Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
    Oh dear the old "advisory" line again!
    In the UK, parliament is sovereign.
    "...because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory” - House of Lords 2010.

    If the referendum act had said, there will be a referendum and if the vote is X we will do Y, it wouldn't have been advisory.
    The previous referendum (for proportional representation) did contain such a provision, and the result was binding.
    So it's not as if the people who drafted the legislation (who were the same people) didn't know what they were doing.

    This position was confirmed by the supreme court ruling in January 2017, which required an Act of Parliament to trigger the withdrawal notice (an act which passed).

    In this particular case, the referendum was pretty much sabotaged by that.
    Because the act of parliament creating the referendum didn't say what would happen afterwards, no one knows what to do with the result.

    It's like a joke, 52% of us don't want to live here anymore and want to move.
    OK, where do you want to move to, because there's a few billion places that aren't "here".
    You can't expect the government to simply keep offering new places one at a time hoping that everyone will agree on one of them.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by JK0 View Post
      Just because any benefit is compromised by Remoaners, does that mean we should give up?
      Nope.

      What benefits did you expect that you can't have within the EU and where are they being compromised?
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by JK0 View Post

        Just because any benefit is compromised by Remoaners, does that mean we should give up?
        Umm...
        Of course it doesn't - but what are the benefits?

        Imagine that 100% of the people who have set foot in the UK, or have worked for the UK government, since 1st January 2016 all fully support leaving the EU.
        That would mean that every single politician and bureaurocrat who had been negotiating for the UK side of Brexit would have completely supported leaving the EU.
        If that was the scenario, what benefits would you expect to be seeing once the UK left the EU?

        Comment


          #19
          Just google Nigel Farage speeches. He does a far better job than me, and frankly I can't be bothered typing them out.

          Comment


            #20
            Nigel Farage wants to leave the EU because he and his mates will make a fortune hedging against the fall in the pound and the losses in the stock market (again).
            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...beat-the-crash

            His role is to paint how it is now as awful and then imply that it will be better if we leave, in such a vague way that you can infer your own fears and hopes into what he says.
            Worried about immigration, our borders will be "more secure" after brexit.
            Worried about the NHS, we'll have more money for it after brexit.
            Nothing he says is specific about the benefits of leaving.

            It's vague threats about waves of implausible migration (Turkey?) and that the EU run the UK.
            More to the point, his EU pension is secure and he's got his family German passports, so he's not leaving the EU personally anytime soon.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #21
              Yeah, of course JPK. He worked for Brexit for 25 years just to make a one-off killing on the stock market.

              Comment


                #22
                How joining the EU led to a big decline in UK industry

                By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JUNE 16, 2016 ( ALSO, see post 11 )

                There are also crucial issues to understand about how the asymmetric single market did damage to Uk industry. When we joined the EEC, now the EU, in 1973, more barriers to trade had been pulled down in manufacturing than in services. EU rules were often such that UK industry was badly damaged by the shock of joining and the continued shock of staying in as the rules increased and tightened.

                When the UK joined the EU we had a 45 million tonnes a year steel industry. Today we are battling to save an 11 million tonnes industry.

                When we joined the EU we had a 400,000 tonnes a year aluminium industry. Today we have just 43,000 tonnes of capacity left.

                When we joined the EU we had 20 million tonnes of cement capacity. Today we have 12 million tonnes.

                Just before we joined the EEC in 1971 we had a 1 million tonnes a year fishing industry. Today we have 600,000 tonnes.

                The October 2013 government “Future of Manufacturing” Report shows that between 1951 and 1973 metals output rose 3% a year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has declined by more than 6%

                Between 1951 and 1973 food and drink output rose by 5.6% per year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has fallen by 1% a year.

                Between 1951 and 1973 textiles output expanded at 2.6% a year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has fallen by more than 6% a year.

                Whilst it may not be fair to blame all this decline on membership of the EU, as there are other factors, it nonetheless shows categorically that joining the EU and helping create the so called single market has not helped us grow and has not saved many of our industries from decline.

                In some cases EU policies are the main driver of the disaster. The Common Fishing Policy is clearly the main reason for the dreadful decline of our fishing industry, as many foreign vessels were licenced to take our fish. Our energy intensive businesses were often damaged by the high energy prices required by the EU common energy policy.

                The EU has prevented UK subsidy of industry under its state aids rules, but has often provided subsidised loans and grants to businesses to set up elsewhere in the EU. The UK has seen a spate of factory closures balanced by new and expanded facilities in poorer EU countries. The UK lost van production to Turkey, car capacity to Slovakia, chocolate to Poland, domestic appliances to the Netherlands and the Czech Republic and metal containers to Poland amongst others in recent years. In various cases there was an EU grant or loan involved in the new capacity.

                Looking at our huge balance of payments deficit today in goods with the rest of the EU, we can see the long term impact of the EU’s damage to our manufacturing capacity.

                This April’s balance of payments figures show us in heavy deficit in machinery, vehicles, electrical machinery, mineral fuels, plastics, iron and steel, wood and clothing. Last year our total goods trade deficit hit £85 billion with the rest of the EU. Between 2008 and 2015 our exports grew at 5% with the rest of the world, whilst falling with the EU.

                Perhaps remain might like to answer the following questions:
                • Why have we suffered industrial decline and closures with production shifting elsewhere in Europe since joining the EEC?
                • Why do trade in surplus with the rest of the world but have such a huge deficit with the EU?
                • Why have we ended up importing fish, electricity, steel and much else when we used to self sufficient?
                P.S. We also import 50% of our food. ( That's 50% of our money leaving the U.K. for food, we can't even sustain ourselves - That's a DISASTER )
                We are deeper in debt than pre 1973. AND it took 60 years to pay off world war 2 debt of 27 billion ( paid off 31st dec 2006 )
                How long will it take to pay back a loan of 40 billion to the E.U. ? - 100 years ?
                And that means reduced government services - lay offs - teachers sacked once more, bin collections extended to once a month ? ( remember the teachers being sacked ? as they had no money ? I do. )
                Current estimates are that every single person owes £ 78,000.
                When a country goes bankrupt ( research Argentina ) The money is taken out of the banks to pay the debt, and your money disappears for ever..

                Still want to remain ?
                .
                ( ALSO, see post 11 )

                Comment


                  #23
                  Except he's basically, wrong.

                  Since 1973, the year in which the UK joined the EU, per capita GDP of the UK economy grew by 103%, exceeding the 97% growth of the US. Within the EU, the UK edged out Germany (99%) and clobbered France (74%).

                  Institute for New Economic Thinking - University of Oxford
                  • Why have we suffered industrial decline and closures with production shifting elsewhere in Europe since joining the EEC?
                  Because the UK has rebuilt its economy around services, particularly financial services. Turns out no one really wants to work in a steelworks or down a pit, when they can work in an office.
                  Who knew?
                  • Why do trade in surplus with the rest of the world but have such a huge deficit with the EU?
                  We sell services to the EU, where we have a trade surplus and import goods, where we have a deficit. Because the EU is next door, we import a great deal from them, particularly food.

                  But the picture painted is too simplistic. A lot of the goods we sell outside the EU are made from things we import from the EU. So they count for our deficit with the EU and our surplus to the rest of the world. International trade is all interconnected.

                  But fundamentally, not being in the EU won't affect our interdependence on the EU, just make the trade more complex and expensive. Geography and differenct standards makes replacing the EU with other countries complex.
                  • Why have we ended up importing fish, electricity, steel and much else when we used to self sufficient?
                  Because other countries can produce it more cheaply. Everyone used to be self-sufficient because there wasn't as much trade and as much competition. If you didn't make it locally, you paid a lot or did without.

                  The fish we import is not the same fish that we catch locally. But, there wasn't a way of getting other fish into the UK at a reasonable cost until quite recently.
                  We've not been self sufficient in steel since the end of the 19th century.
                  Electricity competition requires on other countries being able to produce a surplus to sell. Again, that's quite recent.

                  And none of that is the result of our EU membership, it's just the world changing since the 1970s.


                  And consider the source of the above.
                  John Redwood is an investment manager as well as an MP.
                  He has advised his investors to take their money out of the UK, as the future of the economy post brexit makes other markets more attractive.

                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/frances.../#45df0f3c4c1e

                  So he's proposing we leave the EU, even though it will negatively affect our economy.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Re Advisory or Otherwise - yes JP agreed re High Court and Letter of the Law etc but it was certainly morally binding - this from Full Fact:

                    people who support leaving the EU say there’s plenty of evidence that the referendum was politically binding. They say that the referendum process sent clear instructions to MPs that they should support the decision made by a majority of voters—even if the formalities don’t require them to. They point to the fact that, during one of the debates on the referendum bill on 9 June 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said “decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.Similarly, the government’s leaflet to all households advocating a Remain vote told voters that it would implement the result.

                    I would also disagree that the we do not know what to do with the result. It was made absolutely clear what would be done with the result. Only now those who did not like it seek to go back on those promises (and they were firm promises in print and on record).

                    I don't see your "moving" comparison though. We voted out (of single market and customs union) so we should get out. There is no confusion in the minds of Leavers. No multiple destinations. Only one.

                    And as for benefits to be had - look at the EU links of many remainers (pensions, potential cushy jobs etc etc)

                    We now have the will of Parliament against the will of the people to some extent - not a good thing in my book.

                    Enjoying a civilized debate on the matter though - it often isn't, sadly.


                    Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Why do all benefits have to be measured in financial gain? Just being able to rule ourselves without any outside interference is benefit enough.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                        I don't see your "moving" comparison though. We voted out (of single market and customs union) so we should get out. There is no confusion in the minds of Leavers. No multiple destinations. Only one.
                        The problem is that (as with so much of the process) both how we get "out" and what being "out" means isn't clear.
                        The question on the referendum was about the European Union.
                        Norway and Switzerland aren't in the European Union - so following either model would meet the requirement of the referendum vote, but wouldn't mean leaving both the single market or customs union.
                        So they're not quite the same thing.

                        And the consequences of leaving the customs union on Northern Ireland weren't understood.
                        As you know, I argued that we should remain, and I didn't know about the impact on Northern Ireland and, believe me, I was looking for pro-remain arguments!

                        Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
                        Why do all benefits have to be measured in financial gain? Just being able to rule ourselves without any outside interference is benefit enough.
                        The benefits don't have to be financial - it's just that some of them are supposed to be.

                        I don't think it's possible to run a country without some outside interference at all.
                        The UN, NATO, WTO, World bank and international agreements tie your hands all the time (for corresponding mutual benefits).
                        I've never seen anyone be able to show how the EU's interference (actual or theoretical) has ever had any real negative effect on the UK.

                        To be honest, every time I was concerned about a significant EU development that seemed to have a negative impact we either simply said no (the Euro - dodged that bullet) or had a veto (expanding the EU).

                        Parliament has always been sovereign, we've always had our own legal system, which is very different than most of Europe's and, generally, the impact of the EU on most people's lives has been overwhelmingly positive.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #27
                          I take your (well made points) JP but have to disagree (you will not be surprised to hear!). Cameron made it clear a vote to leave was to leave the Single Market and Customs Union. It was said on multiple occasions. Norway and Switzerland are not comparable - tiny populations, small economies etc. Norway quite simply does not want to be in the EU but its politicians can't wait...another bunch who are out of touch with popular views just like our lot! I believe the consequences on NI have been hyped beyond all belief. It is something the die hard Remaners who want to change the vote can scare us with but it does not hold water. There is simply no need for a hard border. The issue was known about before the Refrerendum - NI did not suddenly move location to be next to an EU country. It is all solvable if there is the will to solve it, which in our Parliament there is not at the moment.
                          As for financial benefits I think they will be huge (after perhaps some instability). The pound fell after the vote but it was overvalued anyway. There was no "crash" as per Project Fear Mark 1. No Emergency Budget. Of course as a country we need to be part of bigger organisations such as NATO. But part of them by choice and because they work for our benefit.
                          We do have our own legal system but it can be overruled by Brussels (ultimate appeal court is the European Court). We put into our law their dictats. And as for a veto - yes, but they are planning to remove that benefit.
                          I think we are better on our own and that we should not be afraid to be so. We should have gone in with No Deal as the default position and negotiated something from a position of strength not by begging for crumbs at Junker's table.
                          I still fear, however, that it will not happen.
                          Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
                            Why do all benefits have to be measured in financial gain? Just being able to rule ourselves without any outside interference is benefit enough.
                            No one has suggested that all benefits do need to be measured as financial gain. However, much in modern society is closely linked to finances, and financial gain is therefore obviously a positive aspect from something, and financial loss is a negative.
                            All positives and negatives have to be considered together.

                            I have to disagree with the second sentence that I've quoted here though. Firstly I don't believe that the UK has had significant 'interference' in our laws (when we agree to abide by rules that cover all EU countries, that is not interference). Additionally, I think that the majority of the laws that the UK, as part of the EU, has agreed to have benefited the UK (e.g. environmental protections, worker's rights), and finally, I think that we will still find the majority of businesses in the UK following EU rules, even if we leave with no deal, because they will more oftenbthan not have to follow most of these if they want to trade with EU companies.

                            Environmental protections and worker's rights (along with things like food safety), incidentally, are examples of benefits that generally come with a financial cost. All of these add costs that businesses have to bear, and these costs are passed on to the end consumer in the price that they pay.
                            If we establish trade deals with the USA, it is likely that the production costs the US companies have for like for like products will be lower than similar those of similar companies in the UK (including food production) because the regulations that US companies have to follow are less stringent, and Trump is doing everything he can to gut them further.

                            Once out of the EU, the UK could also revoke laws that protect the environment, worker's, etc., and this could potential make some UK produced goods cheaper - but I really hope that this doesn't happen.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                              I take your (well made points) JP but have to disagree (you will not be surprised to hear!).
                              Thanks for the response - and again - nicely and sensibly argued!

                              I still don't see a single tangible benefit.
                              There may be some, but they're only as vague and theoretical as any "project fear" downsides.

                              I have to disagree about Northern Ireland, though.
                              No deal means a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, WTO rules require it.

                              Medium term, I'd say a no deal ultimately unites Ireland.
                              And, when we have to rejoin the EU in a decade or so, all of our current opt outs will be off the table, so we'll be properly "in" then.
                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                                Cameron made it clear a vote to leave was to leave the Single Market and Customs Union.
                                Cameron did say that, but there are two major problems with this argument:
                                1. Cameron, even as Prime Minister, did not have the authority to make any promise.
                                The decision on whether the UK leaves the EU, and which of the available terms are chosen, has always been a decision for all elected MPs to take collectively - and their duty is to base their vote on what they consider to be in the countries best interest.
                                2. The fact that, throughout the campaigning, leave campaigners frequently contradicted each other (as well as themselves), and often implied that a vote for leave could mean a deal that left us in the EEA or similar, means that it is disengenous to suggest that It was "made clear" that voting leave meant no deal of this sort.


                                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                                We should have gone in with No Deal as the default position and negotiated something from a position of strength not by begging for crumbs at Junker's table.
                                The suggestion that the UK ever had "a position of strength" to argue from is one claim that 'leavers' often make. Personally, I consider this to be delusional.

                                It is true that any difficulties in trade between the UK and remaining EU countries will have a negative effect on the countries exporting to us. It is not true that this ever gave the UK the upper hand in negotiations.
                                Any difficulties in trade will affect the UK far, far more than it will affect any remaining EU countries. The reality is that, whatever tactics were used in negotiations, the EU was always going to be fully in control and holding 90% of the best cards.

                                The fact that we import more from the EU than we export to them does not mean that we are in the stronger negotiating position.
                                Our imports from the EU are currently about 50% of our imports, but only about 5-15% of the EU's exports (depending on how it is calculated).
                                Our exports to the EU are about 44% of our exports but a small percentage of the total EU imports.

                                If trade between the UK and EU becomes difficult we (a) potential lose a large percentage of our export market, and (b) need to source a large percentage of the goods we import from alternative markets.
                                The EU, on the other hand, lose a much smaller percentage of their exports and have a much smaller percentage of imports to source from elsewhere.


                                Parliament "respecting the vote" is another leaves argument that I consider has no value.
                                Parliament needs to respect the wishes of all UK citizens - and the result of the referendum showed that nearly half of them preferred to remain in the EU.
                                "First past the post" will never be a good way to decide issues that are as complex as leaving the EU.
                                [As an aside, it's interesting to compare the percentages voting each way in the 2016 EU referendum and the 2011 referendum on changing from first past the post to an alternative vote system for general elections. There is a pretty close correlation between the areas that most strongly voted leave in 2016 and those that were most strongly against AV in 2011 - perhaps this helps explain why so many leave voters think that a win by a small percentage in the referendum clearly indicates that "the will of the people" is to leave the EU].


                                By the way, although I firmly think that we should remain in the EU, I am largely against any deal that leaves the UK bound by whatever rules and regulations the EU want to introduce without us having a say in what those rules are.
                                Contrary to what the false propaganda the leave side continues to push says, the UK has always had a say in the laws and regulations passed by the EU (and usually the opportunity to veto or opt out), and the EU is as democratic as the government within the UK.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X