Brexit: On a scale of 1 to 10, where do you stand?

Others have an opposing view, but they will not change mine, as I do not expect to change theirs.

It is the Euro clearing offices that are being relocated to an EU country - quite likely Frankfurt - and that makes millions a day for the UK at the moment but it has to be located in a EU country.

If this does happen, it is a London-centric problem. I am more concerned with the rest of the country. The EU has designated London to be it's clearing house, and the financial centre and ignored the rest of the country. This is my problem with the EU. I do see that some jobs in London will go, but they have been leached from the rest of the country without anyone being bothered. The steel industry in the UK was decimated because the EU would not put controls on Chinese steel entering the EU.

Sorry, Asarah, but I don't feel very reassured by your reply. Ducking and diving with the rest of the world doesn't seem like a very secure future for MY grandchildren, I'm afraid.

Then London jobs - particularly banking - generate a lot of tax for the UK which goes into the Treasury coffers and spending on the WHOLE country - so I think you are totally incorrect with your assertion it is a London based problem - it is a problem for the whole country.
Jobs have not been leeched from the rest of the country particularly where banking I'd concerned.

Is concerned even.

It was the UK who refused to control the dumping of cheap Chinese steel, not the EU

From Full Fact:

Start

European Commission plans to raise duties haven’t been supported by Britain

In 2013, the European Commission submitted plans intended to discourage what it called certain “unfair trading practices”. These would allow the EU to impose higher import duties in cases where it believes a government is subsidising exports in a way that undermines a raw materials industry in Europe, such as steel.

Britain has been accused by both trade bodies and other European officials of blocking these reforms.

"European Council"
This is the place where EU heads of state or government meet at least four times each year, but more often if necessary. It plays a major role in setting the EU’s overall agenda and is the EU’s ultimate political authority. It was the European Council that decided to accept David Cameron’s renegotiation package.

We don’t know the precise position taken by British ministers in European Council discussions—these usually take place in private. We do know that the UK signed up to a memo sent to the committee tasked with overseeing the reforms, calling for the status quo to be maintained.

This would have kept in place limits on the tariffs the EU can impose through the lesser duty rule’.

Business Secretary Sajid Javid has also said the government doesn’t wish to see “disproportionate” duties introduced, arguing that this could have a negative impact on companies which use, rather than manufacture, steel in the UK.

British objections to the reform of anti-dumping measures are nothing new. The EU dropped a similar attempt to change European law on the matter in 2008, with then-EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson stating that he didn’t want “to bring forward proposals prematurely that would exacerbate differences among member states”.

End

fullfact.org/europe/is-uk-calling-for-lower-eu-duties-chinese-steel/

And the EU is moving on it now that the UK is more or less out of the picture

European Commission Imposes Anti-Dumping Duties On Chinese Steel Products
May 17, 2017

money.cnn.com/2017/05/12/news/economy/china-steel-europe-dumping/index.html

Incidentally, when the Single Market and Free Movement of workers was set up, guess who didn't want a brake on admitting EU workers?

Why, Maggie Thatcher

So much Fake News has been fed to UK citizens over the years and they swallowed it hook, line and sinker...

The decimation of the UK steel industry was started years ago by Margaret Thatcher's government when it reprivatised the industry. More recently this government chose not to support the remaining steel industry when the market was flooded with cheap Chinese steel citing EU competition rules, even though other EU countries like Italy managed to do just that for its steel industry. UK steel plants were permanently closed. The furnaces could have been maintained in case they were needed again at some point in the future, but no, they were allowed to go out forever. Same as the coal industry. None of our underground pits can ever be reopened, everything was left to rust and rot. God help us if we ever need those materials in an emergency.

AsarahG I respect your opinion, but would you mind explaining what it is about the EU you don't trust?

Well said Welshwife and Maizie.

The collapse of UK industries such as coal mining, shipbuilding, steel and textiles has little to do with the EU, which have mainly gone to the Far East.

Thank goodness we did have London's financial services plus scientific, pharma and IT R & D. I haven't clue what we'll do when we lose them after Brexit.

None of our underground pits can ever be reopened, everything was left to rust and rot. God help us if we ever need those materials in an emergency.

But, funnily enough, they've never stopped Open Casting where I live.

MaisieD don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of using fossil fuels because the obvious environmental impact. But we import almost 3 times the amount of coal we mine. If anything happened to the supply of imported coal, it would have been good to know that the country has access to the billions of tonnes of underground coal reserves. It bothers me that we rely so much on foreign suppliers because if a real world crisis happened we could be in trouble.

PS daphne I've saved that picture. Priceless!

And here's Maggie in her Common Market jumper before the 1975 referendum.

How things have changed...

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/05/daily-mail-backs-campaign-to-remain-in-europe-in-1975-eec-eu-referenfum

And they'll change again!

Wilma I doubt if the UK has the expertise now to operate mines. We'd have to allow thousands of immigrants with skills in mine engineering, etc. It would be years before we could train them ourselves.

We need a proper forward-thinking energy strategy with the emphasis on renewables.

1 and 1 and 1 and 1 have always been a 1. I have read about leaving and remaining loads. I have not changed my mind and I will find it very difficult to ever accept the result. Sorry ?

Dyffryn plenty of us feel like you on here. By the way has your name anything to do with where you live?

Coal imported for power generation has nothing to do with whether we can produce it ourselves or not.

The reason we import coal is because to meet EU (and British) standards on emission control, power stations have to burn coal that is low in sulphur. Coal from UK mines has a high sulphur content so we import from countries like South Africa, and (I think) Australia because it is low in sulphur.

There are, in fact few coal-burning power stations left in the UK. By an EU directive all coal-fired power stations had to close by the end of 2015 or agree to hugely expensive new emissions controls that few existing coal fired plants could have met even if they tried. Even those that continued operating after 2015 are planned to be closed down over the next few years, although some like Drax and Tilbury have converted to burning biomass.

The other reason we import coal is that quite simply other countries can produce it far more cheaply than we do. Partly that is labour costs but also that in other countries the coal measures are far larger than ours, the seam thicker and larger and far easier and cheaper to exploit.

One of the features of British coal mining is, that while supplies are plentiful the seams are frequently thin and fractured by faults making them difficult and expensive to mine.

The future for coal in this country, if it has any, is not mining but developing technologies that can exploit coal reserves in situ, by gasifying the coal underground.

Interesting post Monica

My main concern at the moment is that I felt brexit was largely a vote against austerity. And I feel that the election was a vote against the governments stance on credit.

. I know that the Labour parties attitude towards brexit is pretty similar to the governments (and just as ambiguous). But I still felt that my vote for Labour was the only way that I could voice my opinion in some way, as a LibDem vote in my area was a wasted vote.I'd still rather have a Labour government if and when we leave the EU, as any money 'saved' will go to the people that need it, but I'm still hoping beyond hope that someone will have the courage to reverse the decision.

I am not advocating coal mining. I did say that. My point is about not mothballing important industries in case they are needed in the future. As far as I am concerned the future is about renewable energy. You might remember the reports in April that the UK had its first day without coal burning since the industrial revolution.

I know that the Labour parties attitude towards brexit is pretty similar to the governments (and just as ambiguous).
That is it absolutely Tegan but they are abiding by the result of the referendum.

As for Maggie and the media etc being 'for' the EEC years ago this was probably because the EEC was not like the EU is now and the way it seemed to be heading towards ever more expansion and closer union.
Gordon Brown was most hesitant about signing the Lisbon Treaty.

The Tory party's official line was to Remain, as was the Labour party's with the luke-warm support of Corbyn.

It was those politicians who went against the official party lines who won the day.

The reason we import coal is because to meet EU (and British) standards on emission control, power stations have to burn coal that is low in sulphur. Coal from UK mines has a high sulphur content so we import from countries like South Africa, and (I think) Australia because it is low in sulphur.

That's right, and we did import from Poland too to meet standards - and because it was cheaper to import.

To meet standards we now import wood pellets from America - which is not as environmentally friendly as we may like to think.

Jalima Read some of the 1973 small print. It was always intended that there would be closer union, not just a trading agreement.

What I find interesting about the Guardian article is the almost complete reversal of people's stances, which isn't entirely for rational reasons.

The trade unions were against joining the Common Market, because they wanted to protect jobs. Incidentally, they were also against immigration in the 1950s, for the same reason. Consequently, Labour Party supporters were anti-Common Market and I think Corbyn is a throwback to those times. I also think that it's why the Labour Party is so conflicted othe issue and is proving to be the party's Achilles' Heel.