|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote.
Yes, that would be lovely for the UK. But why on earth would the EU want to do that? What's in it for the EU?
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[aside]
The phrase he wanted was dog's breakfast
[/aside]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU.
Unlikely, because the middle-aged pub bore contingent that props up the Leave vote would never admit they are wrong, and take grim satisfaction in every economic misfortune as long as someone else is feeling the pain more than they are.
[ 04. October 2016, 21:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU.
Unlikely, because the middle-aged pub bore contingent that props up the Leave vote would never admit they are wrong, and take grim satisfaction in every economic misfortune as long as someone else is feeling the pain more than they are.
Judging from the rhetoric at the Conservative Party Conference this week any blame will be directed in the general direction of European governments, immigrants and 'the Liberal elite'. When the economy goes T.U. and the racists realise that the country is still 'full' of immigrants things are going to get very unpleasant indeed.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The EU had a comprehensive package of rules to make free trade possible. The UK has just voted to reject them. How then is free trade possible without reinstating those rules?
I think this is a red herring. To sell into any market, a trading nation must comply with the standards required by that market in terms of quality control and fair competition. The UK, as a present member of the EU, complies with those standards. Whether or not we are members of the Single Market, we will need to continue to comply in order to sell there. Other countries, which aren't members of the Single Market, still have access to it. So compliance isn't what this is about.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think this is a red herring. To sell into any market, a trading nation must comply with the standards required by that market in terms of quality control and fair competition. The UK, as a present member of the EU, complies with those standards. Whether or not we are members of the Single Market, we will need to continue to comply in order to sell there. Other countries, which aren't members of the Single Market, still have access to it. So compliance isn't what this is about.
Help me get my head around this red herring then.
At present the UK is inside the single market and as such anything produced here is controlled by EU-wide standards. Which means (providing all the checks are being conducted properly and consistently), I can make Welshcakes in Caerphilly and then put them in the back of a van and take them to Inverness or Portsmouth or Seville or Warsaw to sell without further compliance checks.
If the UK is not deemed to be producing everything to the EU standards* then I'm going to have my Welshcakes checked to the EU standards on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming that they're already produced to the standard - and the EU can decide that my van of Welshcakes cannot be driven to Warsaw - perhaps because the UK has rejected exports of Mushrooms from Poland because of the damage to the UK Mushroom industry.
* of course Norway shows that it is possible to continue outside of the EU but to work to the EU standards in order to sell to the market. But the flipside is accepting freedom of movement.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Going back to the Tory conference for a second, it looks like Liam Fox is playing some kind of linguistic game regarding EU citizens in the UK.
Yet again, the Tories seem to think that the UK can have all the things it wants from the EU but none of the things we don't want.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand here; EU citizens primarily are working and paying tax in the UK. UK citizens in places like Spain are primarily retired.
Do you really want to replace tax-paying workers with disgruntled retirees forced to leave their lives in the Sun? Why would other EU states allow British citizens to continue living there if the UK forced their workers to leave?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU
This isn't so easy. While I'm no fan of Theresa May, she is really between a rock and a hard pace due to David Cameron's disastrous mismanagement of this situation. Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and the EU Commission have all made it clear that they won't enter into any discussions about future relationships until the EU invokes Article 50. Once this happens Brexit is probably irreversible. At the least, it would require the consent of all 27 member states. Some of these countries may resent the special status the UK already has within the EU. We receive a substantial budget rebate. We are eternally exempt from taking the Euro. We don't belong to the Schengen area, and most recently, Cameron negotiated an opt out from "ever closer political union."
If the UK goes into talks with a desperation to remain, you can be sure that some or all of those privileges will be withdrawn. I can virtually guarantee that, in that case, there would be a much larger No vote next time. Perhaps it will be possible to do a trade off between limited access to the Single Market and an immigration policy which gives unlimited access to EU workers who already have jobs to come to and claim no benefits for at least five years. But that's unlikely to satisfy the Visegrad countries. Hungary, with it's vote last week has proved that it's a good neighbour when it comes to receiving handouts and exporting its unemployment, but not so good when it comes to participating in a grand humanitarian scheme.
While there are some Brexit hard cases in the Tory Party, hard Brexit will come from the inability and unwillingness to spend 20 years negotiating something which can never satisfy all 27 EU countries. No one has a crystal ball, but I would predict that the UK economy will contract substantially in the next five years, and it may cause some pain with lost employment etc. But it will find its own level. We are a major trading nation with a long history of entrepreneurial and innovative skills, and we will continue to be a great trading nation. If we adopt radical free trade as an economic way of life, the economy will recover. In the meanwhile the EU has many problems of its own. Nationalism is on the rise in many countries. The Euro will continue to founder as long as the rich north keeps having to send all it money south. Only a political and economic union can save it long term. Europe in ten years from now may be a very different place and the UK may be a member of a looser federation of states.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, there's a difference between access to a Single Market and being in a Single Market.
Access simply means goods and services can be sold in the market. It could, for example, mean that to do so an import duty needs to be paid to get across the border to that market. Indeed, to maintain balance across the market that would often be necessary - if, for example, working hours and minimum wages within the market are such that someone outside the market can undercut costs by paying staff less and forcing them to work longer hours they would undercut the market unless some import barrier was present to prevent it.
Being in the market is very different. Obviously, for a start, there are no import duties paid. But, as part of that there would also need to be no significant variation in labour legislation, environmental codes etc that would unbalance the market. So, being in a Single Market also requires working within the regulations of the market. Specifically for the EU, being a member of the EU also means having a say in writing those regulations. Being in the EEA, though having many of the benefits of the Single Market, would mean having no say in what regulations need to be met to trade in the Single Market.
No one is doubting that the UK will continue to have access to the Single Market, the question is the cost of that access. Will it be born by tarriffs, or by adhering to regulations the UK has no control over? And, if tariffs what will they be? Since the UK is not (presently) a member of the WTO there's no reason to assume that any tariffs will be WTO levels, that's something to be negotiated between the UK and the 27 nations of the EU. And, then there will also need to be parallel negotiations between the UK and everyone else. Or, the UK will need to seek admission to the WTO to enable global trade without needing to negotiate terms with everyone individually - I don't think there will be any substantive difficulty with the UK joining the WTO, it will just take some time to get into place.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Sorry, I meant until the UK invokes Article 50.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Specifically for the EU, being a member of the EU also means having a say in writing those regulations. Being in the EEA, though having many of the benefits of the Single Market, would mean having no say in what regulations need to be met to trade in the Single Market.
This is why EEA access to the Single Market is the worst of all worlds. The Single Market is also a customs union. One of the only potential benefits of Brexit is freedom from that union. I am self-confessed advocate of free trade, and the EU customs union is a barrier to, for example, Third World agricultural products. It's a balance of advantages.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
and the EU can decide that my van of Welshcakes cannot be driven to Warsaw - perhaps because the UK has rejected exports of Mushrooms from Poland because of the damage to the UK Mushroom industry.
Of course the Welshcakes muct still be EU compliant. And if we were still in a free trade situation, we would never be excluding Polish mushrooms. A passionate believer in free trade, such as I, would never want to do that anyway.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of course the Welshcakes muct still be EU compliant. And if we were still in a free trade situation, we would never be excluding Polish mushrooms. A passionate believer in free trade, such as I, would never want to do that anyway.
OOookay but I don't think that option is on the table. If we want access to the EU's welshcake market, we must produce them to the standards set by the EU. If we want to benefit from the free trading market, we must accept the free movement of labour.
If we don't want the free movement of labour, we don't get full and unimpeded access to the market.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This isn't so easy. While I'm no fan of Theresa May, she is really between a rock and a hard pace due to David Cameron's disastrous mismanagement of this situation. Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and the EU Commission have all made it clear that they won't enter into any discussions about future relationships until the EU invokes Article 50. Once this happens Brexit is probably irreversible. At the least, it would require the consent of all 27 member states. Some of these countries may resent the special status the UK already has within the EU. We receive a substantial budget rebate. We are eternally exempt from taking the Euro. We don't belong to the Schengen area, and most recently, Cameron negotiated an opt out from "ever closer political union."
The sensible political line would be to take the robust position that we will not serve any Article 50 notice until the terms have been worked out.
This is easily defensible as being obviously prudent.
If the Commission stick with the opposite absolute position that they will not discuss anything without Article 50 being invoked first, then negotiations never start, and Article 50 doesn't happen. It remains permanently in limbo.
If the Commission don't like the uncertainty, then they have to do something about it. If our politicians don't like it, 48% of us would.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Unfortunately Mrs May has indicated, in a context which makes it politically suicidal to back down, that she is not going to do that.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
If we want to benefit from the free trading market, we must accept the free movement of labour.
I, along with many others, would contend that the referendum result precludes the government from accepting free movement in its present form. It is this, more than anything, which makes a hard Brexit likely. Mrs. May is no hard Brexiteer. She keeps on slapping down Johnson, Fox and Davies for their over exuberance. But is she comes up against the brick wall of no access without free movement, she has no authority to go against the expressed will of the British people.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The sensible political line would be to take the robust position that we will not serve any Article 50 notice until the terms have been worked out.
I think some in the government, especially Mrs May, would have loved to have the luxury of doing things that way. Informally work out the terms and negotiating position before invoking Article 50. But the EU leaders closed the door on that option. They've made it abundantly clear that they won't discuss anything until the article has been triggered. President Hollande made it clear before the end of July that he was impatient for the UK to "get on with it."
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the Commission don't like the uncertainty, then they have to do something about it. If our politicians don't like it, 48% of us would.
This is a democratic deficit, because it overlooks the 52% who voted Leave. Neither they, nor the EU leaders will tolerate the government doing nothing. And nor should they. It smacks of a political elite thinking it knows better than the ignorant masses. Cameron's blunder and the EU's piqued response to it have boxed the UK government into a corner. It must invoke Article 50. It must insist on the red line of immigration control. These things together make hard Brexit unavoidable.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the expressed will of the British people.
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
Since the question hasn't been asked of the British people, how can you state that that is the expressed will of the people?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Hammond will no doubt advise on the short and long term costs of Hard Brexit. Along the lines of "avoid like the plague". I suppose Theresa might play the "we have no choice card" but I reckon that, when push comes to shove, Boris, Liam and David are more expendable than Philip. A third way will be found if the Treasury say what I guess is true. That Hard Brexit may be courageous in some eyes, but the cost is just too high to bear.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU. Opinion canvassed in Boston, Lincolnshire, the town with the largest Brexit vote, suggested that immigration played a big part in that town. But even people at my church, who aren't xenophobes, have expressed the view that immigration policy is a matter for the British Parliament, not something to be imposed by regulation from overseas. For the government to propose a EEA type solution to Brexit would, IMO, be a betrayal of the result.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I disagree.
48% of the population believe that freedom of movement is either a positive good or a price worth paying for the benefits of the EU.
The leavers are presumably split between hard and soft brexiteers. Unless more than 94% of brexiteers are hard brexiteers, that puts a majority of the population either in favour of or prepared to accept freedom of movement.
(If 6% of leavers are soft brexiteers, this translates to 3% soft brexiteers among the general population, which gives 51% overall in favour of freedom of movement.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU. I say this for two reasons. One, the US doesn't have much of a trade deficit with the UK. Why would disrupting trade with the UK be in our economic interest? Two, the UK is our closest ally.
Your largest trading partner is Canada. Your closest ally is Canada. In terms of shared services and operations, both historically and presently (WW2 to now).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU. Opinion canvassed in Boston, Lincolnshire, the town with the largest Brexit vote, suggested that immigration played a big part in that town. But even people at my church, who aren't xenophobes, have expressed the view that immigration policy is a matter for the British Parliament, not something to be imposed by regulation from overseas. For the government to propose a EEA type solution to Brexit would, IMO, be a betrayal of the result.
Immigration policy concerns the movement of people, generally between countries. When the movement of goods or capital is to be discussed, these are handled at least bilaterally but mostly, in the modern world, on an international level and the validity of this is rarely questioned. Quite why the movement of people should be treated any different, in a world in which safe and cheap travel is simple can only rationally be explained by economic selfishness or fear of those who are different.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU.
No, we can't. We could have easily had a referendum between the status quo and a well defined manifesto for Brexit - a description of what the Leave side would attempt to obtain in negotiations for exit. That is, afterall, the accepted way for any other election or referendum to be run. But, Hameron didn't insist on the Leave campaign producing a manifesto so we have nothing to judge whether or not the position the government eventually decides to negotiate for is anything like what people voted for. About the closest we have to such a manifesto is a slogan on the side of a bus - and, that's something that can't possibly be on the table.
quote:
But even people at my church, who aren't xenophobes, have expressed the view that immigration policy is a matter for the British Parliament, not something to be imposed by regulation from overseas.
Which is a) an argument for sovereignty of the UK Parliament rather than related to immigration - unless the only regulation people are concerned with is immigration, in which case it's carefully disguised xenophobia
and b) a gross misrepresentation of the way EU regulations come into being - a collaboration of different nations including the UK to come to a mutually acceptable position. But, that's an old argument.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
It'll be interesting to see if the "great repeal" bill will lead to us behaving as if we've already left even though we haven't.
The proposal seems to be a blanket adoption of all existing EU legislation into UK law, followed by selectively repealing bits we don't want. It also plans to end the primacy of the European Court of Justice.
Are we just going to start doing what we want and ignoring judgements and new laws from now on? That could further antagonise negotiators...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Any new proposed European law would need to be debated and approved by Westminster before it can be enacted anyway. So, I suppose the UK Parliament can simply refuse to do that, or vote against accepting it, should such proposals come before them in the period between now and enacting Article 50 +2 years. I wonder if that means the UK can in that period still veto EU legislation even though it may never be directly enforced in the UK? (may, because depending on the legislation and the hard-ness of Brexit there may be EU laws and regulations that the UK would still need to accept).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Odds Bodkin
Apprentice
# 18663
|
Posted
"The proposal seems to be a blanket adoption of all existing EU legislation into UK law, followed by selectively repealing bits we don't want."
How long would that selective repealing take, given just how much EU legislation there is?
Posts: 28 | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Odds Bodkin:
"The proposal seems to be a blanket adoption of all existing EU legislation into UK law, followed by selectively repealing bits we don't want."
How long would that selective repealing take, given just how much EU legislation there is?
I think the idea is that blanket adoption was the only realistic option given the sheer amount of EU legislation. I suppose then that once it's all been adopted, selectively repealing it can just go on indefinitely. Of course there'll be some bits that people will be itching to get rid of, but in the longer term, it will surely have to be done by people proposing what to get rid of and why because they have a particular interest in it or whatever.
You couldn't just have a house of commons vote on each bit because it would take forever.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graham J
Apprentice
# 505
|
Posted
I often see statements to the effect that 48% of people in Britain voted to remain in the EU or 52% voted to leave. It is my understanding that the figures above actually refer to the number of people who actually voted, ignoring both those people who were eligible to vote but who did not vote (through choice or circumastances) and those who were not eligible vote (e.g. too young).
In which case we know that around 36% of the population voted to leave. We cannot change the vote - but I don't think we should pretend that the mandate to leave was bigger than it is in reality.
--------------------
GJ
Posts: 46 | From: Örebro, Sweden | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The mandate is bugger all. But, we do have a system that allows governments to be formed on similarly flimsy mandates, so it has precedent.
At least two cases currently before the courts still have the potential to throw a spanner in the works. One on behalf of people who were denied a vote, if it goes in their favour means that potential several million people (predominantly Remain) should have voted. Another is testing the legality of some of the advertising and campaign literature; the Electoral Commission has the power to call a bye-election if it is found that deliberate falsehoods and slander in election material could have had sufficient impact to affect the result - and, it wouldn't take a lot of impact in favour of Leave for the result to have been different. If either of those can be demonstrated then the only possible outcome (IMO) is for the courts to declare the result void and force a re-run of the referendum (to include any people who should have been able to vote but were not allowed to, and/or for campaign material to adhere to common standards of legality).
I can't help but think about a conversation I had two years ago with a friend from the Ukraine on the subject of referenda, contrasting the Scottish independence vote with the Crimea. At the time (despite disappointment in the result) I was quite proud of how the Scottish referendum was conducted - there was a lot of intelligent discussion building on decades of debate, though maybe a bit too much of "project fear", the question was clearly framed without any doubt about what the Scottish Government would seek if the vote went in their favour (the debate was about the feasibility of those aims), there was a lot of passion on both sides but it didn't break out into violence (excepting a few minor instances - and the largest were after the vote and instigated by unionists). The biggest problem was the sudden shift of goal posts just before the vote with Better Together suddenly offering a load of extra powers to Holyrood - including a promise that the future of Scotland within the EU was safest within the UK (oh, the irony).
I hold no such feeling of pride in the Brexit referendum. It was a disgraceful shambles, barely any better than the Crimea one.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Odds Bodkin
Apprentice
# 18663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Odds Bodkin:
"The proposal seems to be a blanket adoption of all existing EU legislation into UK law, followed by selectively repealing bits we don't want."
How long would that selective repealing take, given just how much EU legislation there is?
I think the idea is that blanket adoption was the only realistic option given the sheer amount of EU legislation. I suppose then that once it's all been adopted, selectively repealing it can just go on indefinitely. Of course there'll be some bits that people will be itching to get rid of, but in the longer term, it will surely have to be done by people proposing what to get rid of and why because they have a particular interest in it or whatever.
You couldn't just have a house of commons vote on each bit because it would take forever.
That sounds like a pension plan for lawyers. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 28 | Registered: Sep 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Graham J:
I often see statements to the effect that 48% of people in Britain voted to remain in the EU or 52% voted to leave. It is my understanding that the figures above actually refer to the number of people who actually voted, ignoring both those people who were eligible to vote but who did not vote (through choice or circumastances) and those who were not eligible vote (e.g. too young).
In which case we know that around 36% of the population voted to leave. We cannot change the vote - but I don't think we should pretend that the mandate to leave was bigger than it is in reality.
In moral terms, those results give the government as much of a mandate to carry out Brexit, and even to go hardcore on it, as they see fit. They are in no way obligated to consider the opinions of the people who didn't bother to vote.
The realpolitik of it is a little more complcated, however, because if there really isn't a lot of support among the public(voting or otherwise) for Leaving, then the stay-at-home Remainers might show up in the general election to punish a government viewed as being too gung-ho in its pursuit of Brexit. The non-voters may have no right to complain, as the saying goes, but they still maintain the right to vote.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
The above "realpolitik" assumes, of course, that among the stay-at-homes, was a signficant number of Remainers.
Which may or may not be a correct assumption. One of the traps partisans sometimes fall into is assuming that, in low-turnout elections, everyone who satayed home would have voted the way the partisans wanted them to.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And Brexit means whatever you want it to mean, from very soft to very hard.
It's true that Mrs May can choose her own interpretation, and I suppose she will be trying to balance between different factions in her own party and in the country.
Interesting, for example, that the kite being flown for lists of foreigners in companies has met with a less than ecstatic welcome from business and industry. I guess they don't want to end up on a hit list of hard right targets, for harbouring nasty brown people, well, and nasty white people from Lithuania et. al.
But those Brexit people who are saying to opponents, you have to shut up now as the vote has been won, are talking twaddle. They argued for 40 years against the EU!
[ 07. October 2016, 13:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
No Prime Minister lasts forever. May will fall in time and the consequences of Brexit will taint her reputation. Getting rid of Fox, Davis and Johnson will no more save her than ditching Norman Lamont saved John Major.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some interesting reports that currency markets are nervous because Brexit is being kept so private, or as Mrs May says, no running commentary.
Traders (and algorithms) don't seem to like all this privacy, and it encourages rumours and negative publicity.
You know when politicians 'urge calm', that the ordure is hitting the extractor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37587085
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Between Brexit and TTIP (remember that?) everything of any importance is being kept under wraps. It's like the Star Chamber of old.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Between Brexit and TTIP (remember that?) everything of any importance is being kept under wraps. It's like the Star Chamber of old.
Which is somewhat ironic, as one of the themes Leave were running with was the secrecy of TTIP.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Rawnsley in the Observer reports that some Tories were telling him that giving up some prosperity would be worth it, in order to control immigration.
Eh? What? Is that going to be the new slogan, poorer, but whiter!
(Can't find it online).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rawnsley in the Observer reports that some Tories were telling him that giving up some prosperity would be worth it, in order to control immigration.
Eh? What? Is that going to be the new slogan, poorer, but whiter!
Poorer, but purer.
Tighter, but whiter.
Slashing the pension chest, but passing the cricket test.
Starving on crud, but no rivers of blood.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also hints that the Tories are withdrawing the 'name a foreigner' stunt. So much vitriolic criticism, especially from business. Steve Hilton, former Cameron aide, asked, why not tattoo foreigners' wrists with their number?
There is a basic contradiction here, surely? We are open for business world-wide, but fuck off foreigners. Well, rich ones are OK.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There were quite a few on the Leave campaign who had said before the referendum that Brexit would be costly in relation to international trade, and at least in the first decade or so would result in a reduction in GDP. But, so they claimed, it was a price worth paying to regain sovereignty and control of immigration. So, basically nothing new.
It was a bollocks argument six months ago, and it's bollocks now. But, at least it was an honest argument unlike claims that there would be no economic impact, or even that we'd enter a golden age of trading with nations who weren't showing any indication of wanting to trade with the UK, or that we'd have £350 million per week extra to spend on the NHS. I think I prefer honest bollocks to dishonest bollocks.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Getting a distinct feeling that UK farmers are in for a culture shock when the final strands of this Gordian knot come to be severed.
I always had grave doubts that any British Government would match the CAP payments without laying down it's own conditions. Our farmers could well discover that it will require a sustained, post Brexit price increase to offset the absence of an EU envelope packed with lolly.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Ah, expensive food. The last political party to die in that particular ditch was the Tory faction which opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws. Remind me how that worked out for them?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
The "poker game" analogy most lately used by Priti Patel (though I'm sure she's neither first nor the last to use it) annoys and depresses me. We shouldn't be trying to conceal our objectives in order to "beat" our opponents - on the contrary, we should be as open and transparent as possible, in order to maximise trust with our negotiating partners. The more trust, the more chance of minimising damage.
On the other hand, perhaps the real reason for the lack of debate is that no-one actually has any idea what our main objectives are. All the more reason to take some time to discuss them then!
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Far from maximising the trust of our negotiating partners, the toxic xenophobic tosh spouted by the brexiteers at the Tory conference has alienated them completely. Now Donald Tusk, who was one of the more sympathetic Eurocrats, is telling us we face a choice between hard Brexit and no Brexit. His recent evisceration of Boris Johnson was hilarious and dismaying in equal measure.
They've also managed to spook the markets and cause foreign business leaders to put new investment on hold pending resolution of this mess.
The Brexiteers meanwhile seem to be blaming the remainers (sorry the Bremoaners) for not talking up the wide cornucopia of opportunities open to a country with a collapsing currency which is rapidly running out of friends. This is classic displacement activity, trying to deny to themselves that everyone else knows - that they don't have a clue what they're doing.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Graham J:
We cannot change the vote
Given that most of on this thread voted Remain, we find the result dismal. But we cannot change the vote other than by subverting democracy. So I'd be interested to know what people really want the government to do. The voices in parliament calling for scrutiny of the government's proposals don't surprise me when we consider that 70% of MP's are Remainers. Yet some of the most vociferous of them, like Ed Milliband represent constituencies which voted Leave. So Ed simply thinks he knows better than his own voters. Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics produced a clip of David Cameron during the referendum campaign making it clear that leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market. He was, of course, against leaving.
Not happy with the vote, the 70% of MP's who opposed it are now trying to scupper the deal in any way they can. The Prime Minister cannot tell them of a negotiating strategy which will only unfold in the negotiations which follow. Their aim is to push to find a way to stay in the Single Market. Nick Clegg said, as Ed Milliband did the other day, that he doesn't seek to negate the vote. The vote was to leave, with the implication, as Cameron said, that we would leave the Single Market. In fact the only way to remain within it would be to get a EEA type deal. It's explained
here why this would almost certainly be a non starter. If taking back control was the motivation for the Leave vote, we would have far less control in the EEA than we have now. We would still be subject to free movement, to paying in to the budget, and to the control of the ECJ, but without having any say in how the rules are made. For example, the EU could admit more countries and we would be bound by the free movement of their citizens without any say over their entry. I simply don't believe that the Brexit vote allows this. Last week Donald Tusk said it's Hard Brexit or No Brexit. No Brexit violates the democratic will of the British people. Hard Brexit is an economic and political shambles. That all this was brought on by David Cameron's incompetence is no consolation. We can't change the vote.
So does anyone have any practical and realistic advice for the government. Personally I'd advise them to call a general election to seek a mandate for a negotiating position. The SNP will campaign on a ticket to stay in. The Lib Dems likewise. The Tories and Labour can campaign on their own vision of the implications of the referendum vote.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Paul TH, the very real problem that the UK has to face up to is that it will go into the negotiations from a very weak position. The EU leaders have made it clear that there will be no negotiations until the s.50 notice has been given and that the EU's terms will not be foreshadowed. So the UK will be giving a notice which apparently is irrevocable but instead inevitably leads to exit from the EU without knowing the terms which the EU will accept. A far from comfortable position. That is the position for which a majority of the voters at the referendum cast their ballot. The EU leaders can simply say that they accept that result, and simply negotiate the date for the excision; from there, they can turn to talking on an item-by-item basis, setting the terms and the timing.
And no, Alan Creswell, you can't say that the voters did not support that. They did. The electorate was asked a simple question, Stay or Leave, and votes by a substantial majority (of those voting) for Leave.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And no, Alan Creswell, you can't say that the voters did not support that. They did. The electorate was asked a simple question, Stay or Leave, and votes by a substantial majority (of those voting) for Leave.
But, it was not a simple question. The "Stay" option was fairly simple, because it was more or less the status quo everyone knew (with the exception of very minor tinkering in the 'deal' Cameron cooked up). The "Leave" option was, and is, incredibly complicated with a vast range of options for the prefered relationships between the UK and EU, and between the UK and the rest of the world. The only way the vote could have been simple was for that range of options to be narrowed down to particular negotiating position that the Leavers would adopt if they won the vote. By not requiring the Leave campaign to produce such a policy document Cameron created an almighty mess that it's still very unclear how the UK gets out of. Not to mention making the referendum practically unique in UK politics (and, for that matter politics in virtually the whole of the western world) - a vote in which there was no manifesto on which to base the decision of who to vote for and to hold the winner of the vote accountable to.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron created an almighty mess that it's still very unclear how the UK gets out of.
Alan I don't think you're going to get much disagreement over this comment, but I'm still interested in opinions of what the government should do about it. As I said, I think it calls for an election, where the parties campaign for what their vision of the way forward should be.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
