Great Western Coffee Shop

All over bar the shouting? Or just starting? Storm in a teacup or cataclysmic change?  What is the result of yesterday's referendum going to mean for public and sustainable transport in the UK?

What TSIs (technical standards for inter-operability) can now be ignored in design and build of rolling stock and infrastructure? Discuss.

It cannot be ignored because it is enshrined in UK Law, given the scale of stuff that need to be unpicked things like TIS will one of the things at the end of the list

Cost of buying vehicles and stock from overseas will go up. How much is built in the UK?

Possibly not following last night's ellectorate decision.

EU funding for projects...?

As I understand it EU law can only be enforced against governments.  Therefore any EU laws that apply to anyone else are enshrined in UK law somehow.  Many but by no means all are implemented in UK law through Regulations under the European Communities Act.  Revoking all those Regulations en block is not feasible it would leave many areas unregulated that we would still want to regulate.  So they do have to be sorted through carefully.  And that will take time. 

TSi about interoperability and therefore about trade. So these will depend on what trade deal is negotiated.  Also if we ant to buy off-the-self kit rather than spend more money on kit just designed for the UK it will more than likely comply with TSis because that is what most of the market in Europe wants and that is what manufacturers will make. 

13 weekday services between Paignton and Newton Abbot/Exeter St Davids are funded by the EU.

If is difficult to say but in the short term but I would expect there to be a recession (there will certainly be a downturn) as nobody will want to invest (especially from outside the UK) until we have some clarity about what the relationship between the EU and UK is and that is never good for the economy.

The government should increase infrastructure spending in a recession (to reduce the impact) but going on past experience will probably cut it, so I can see HS2 being scrapped/stalled and at best the projects currently started will continue but no new projects will start.

Longer term I guess it all depends on whether politics in the UK (or just England and Wales) turns right or left as being in the middle no longer works.

Would be interesting to know how currency fluctuations are going to be handled, in for example, the IEP contract and other purchases from abroad given the large fall in the £ today, although of course this may be a short term issue.

Going off topic, will this mean the end for Hinkley Point?

Euston-Glasgow services to terminate at Carlisle and Kings Cross - Edinburgh at Berwick for passport checks?

Great Britain, inside the EU or out of it, I felt I could live with, but Scotland leaving England and Wales is unthinkable to me. Keep Britain Great.

Assumingly not a long term impact but this mornings main commuter train into Truro I've never seen so quiet. Coach F consisted of me, and 6 college students for Truro college. I assume unusually low numbers were connected to the vote.

A recent Modern Railways article reckoned that most of it was invented here, and there'd be no regulations to 'go back to'.

Paul

Hitachi must be pleased though.  Their trains are either built in the UK or Japan.  Presumably a UK out of the EU could drop the tariff wall to imported trains from Japan (I don't think the WTO would allow it to raise it).

The main impact on the railways will be the cost of borrowing in a more uncertain business environment.  Very significant when you consider how much debt their is in the industry

Didn't we switch the timetable change to December from late September/early October in order to harmonise with other European rail networks?

Hitachi have rail factory in Italy http://italy.hitachirail.com/en so they can easily move any EU build there, the facility was built in 6 months ..................... and the UK factory errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Where the West of England A300s are being built.  Now if they get orders in the EU which factory will do you think they will use? Italy or Newton Ayecliffe?

Most of the college students have finished already as have some of the private schools

Don't forget that Glastonbury has kicked off. Hence the rain.

But what is that tariff? In all the talk about access to markets, has anyone actually heard any current EU rates quoted?

Well, for trains it's 1.7%. Barely a wall, really, more of a kerb. But for some things it will really matter - most obviously cars, at 10% Other classes of vehicle are even higher, but maybe not things made here so much: buses at 16%, trucks at 22%, and bicycles at 15%. Most of Lord Bamford's products appear to be zero-rated.

Those rates apply to "GATT countries" since 1999, so they must be from the Uruguay round (which turned GATT into the WTO).

Odd that. Cornwall gets £millions of EU money, and they go vote out...???

There is evidence that some of the people who voted "out" weren't aware of the effects of that vote.  I certainly didn't feel fully informed about what an "out" vote would bring, and I found myself having some difficult reconciling all the possibilities we were told it might bring (by both sided) into a picture of what it's actually likely to bring.

Caveat emptor.

Sorry, but everyone knows the EU puts huge funding into Cornwall projects....there's huge EU signs nearly everywhere you go. Really obvious, even to those not in Cornwall (even the Welsh worked that out, hence the areas getting funding there were in, others out).

While you may well be right on other points, the funding loss was clear to see.

EU money doesn’t come by magic from nowhere, it comes from the constituent countries.  I’d far rather that funding for Cornwall came direct from HMG in London without being creamed off by EU administration, bureaucracy, and corruption. 

Money spent by EU = Money put into EU – cost of keeping thousands of EU bureaucrats in a lifestyle we would all like to have.


... although, before anyone else says, this has nothing to do with Thames Valley Infrastructure.

Indeed, but can you see HMG of either persuadion keeping these specific regional grants going where national projects (NHS etc) need additional funding?

Again, really not difficult to work out

That’s an odd line of argument.  How our taxes are spent should be a matter for our elected Government in London, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

It may well be that more should be spent in Cornwall and less on the NHS, but let’s make that decision in the UK.

... I’m keeping going on this side topic until it gets moderated out!

Oh agreed, but why on earth would they choose Cornwall over the bottomless pit that is the most popular spend in the UK?

If you count the teachers then the EU employs less people than Derbyshire County Council

It's not that simple.  For one thing, that comparison ignores the 6,000 employed by the European Parliament, the 3,500 employed by the Council for Europe and so on.  The EU itself quotes 55,000 in a leaflet online, which compares with 36,000 employed by Derbyshire, including 8,000 teachers.  Even that isn't a like for like comparison, as many of those 36,000 will not be administrators, but providing front line public services (to the extent they have not been outsourced), whereas I suspect the majority of the 55,000 are administrators of one form or another.

OK but it puts it into perspective

My wife and I both voted in!

I noticed on Friday I have still never voted for a winning side!  :o I'm going to start voting the other side to what I want.

I started counting EU funding boards driving around Cornwall this weekend, I spent most of Saturday In Devon and Somerset, but since Friday I have counted no fewer than 8 EU funding boards.

I've heard people say that they aren't bothered as they feel they don't benefit from the funded items. the Eden project for example was funded, many people locally say that doesn't benefit them failing to understand tourists come from all over Europe/world for Eden, and they don't just come to Cornwall, go to Eden and go home again. They stay here for a few days- a week, and spend money elsewhere. Holiday parks, dining, shopping, gifts to name a few.

We noticed a few around the vale of Glamorgan/Bridgend/Cardiff areas over the weekend too. For some bizarre reason most of the most heavily EU funded areas in Wales (e.g. The South Wales valleys) voted 'out'. Indeed, I was able to complete my masters degree with help from objective 5b (iirc) funding to cover my course fees and some subsistence allowance. At the end of the day, I don't think this was about common-sense and practicalities...

I'd been studying Facebook friend's status' on the referendum, and concluded those friends I know who had high level education or ran successful businesses the majority were in favour of remaining, whereas those friends who were less academic seemed to be in favour of an exit.

Well I've found the daily telegraph have a more scientific poll than my study of friends, but with a similar outcome.

The daily telegraph poll found those educated to degree level or higher 70:30 in favour of remain.
The same poll found those with a maximum of GCSE level qualifications were 65:35 in favour of exit.

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-which-type-of-person-wants-to-leave-and-who-will-b/

Well for what it’s worth I’m a Chartered Engineer educated to degree level and I voted Leave.

The idea that one’s voting power should be linked to their academic status is a bit creepy.  In a democracy, for better or for worse, everyone gets an equal vote.  People who prefer to be governed by a “ruling elite” who know what’s best for them should perhaps move to North Korea or China.

It's depressing how hard the Remainers (supported by the BBC) find it to accept a democratic vote.

But is clearly is statistically linked to your academic achievements, along with various other attributes.


Are you seriously suggesting that Johnson, Farage, Gove et al have no designs on becoming a 'ruling elite'?! Farage isn't even an MP...Johnson is looking likely to be the second PM in the last 10 years who has been imposed on us by the members of a political party rather than the general electorate.


It's a little bit more complex than simply not accepting this - the leave campaign was fought using popularist, xenophobic and veiled racist tactics (I'm not suggesting these influenced your decision) and they have already redacted key pledges, for example the £350m going to the NHS. Indeed, Boris Johnson has been quoted as being pro-Remain by a fellow Conservative MP, the Leave people have also admitted to having no plan. It's a truly bizarre situation and as such a technical, detailed issue affecting almost every aspect of UK life in some way or another, that imho, this should never have got to a referendum and should've been our elected legislators who made this decision on our behalf, it is, after all, why we elect and pay them.

The smug, self righteous mainly middle class sneering at and stereotyping of those who voted "Leave" on the perceived view that they were all thick, ill informed, racist etc has been quite appalling but perhaps in keeping with the nature of the campaign and the level of the debate.

Democracy means that everyone's vote is equal.

Mark my words, I can't see Farage getting a look in on the negotiations. They have one MP - who *might* get consulted, but not Farage.

I'm expecting the new Tory leader will go for an election - they'll have to. I didn't hear many complaints when Brown succeeded Blair though.


Totally agree, TG.

There were some interviews in South Wales on the TV where the assumption seemed to be because it was 'our' money then they would automatically continue to receive it. This strikes me as being optimistic. As the Leave people are now making clear, all the pledges and promises made during their campaign were only 'suggestions' of 'possibilities' of what could happen and if you added them all up the money was spent a multiple of times. They will be in the same position as everyone else trying to get money out of The Treasury, and in the event of the overall cake being smaller equally vulnerable to being cut.


These regional assistance programmes were only invented to recycle money back to the UK in the first place.

According to a poll (take your own level of caution on that) 80% of Leave voters considered £350M extra per week to the NHS was the most important factor in their voting decision.

True, but it is nonetheless interesting to analyse the data and look for patterns (which, it has to be said, has mainly been done in an objective, non-judgemental manner where I have encountered such analyses at source). It cannot be argued that certain demographics had certain overall preferences.

The whole thing was flawed on so many levels, particularly the 'populist' campaigning tactics, it probably should never have happened, with the decision being left to parliament.

I for one was pretty appalled when this happened and he didn't have the balls to put himself to the electorate, hence why I mentioned it!

Sadly, a general election really needs a strong, organised opposition, particularly in the divided situation we find ourselves in (a 52/48 majority is hardly convincing, whichever side you fall into). The primary opposition party is currently beginning to implode...

Analysis is interesting but weaponising it/drawing conclusions in the way that has occurred is absolutely wrong - take a look at any social media platform and you will see what I mean.

oh completely flawed - public weren't demanding this, simply Cameron trying to deal internally with UKIP that made him make unconditional offer to his MPs.

And that, dear friends, is *really* what we ought to be angry about.

Convincing enough. If we ignore this one, there won't be any point in any more, if we can just choose to ignore afterwards. I hope we all hold out for a change in UK politics & reject any more of the same.

......well they were elected on a manifesto committing them to an In/Out referendum on the EU.

Yes, you need to have the intellect to be able to analyse and present the data in an objective manner and not resort to petty name calling, certainly not in a public forum. Some of the analysis is very interesting and confirms some preconceptions I had. Other patterns I was quite surprised by.

On the flip side, have you seen some of the out and out pure racism/xenophobia being dished out by people purporting to be 'leave' supporters over the past few days? Some of what I have read frankly makes me ashamed to be British and is utterly appalling and ignorant, although this just follows on from the sub-gutter level campaigning that has gone on. I think this referendum has done more to divide our country than any other event that I can recall.

For whatever reason the pledge was made, some credit must be given to Cameron for standing by his manifesto pledge, even though they are not binding. Farage & Co should take note


I'd be happy enough to never have to vote in another referendum, we're not used to them as a nation, in fact, this is only the third national referendum in our long history as a nation. I'd rather there was robust debate in the Commons and a free vote on such issues as this.

Careful - it's not ANALYSIS at all - purely based on a couple of small polls afterwards. There is NO actual data on age or other demographics except location.

I'm sure any decent person would find racist abuse disgusting, from supporters of whatever campaign be it political or whatever, I know I do, however I don't see the actions of a few morons as a reason to feel ashamed of my Country..........I'd say that the fact that such behaviour is almost universally accepted as unacceptable in Britain is a reason for pride.

But it's completely normal on a change of Prime Minister not to have an election.  Didn't with Jim Callaghan taking over from Harold Wilson. Nor when Major took over from Thatcher.  You vote for a party, not a PM.  (Actually you vote for an MP, but the reality is that most people are voting for the party which their candidate represents.)  And it makes sense too, as given that a PM has to step down at one point or another, it would be hugely disruptive if every time one did, it triggered an election.

In this instance, I expect the new leader to want a fresh mandate, especially as there was nothing in Cameron's mandate covering post-Brexit....

You are right that EU money comes from the tax-payer - mainly. Some comes from tariffs on imports and fees, but the vast majority comes from subscriptions by member states. Plus a lot is spent on Eurocrats, although whether working in Brussels hundreds of miles from home is a lifestyle we would all like to have is open to debate.

The European Parliament budget for 2015 was €1.795 billion, of which 34% (€610.3 million) paid for staff, interpretation, and translation costs. Divide that by the 55,000 staff, and you get a massive fat-cat average salary, still taxable at home, of just under €11,100 pa, about £9,120.00, albeit more since last week in British terms. Someone has been a little sensationalist somewhere. Read any of the newspaper articles about the last pay rise, remove the words "fat", "massive", "inflation busting" etc, plus any mention of Jean-Claude Juncker's pay package - using the president's salary to demonstrate how highly paid the typists are is a standard media ploy - and you are left with a much more down-to-earth truth.

55,000 employees over the 28 member states averages 2,000 per nation member. Smaller states - Malta, the Baltics etc - will use up less resource, but not commensurately as we will see, so let us assume double that number are involved in administering the British interest, say 4,000. Let us assume for just a moment that those 55,000 employees, including "our" 4,000, actually do something other than drink coffee all day in subsidised canteens. What do they, and the EU generally, do that we will now have to do for ourselves?

An obvious place to start is in translation. Every major EU document has to be rendered into all of the 24 official and working languages, plus at times co-official languages such as Welsh and Catalan. As every member of the Parliament can address the house in his language and hear simultaneous translation of debates, someone must be able to translate discussions on pan-European electrical standards from Estonian into Maltese. This is why a simple average of people per nation pro-rata to populace wouldn't work - tiny states with their own language need as many staff on the translation side as states such as Germany and Austria, with a shared language but many times the populace. We might not need such wide skills as we negotiate our new trade agreements, but we will need language skills that are fit for the purpose, at a time when the number of language students at all levels is dwindling steadily. Since 1972 also, the EEC / EU has provided this service for us, albeit no doubt sometimes by our own people, when negotiating with governments outside of the European bloc. We will need all that and more for ourselves. It is no good saying that the foreigners had better come here and speak English if they want us to sell things to them - at best that is rude, and at worst likely to make them buy from somewhere who cares enough to learn the lingo. Wherever I go, I try to learn hello, goodbye, two beers please, thank you, and in some cases I surrender, and any other useful phrases. It makes for a more pleasant stay, even if the rest of the conversation has to be in English. At a national level, that is so much more important.

Speaking of trade agreements, we haven't really done much of that since 1972. The EU as a body negotiated over 50 that we are still party to until we formally leave, plus of course we have unfettered access to the markets of the other 27 member states. Now I think of myself as being reasonably intelligent, although no Donald Trump, and I have in the past interpreted and applied the law relating to Social Security, plus various laws relating to dishonesty and the administration of court proceedings. I once said that a particular regulation introduced by Statutory Instrument was probably beyond the Minister's powers, and would be overturned, leaving administrative chaos until it was and a bill much higher than the intended savings. My voice was too small and lowly, but I was right, and the House of Lords finally agreed with me 18 months later after the government had pressed on despite losing test cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal. But I would never be capable of negotiating or drafting an international bilateral trade agreement, compliant with WTO rules. I might, at a push, get away with adapting an existing one to fit a tiny island nation somewhere in the South Pacific, desperate to offload its surplus coconuts in exchange for flood defence know-how, but as to Canada, the US, Switzerland and the rest - not a chance. As with building nuclear power stations and everything else we haven't done for more than a decade, we have let the skills lapse. A whole generation of the Civil Service has passed from joining to retirement drinks at the Knights Templar, myself included, since we joined the then EEC, and we do not have the skills needed. We may get some as we repatriate our civil servants from the EU, although I wouldn't mind betting there are few who could do the job, being only so many fish in the pond.

Our domestic law is the next problem. Although the EU has been blamed for over-regulation, a lot of the things it has been accused of are actually subject to our own laws. There are many unsung EU regulations that, if properly applied, would have spared us the foot and mouth epidemic, and have probably staved off a number of other foul deeds. On the other side of the coin may be ash die-back, I don't know. But suffice to stay that most of the standards set by the EU for foodstuffs, human and animal, construction materials and methods, including Hinkley C, medicines, and a thousand other things will have to be rewritten into our domestic law.

My own former Department of the Civil Service cut thousands of jobs (sadly, not mine) over a period of years but is now hiring. That does relatively simple stuff. As we don't have the skilled negotiators in-house to strike the deals, which will include negotiating and consulting with business at home as well as governments abroad, nor the necessary legal draughtsmen, nor the people at University studying the subjects required, we may well have to draft people in from industry or employ consultants to do work we aren't currently doing but have suddenly thrust upon our own shoulders. That will not come cheap.

It doesn't end there. I currently hold an EU driving licence, valid for another 10 years until I have to do anything, which entitles me to drive in any member country and, by EU bilateral agreement, in the US and other countries. I have an EU passport valid for another 7 years. What will replace those? Am I going to have to buy an international driving licence and a visa for a holiday in France?

Some government Departments may shrink, although most have been cut back to the bone already. Energy and Climate change won't need people to count new wind panels and solar turbines or send out the subsidy cheques as we cease to be bound by European agreements (agreements, note, we agreed them) on pretending we are doing something about carbon dioxide emissions. But Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office, the Treasury, and others will need thousands of new faces. Lead negotiators, advisers to Ministers, legal draftsmen and the like will be at the top of the Civil Service pay structure, if not beyond it. Close to the Minister, we are talking Sir Humphrey, not Bernard, and certainly not Four Track, Now! (ret'd). They will sit atop a pyramid beginning, top down, with lesser negotiators who will turn the lofty ambitions agreed into the nitty gritty minutiae, then the people who will write it all down in both languages, passing it to and fro to iron out idiosyncrasies, (particularly difficult when dealing with the US) the lawyers who will intensely scrutinise every word with an intense scrute, right down to the guys who arrange diaries, meetings, travel, hotels etc, which is no mean feat in itself. On top of all that, we will need to maintain a trade presence within the EU, if and when we can negotiate an agreement with our current biggest trading partner.

We may get 4,000 back and have to hire 20,000, and they won't be on 9 grand a year. We will be able to pay for part of them from the subscription we won't have to pay (a lot less than the £350 million gross per week that was bandied about) and by not replacing the EU spending on Wales and Cornwall.

All of which makes me wonder. We could end up with a general election because of all this, which is not an absurd idea. I understand why the Prime Minister has not sought to call an election - he would need a big majority of MPs to agree to it under the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011, and this is a party issue, not a government issue. The referendum was intended to unite the Conservative Party, even if it has ended up splitting not only that but the Labour Party.  Given that 75% of MPs were against leaving, as are probably a few leading Brexiteers, could we end up with a Prime Minister who decides that it is an issue on which he or she should seek a clearer mandate than the referendum gave by going to the country on the actual process and legislation that would be needed to separate from the EU? We could end up with a government elected on a manifesto of effectively delaying departure for 10 years, to give most of the "leave" voters time to die, then holding a second referendum where as independent a body as you can find would analyse every single argument put out by both sides and publish the truth.

As to ChrisB's point: - spot on. The point in this one was not to decide if we should leave the EU or not, but whether enough Tory voters could be persuaded not to vote UKIP. It was daft setting a simple majority as the benchmark on such a major constitutional issue, although had it been a 60% majority needed and the Out camp had manage 59.999%, peace and harmony would not have been restored. The Prime Minister would never have promised the referendum if he had not been 100% certain of winning.

That was my first thought - then the cynical me reminded me that one of the first things the Tory government did on election was to introduce 5-year fixed-term parliaments where I believe only a 'No confidence' vote with at least a 66% majority could alter (don't quote me on the figures, but I am fairly certain that was the case)

I do think that there may be something to be said for making a result > 60% for one side a 'binding result' and a closer outcome an 'advisory result' of a referendum, although quite how an 'advisory result' should be  handled I don't know. In this case perhaps it would also have been an idea to agree to the demands made before the referendum (by the Plaid Cymru and SNP leaders, if I recall correctly) that action should only be taken if all the constituent nations of the UK agreed at the referendum.

We now have an agonising suituation where part of the country strongly wishes to remain a member of the European Union, while others clearly want to leave, with many in between. How can this be resolved? Were there to be a general election, and 'Keep Britain Together' party, pledging to overturn the referendum result in order to keep Scotland in the UK, would struggle to attract English voters who want to leave the EU by the looks of things.

In answer to FtN.....rather than a series of quotes....

Negotiators etc - yes, we'll have to hire them in - I understand Mr Carney at the Bank of England knows some pretty good Canadians :-)

All the extra staff costs in Government can easily come out of the £350million (less our rebate) that we pay over each week - I think a net £260million or thereabouts? (yes, that is the correct outward payment to the EU) There is no way the extra staffing costs will get anywhere close to that figure. But it does mean we won't be able to keep up the regional grants that the EU currently makes.

EU Law - has been passed into UK law. There would be a complete review post leave, but nothing would automatically be repealed/die on the day we leave as it will still be part of UK law. WE would have to physically repeal any we no longer decide we want to keep. That'll keep MPs busy for a few years!

EU Driving Licence would be part of the leave negotiations.
EU Passport will expire at its expiry date. You will renew it for a UK passport and yes, use the 'All Other Passports' queue when abroad. Visas will be subject to the negotiations, but likely to be needed, I think - but similar to obtaining an ESTA for the USA, it'll be a quick online application.

General Election - the new leader has no mandate & thus will want to go to the country. Along with the 'no confidence' vote way of avoiding the fixed term Parliament, there is a simple vote required of 2/3 of MPs. I can't see Labour (nor the SNP) standing in the way of this - especially as Labour may think they stand a reasonable chance of winning. I don't believe any party will stand on an 'ignore the result' ticket either - too many constitutional crises elements in that.

The LibDems have already tried to get the popular vote by stating that they'll stand on a 'get us back in' ticket. Note Get Back IN ticket, not an 'ignore the vote' ticket. So possibly another hung Parliament unless my suggestion of a National Unity Government gains traction....in my view, sorting out the way forward is well above Party politics.

Re the referendum - I think the only way forward on these is to say that to change the status quo, a lead of at least 5.1% is needed - the extra 0.1 to avoid a vote of x.9999 being seen as close. The extra 0.1% would need to be explained thus, to avoid claims of 5.09999% being declared as too close.

Sinn Fein & the SNP, I think - Wales voted OUT.


Unfortunately, the SNP will probably get its way for another independence referendum, on a join the EU ticket.

However, their economy is a lot worse off now than when the original one was lost - indeed, the oil price has totally tanked and their economy is pretty close to recession. Once the Scots realise this, I think a number will vote against and to stay in the UK - as will presumably all those (over 1 million) that voted Out - that's 38% to stay in before they start counting the others. So the SNP may well still not get their mandate - and the EU haven't said on what terms they could join yet. Finding their EU payment might be hard.


See above - called the LibDems - but even they recognise the situation, and will stand on a re-enter ticket, rather than an overturn/ignore tiicket.

FT,N for PM!

 He writes more sense on any number of different topics, than I've ever heard coming out of the mouths of politicians !

Thanks for the kind words, but no thanks. Politics is a dirty job, best left to people who think they can be popular all the time everywhere. I'm pragmatic (and cowardly) enough to know that if I were elected PM, at least two thirds of the electorate would not have voted for me, and some of them are nutters.


The net outward may be £260 million, but after direct EU spending on British projects and regions, the actual cost is a great deal less, and that without counting the added value of trade. Nissan established their factory in Sunderland (5,000 jobs) to gain access to the single market, and export over half of them. Almost 60% of cars built in the UK, most by companies owned overseas, are exported. If, as is likely, the exports to Europe become subject to tariffs, it may be cheaper for them to up sticks.


We will probably find that a lot of the laws we don't like are actually our own, and that a lot of the EU law sounds rather sensible. Either way, a small "c" conservative assessment shows at least 70 Acts of Parliament will be needed to disentangle us.


Not sure about the passport - an institution we are not part of can hardly ask another country to look after us, nor intervene if they don't? As for ESTAs, the US was talking of scrapping them in view of the perceived danger from Europe. Even if they don't, we may find that to be one of the more difficult preliminary agreements to negotiate. Even then, it cost me $15.00 or thereabouts earlier this year. As I like to visit Europe at least twice a year, I could do without an extra charge.


All depends on how many MPs are willing to stick heads above the parapet and risk being seen as asking the people to get the right answer. It is possible.


5% would do. 4% is seen as a normal margin of error in most polling.

The Act though could be repealed in the normal manner. Although maybe the House of Lords might try to stick its oar in.

Indeed, but you were looking at the cost of additional civil servants - which is easily covered by either our net or gross contribution to the EU. Thus the regional grants could continue, but won't, seeing as the bottomless pit that is the NHS will still be massively popular.


I meant that they'll revert to being a UK passport, but they won't change them all in one go, but continue use of them until expiry.


That'll be the downside, but I think EU Countries will go down the online application ESTA style as they won't be wanting to up their presence in staff in the UK to deal with the 000s of applications.


Only if they want a constitutional crisis to deal with as well as this. Unlikely in the extreme.


Edit to correct quotation syntax - no change to text

In the event of a change of government, yes. However, this is just a change of PM for the current government, so would they want to repeal their own Act?

I doubt it - and if they did, all agreements with the EU fail immediately, meaning any trade would be under the WTO rules & tariffs from day 1. All movement of people would have no legal means either. Unrealistic to think they'd do this frankly

It will be interesting to hear the EU comments after their meeting tomorrow without Cameron.

Early indications are they that they want us to press the button asap, whilst Boris seems to be taking a laid back approach.

Leave said we'd get free trade with the EU with border controls and restrictions on free movement of labour whilst remain said not a chance.

If the EU plays hard ball and says you have to press the button before we will negotiate and we won't tell you what we'll negotiate it puts Boris in dilemma. Does he press the button and try and go for free trade and closed borders or does he drop closed borders to get free trade.

As leave said don't worry about free trade they'll give us that but we will take control of our borders they became  two of the main planks of their campaign. He's going to upset a lot of people which ever he chooses.

Then their are the Scots and Northern Irish who voted to stay how is he going to deal with them?

He ought to be a very worried man or will his ego and personal ambition come to the fore and he'll just plough on and take us out no matter what the deal or consequences. 

The irony about it all is that it's not migrants that cause you not to get to the doctors, get a school place or buy a house it's George Osbourne's austerity measures not spending enough on health and education or building affordable housing.

I am afraid in or out of the EU  if we want a decent country to live in we're all going to have to pay more tax (probably even more if we are out).

It's interesting that Denmark and Finland which seem to be the happiest countries in Europe are also pretty highly taxed wonder if there's a correlation?

There's a direct correlation. Although taxation itself never makes anyone happy, the services it provides - if done well - can be beneficial. There's a fun but interesting read - A Year of Living Danishly - written by an English journalist who went to live in Billund in Denmark which explains a lot.

Tomorrow's meeting is *with* Cameron explaining how he got it so wrong, then Wesnesday they continue without him

I'm waiting for "A Year of Living Icelandically", by Roy Hodgson, who now has time to write a book, and a reason to leave the country.

Frankly, it's the players, not the manager we should fire!

In other news, it seems we have forum watchers at the heart of Government. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has suggested that the terms of a new deal within Europe could be the manifesto for a party at a general election called to decide one issue - do we stay or do we go? Welcome Minister, I'm flattered. Do please sign up!

We are beginning to see European reaction. France want the UK out now, and dealt with ever so harshly pour encourager les autres. Spain holds a similar view for a different reason, that being fear of demands for a referendum on Catalan independence. Greece feels our pain and is sympathetic, probably wishing it could do the same itself but knowing it couldn't. Poland is the biggest of the states looking anxiously at the flow of remittances from its expatriate community in Britain, and wondering what would happen to its growing economy if they all came home. It is largely holding its counsel, remembering that our two countries' relationship has deeper roots than the EU.

Probably the voice that will dictate the way things unfold is that of Frau Merkel. Article 50 can only be invoked by the state wishing to leave. A state cannot have Article 50 forced upon it, although once the blue touch-paper is lit, we are forced through a no-return turnstile into a corridor with the exit door at the end. The German Chancellor believes that there is no need for an unseemly rush to exit. This is not out of any particular fondness for the UK, but on a pure assessment of what is best for Germany Europe. Half of the cars sold in Britain last year - 1.3 million - were made by German-owned companies, with Volkswagen exporting over 800,000 to Britain. VW is still trying to find its way around the emissions scandal, and does not need the blip in its figures that economic uncertainty and import tariffs would bring. Her forced bonhommie will, though, be offset to a degree by the knowledge that a lot of the banking and financial services work currently done in London may well go abroad if we cannot negotiate a deal with the EU for financial services. Frankfurt, the spiritual home of the Eurozone, is well placed to take this on.

An unlikely casualty of Brexit may be that 17th century derivation of West Germanic Anglo-Frisian dialects that we now call the English language. Today, it is one of 24 official  languages of the EU. More importantly for day-to-day business, it is one of the three working languages of the European Commission (French and German being the others) and is the most widely used. The UK is the only country to have registered English as an official language, however. Other countries where English is widely spoken even amongst natives have chosen others - Ireland plumped for Gaelic, Cyprus for Greek, Malta for Maltese. If we leave, and English is removed from the list of official languages, then presumably the EC will discourage its use in daily business.

On railway matters, fresh doubt has been cast on HS2 following the referendum. This seems to have been in part caused by the loss of business confidence with the sliding pound and stock market, but may be more the raising of voices that have always been against it. Another mooted casualty is Hinkley C. Although EDF insist otherwise, the cost of building it is likely to rise and the strike price it has secured for its electricity in pounds will be worth a lot less in euros.

In political campaigns, as in war, the first casualty is truth. A lot of backtracking is going on (or "backsliding" according to Nigel Farage, imputing a quasi-religious aspect to his creed), more by the leave side than the remain side. That is not necessarily because they told more lies, but that having persuaded the majority to agree with them, their lies are now more easily exposed than "Remains". We will have to live with the truth. So far, that is looking like preference for access to the single market over restrictions on the rights of EU citizens to live and work here, a definite no £350 million per week for the NHS, and a weaker pound. Who saw that coming? Not Roy Hodgson, for sure.

Merkel has an election next year - and the unions are already motivating their members to protect the jobs in the motor industry....I think she'll need to find a way to at least get a deal for that industry - which could keep financials in London for example.

Poland's reluctance to see UK leave is more than just economic interest or historical romanticism, strong as both those are. It's also that the form of capitalism which has taken root in Poland and certain other post-Communist countries is more of an Anglo-Saxon, free-trade nature (at least in theory) than what might be described perhaps as "social-marketism" of a more Continental nature. There are also defence reasons: not the WWII pilots! Poland and the Baltic states are genuinely fearful, whether rightly or wrongly, of a resurgent (angry and scared) Russia.

I doubt it. In practice English is the world's trading and negotiating language, just as French was in the 19th century, regardless of official status. What might change is the nature of that English – it might become more international, more European, more (whisper) American than British. Because why learn British English when the jobs, the trade and the cultural influences are from across the Atlantic? Or from China or, say, Latin America, where the English used is more American.

I like FT,N's analysis very much.

I am much of the opinion I was expressing even before the result was known. The most disappointed people are going to be the "Leavers" because there were so many very diverse expectations of what Leaving meant any outcome of negotiation will entail some folk feeling let down as hopes of their personal Eldorado are dashed in the necessary compromises.

One railway matter perhaps exemplifies the situation over EU Regulation.  We have recently imported the final Class 66 locomotives ordered in 2014 to beat the EU emissions regulations in force from 2015.  In theory, we could (when outside the EU) continue to import these machines to our heart's content. Sovereignty/control taken back and all that, in a practical sense.  However, the UK is perhaps unlikely to want to operate less clean engines (since we signed up to the standards) and some of the freight companies are sending their locos to their European subsidiaries and need to follow the EU standards regardless.  Thus in that respect, nothing changes.

I wonder how many more 'restrictive' standards that we were promised we will no longer be bound by are actually ones which a civilised society would want for the general good.  So there will be no bonfire of most regulations.  Perhaps a small hearth will suffice and no-one will notice in the midst of other upheaval.

Over the past few days, the storm has gathered pace. Nigel Farage's rather gloating charm offensive in the European Parliament, where he unfortunately forgot the charm, went down like a lead balloon. Bojo has realised what an absolute mess he has helped to create, decided that discretion is very much the better part of valour, and left it for someone else to try to get the fan clean again. In any case, he has a biography of Shakespeare to finish, and Michael Gove's knives to clean and return when he can get them out of his back. George Osborne has screwed up and binned the fag packet on which he had drawn up his fiscal plan.

On the opposite benches, the opposition has imploded, and there are rumours that the next member of the shadow cabinet will be Jeremy Corbyn's horse. Outside parliament, a mob smells blood, but isn't sure whose.

As the leadership bids are unveiled, it becomes apparent that nobody had a plan A, let alone B. The Leave camp had assumed we would remain, and hadn't used any solid facts in their campaign, whilst those of a Remain kidney had also assumed we would remain, and even if we didn't, it would not be their problem. So what now for infrastructure?

If Theresa May gets in, the third runway at Heathrow is almost certainly doomed - for now. She, as MP for Maidenhead, has always been an opponent if not a die-for-the-cause one, and may give the gig to Gatwick. But as I have said before elsewhere in the Coffee Shop, the only outcome that could ever be regarded as final is the building of the third runway at Heathrow. Everything else is a mere reprieve for Sipson et al. Either way, it will be at least October before any announcement is made, according to Patrick McLoughlin at Transport Questions yesterday (no, I didn't spot that either).

Mrs May is a supporter of HS2, which can expect impetus if she gets in. That said, I'm not sure it has really lost any in the events of the past week, despite the speculation.

Gove's constituency of Surrey Heath generates many complaints about aircraft noise. He has, apparently, dealt with these on behalf of his constituents  in a robust manner, but isn't heavily against expansion at Heathrow. I am unsure of his stance on HS2, but would think he is up for it.

Dave, meanwhile, may go down as the Prime Minister who accidentally marched us out of Europe, split not just his own party but the Labour party as well, and may even leave the break-up of the United Kingdom as his legacy, but he dodged these two bullets.

Business does not like this, but at least it won't be too long before it can sit down and work out the sums again. Stability should be back with us within 10 years or so - a mere tea break in the timescales British infrastructure trundles along in.

Its own.

History will not be at all kind to David....that's for sure

I suspect it'll be kinder to David than it will be to Jeremy.

Wait arround until later this week and we will see how kind it will be to Tony !.

The only correct answer, and the only other final one would be to quantify the amount of greenhouse effect that the extra flghts using an additional runway would cause and categorically decide that is unacceptable, and refuse ANY further airport expansion. To make it final may require leglislation, outlawing any government from allowing aviation emissions from flights out of British airports to rise above current levels.

The current generation of planes and engines are much more efficient (and quieter) than even those built 20 years ago.  One of the reasons why planes that still have a useful life in them are being pensioned off by the main airlines early. And a new runway at Heathrow should eliminate the inevitable stacking that means flights returning to LHR are not only in the air longer but need to carry more fuel thus making the whole journey less fuel efficient.

But why stop there?  Why not ration flights, allowing individuals only one flight a year, for holiday or business.  Or say no new rail services over the current timetable can be introduced as they will increase carbon emission. And whilst we are at it, pass a law criminalising the sale of beef as the methane they produce is much worse the CO2 and a Kg of beef generates 7 x as much emission as does chicken. (Agriculture worldwide produces more greenhouse gases than the whole transport sector.)

I wouldn't go that far, but I would like to see reform of aviation taxation so there is a basic landing/take-off tax plus an 'air-passenger duty' element with individuals having a 'ration' of flights for which they don't have to pay the air-passenger duty.

Not necessarily, it depends how much modal shift from more-polluting modes an improved rail service can create.

I didn't suggest banning aviation altogether did I, criminalising the sale of beef would be a much bigger step. Policies to stop meet becoming a larger part of pepole's diets would be more-comparable to my stance on aviation, not sure how you could go about it though. Plus, food is an essential, long-haul travel is not.

That depends whether Jeremy ever loses an election....

.............You're making quite a leap of faith to assume he'll ever to get to fight one!  ;D

Depends what happens.  If he causes the Labour Party to split up, or wins and election(!) then he will be remembered.  Otherwise I suspect he will be forgotten, like so many others. 

David on the other hand will be remembered either as the PM who took us out of the EU, or who caused us to sleepwalk out of the EU, or the PM who lead us to a new future outside the EU, or perhaps the PM who sacrificed the interests of the country for the interests of his party.  We await the judgement of history.   

Good luck with that one! You could achieve that by increasing air travel tax even further, whilst putting on frequent direct Eurostar trains to Charles de Gaulle airport for anyone wanting to travel to a different continent. I'm sure Air France would be pleased to help arrange cross-ticketing, and they wouldn't need to worry about the UK complaining under EU competition rules.


Correct. There was a time when fuel economy was only considered because of the need to optimise range of aircraft. The Boeing 747, brought into service over 45 years ago, was not intended to go into long-term production as a passenger aircraft because of the expectation of fleets of supersonic craft by the late 1970s. Until 1973's oil crisis, that seemed likely. Since then, aircraft design has sought to actively reduce fuel consumption with each successive model. The development of the high bypass turbofan was a major leap forward in reducing both noise and fuel consumption by getting much more thrust for the same fuel. The unducted turbofan could take this even further within a decade, although development stalled as fuel prices fell. The use of composite materials in place of metals has lightened aircraft considerably, and even the newer style seats offer a significant saving in weight, and therefore fuel.

A new runway would reduce or eliminate stacking over Heathrow, but it doesn't have to be at Heathrow. Gatwick are willing to take on the job at a reduced price...

I wasn't....hence my yse of 'ever'!!

I have always that predicting the future is risky, but here goes.

I do not think BREXIT will happen, but the threat of it will linger for years, and this alone will make the government want to invest more diversely and cheaply in the future.

So, I expect HS2 to be downgraded, Heathrow will be expanded but with the much cheaper split runway option to give 1 long runway and two short runways, and Gatwick will get a new runway.

Seriously, none of the likely two conservative candidates has been an HS2 fan, and whilst both will probably want to be seen as rail friendly, I think HS2 as it stands now is toast. Neither candidate has been a backer of Heathrow expansion, but some form of expansion will be needed, preferably funded by Heathrow itself. The most interesting investment to ponder will be HS3. With devolution of Manchester, Merseyside, West and South Yorkshire this scheme become more important.

I'm not that good at predicting the past with any degree of accuracy!

I think, with sadness in my case, that Brexit is all but inevitable. The various surveys have shown the various dividing factors in the vote - north more likely to vote Leave than the south, young more likely to vote Remain than the over 55s by a large margin, but a lot less likely to bother to vote, AB groups more for remain than CD etc. There will be no second vote because, as Jeremy Clarkson, the columnist, said so succinctly in yesterday's Sunday Times:


before qualifying this somewhat courageous stance by adding:


I think we have our chief Brexit negotiator's name already. Shut him in a room with Jean-Claude Juncker, a vat of wine, and no steak dinner, and let's see who comes out looking smug!

This is not, however, the constituency of voters that will elect the new leader of the Conservative Party, and therefore the Prime Minister. After the Parliamentary Conservative Party has whittled the field down to two candidates, the decision will be made by the same grass roots members of local Conservative and Unionist associations who voted 2 to 1 to leave Europe.

The threat of Brexit may loom over us for years, or if Andrea Leadsom (but not the rest - pun) gets her way, it may be replaced by the reality within 12 months. Either way, economic stimulus will be needed, and that will largely come from government borrowing, now that George Osborne has binned the fag packet with the original recovery plan on the back. Infrastructure spending will be crucial.

Theresa May is pro-HS2, but the price tag may frighten her. There is another plan for HS1½ costing just over half of HS2, with less engineering, a top speed of around 180mph, and probably no buffet car. The work that has taken place so far will fit this plan easily, but surely it is a step back from the future? My own take on HS2 is that we need an extra rail line between south and north because the existing ones are full. If we are building it, why not make it high speed, rather than a very long copy of the Severn Beach line? HS2 will stay, but expect compromise solutions to save cash, such as much smaller termini. Andrea Leadsom is a former investment banker who can see the need to take a major project forward quickly, as well as the loot to be gathered by the City along the way. Michael Gove's opinion is probably utterly irrelevant by now.

The Northern Powerhouse, and therefore HS3, currently lives in hope because of George Osborne. It will survive him when he is thrown onto his sword, because the northerners, particularly Lancashire and Yorkshire, are a stubborn lot who know their own minds, are not afraid of saying so, and who have been proven right in the past. Look at the campaign of almost civil disobedience when Alistair Darling had the temerity to cancel the last-but-one upgrade of Manchester's tram system. He was shamed into changing his mind, and Metrolink has gone from strength to strength since, linking some of the more deprived towns in the area (my birth town included) to the fast growing Metrolopse.

To my mind, it makes sense to crack on with it, with or without HS2. The new Chancellor may find the coffers a little sparse, but he will borrow what is needed, other than a small almost token rise in taxes somewhere to remind us that we are a poorer nation for leaving the EU, whether that is true or not.

Almost totally agree with you!

HS2 will proceed more cheaply, good bye Euston upgrade (silly expensive idea) and slower track speeds. Heathrow will get the cheap upgrade with restrictions on plane noise and pollution and Gatwick will get a new runway to take some pressure of Heathrow.

On the subject of Brexit, I can see soft peddling by MPs/Lords, court cases, appeals and General elections .. we'll still be in it in 5 years time.

Time will tell, simonw!

One option I have seen is that, with Sir John Chilcot being out of a job by teatime on Wednesday, we appoint him to negotiate the exit. That should give us at least 10 years to stuff the mattress with Euros.

More to the point for this website the question arises, will any of the contenders have any sort of opinion whatever regarding the pronouncements of the South West Peninsular Taskforce? Hopefully they will, not least because the political map of the West Country is predominantly blue, and if they don't make some sort of commitment their Lib Dem rivals surely will.

Do other users of this forum have an opinion, one way or another, on this simmering topic?

Well, Farage has now gone & jumped the ship too....not that I'd have wanted him around the negotiating table, but some might.

Imports are going to be dearer, fuel may rise by around 5p/litre, but ots already at a low price, so not a disaster. The FT indexes are however, well above where they were on Referendum Thursday, so the City doesn't yet see a looming disaster/recession yet.

I also think that EU nationals already legally here win't be sent home, soneone is rumour-mongering there. There are over a million more Brits in the EU than EU citizens here....

Oberon, I can't see there being much change at the SWPTF. It wasn't funded by Europe in any great way, and is really pressing for improvements that are long due. It has work to do in examining the possible deployment of stock due to be cascaded when Bristol gets its hand-me-downs from further east.

ChrisB, no serious contender for either Prime Minister or Brexit negotiator will say what will happen to foreign nationals already here. To say that anyone in the country on the day we pull up the drawbridge could cause a stampede of people desperate to get in whilst there is time, and take advantage of an amnesty. It could also put UK expats at a disadvantage.

Having Farage at the negotiating table would have got us the worst deal imaginable. He has all the diplomatic and negotiating skills of a blow on the head with a blunt instrument.

Not sure about the FT, but the FT, N! index has rallied. I wish I'd bought some shares last week, though, as well as my holiday money. There'll be another chance, I'm sure.