doubt survive again. There may be some winners and losers in the changes, but if you work for the common good, the country will benefit.
Rubbish! The reality is Russia has interfered in our democracies and people who care are fighting for democracy.
The original poll didn’t even consult the full, eligible electorate so the result should never have been taken as a legal mandate. That happened through a series of creeping, progressive errors by a bunch of truly inadequate politicians (exception – Ken Clarke). However this is not the only problem with your post, Mr Ettridge. As noted elsewhere, the vote was cast on a different basis in every polling booth across the nation. As a result, still nobody knows what Brexit actually is.
It is not just “England”; the nation includes three other entities and each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has its own, very complex and varying legal, social and legislative relationship with Westminster, let alone Brussels et al. Such so that we have now got to the point of knowing beyond doubt that “Leave” is just not possible, however desirable it may still appear to some people.
A People’s Vote (the less desirable dénouement but the essential backstop) is one way out but I believe the better way is for Parliament to stand up and do the correct thing: a free vote in both houses on the final package with a binary choice: Leave in line with the negotiated bundle or Rescind Art 50.
The 2017 general election manifestos for Conservative and Labour respectively said “Following the historic referendum on 23rd June 2016, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union” & “NEGOTIATING BREXIT: Labour accepts the referendum result” As the UK is a representative parliamentary democracy I expect MPs to vote for the policies they are elected on, at the end of a whip if necessary, so no to a free vote. If they disagree with the party line they should’ve stood as independents. And if the electorate don’t like it, THEY should’ve voted for a party that DOESN’T support Brexit
Difficult voting on a motion which is in the future……….
Couldn’t agree more John. If we were informed of the almost insurmountable problem of the Good Friday Agreement, we would all have refused a binding referendum until a solution was first found and agreed.
“England survived before the EU..”
Errr, Britain actually.
“England survived before the EU..”
Survival is a pretty poor outcome when the Leave campaign claimed we would flourish.
People are now seeing that the decision to leave or remain should not have been put to a national referendum without outlining the complexities. We must remember the reason we voted was based on a split in the Conservative party which Cameron tried to heal. The extreme views that had no base were put forward from both sides mainly very emotive or ideological. It’s not a matter of winners or losers it’s more about common sense, and now things need to be decided without all the emotions but to just determine the best way forward. Remember this was the second referendum not the first, we tried to join the Common market when I was thirty and the President Charles de-Gaul said no we don’t want the British in they are disruptive, was he right after all?
Good and important subject with the usual wide range of responses.
Can we now conclude that:
The majority of Engineers support Remain and view Brexit as a bad thing;
Engineers know no more than the population in general about the costs / benefits of Brexit; and,
Engineers have a lively interest in the debate.
Unless the EU change their attitude / approach to Brexit, a hard Brexit seems inevitable. Why did they refuse to discuss the whole range of terms until money was agreed???
I am looking forward to cheap South American and Australian wines and preparing for the old wine run to Europe after Brexit (for younger engineers, before we joined the EU this was a regular occurrence)!
I find it difficult to understand the nonchalance of many of the contributors to this discussion – a nostalgia for the old wine run into Europe is fine but there’s little romance to be had in any of the irreversible changes to our economy and lifestyle, or indeed in our inevitably diminished standing and influence in the world post Brexit.
I have never as yet seen a cost / benefit analysis of the Brexit economics that is credible: have you? It comes down to a subjective judgement and all views on the pros and cons seem to vary: I made my judgement based on the European Parliament intent to rule the EU and the UK’s deteriorating trade balance with the EU, hope that I am right in the long term.
I think this article, in addition to being very thoughtfully composed, would be a much more productive way forward than the current EU ‘negotiation’ (by which I mean repeated capitulation) that the government is currently embarking on:
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/a-modest-proposal-for-brexit-turning-the-tables-on-the-eu/
What do you mean BR: we’ve built not one but TWO vast lumps of floating metal to ensure our standing and influence: at least that’s what the MoD has told us? Trouble in the Empire? Send a gun-boat. With a special cell for JC Junker?