Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

Now the opposition has seen the precipice, I would go back and revisit some of the indicative votes that came close to passing first time round. I suspect they would have the numbers now. And yes outside your scorched earth, spittle flecked understanding of Brexit, they would amount to leaving.

 

The opposition? Is that her Majesty's Opposition to the Government or the Remoaner opposition, the rag-tag collection of political pygmies? Which indicative votes in particular? Come on, put some flesh on the bones of this skeleton, otherwise it is just airy-fairy pie in the sky platitudes. Which way did you vote in the referendum? Did you initially accept the decision? If not, why not? What about the situation now? The Irish border Backstop, being tied into the customs union, jurisdiction of the ECJ? And if you weren't for Brexit, where do you stand on the EU project? Are you for further political integration, the Euro? Where is the line drawn in your mind between what constitutes Brexit and what doesn't? How would you have negotiated a better deal than May?

 

Or was her negotiating strategy a masterclass in how to completely cock the whole thing up and what she wanted all along as a remainer?

[shurlock]

The opposition? Is that her Majesty's Opposition to the Government or the Remoaner opposition, the rag-tag collection of political pygmies? Which indicative votes in particular? Come on, put some flesh on the bones of this skeleton, otherwise it is just airy-fairy pie in the sky platitudes. Which way did you vote in the referendum? Did you initially accept the decision? If not, why not? What about the situation now? The Irish border Backstop, being tied into the customs union, jurisdiction of the ECJ? And if you weren't for Brexit, where do you stand on the EU project? Are you for further political integration, the Euro? Where is the line drawn in your mind between what constitutes Brexit and what doesn't? How would you have negotiated a better deal than May?

 

Or was her negotiating strategy a masterclass in how to completely cock the whole thing up and what she wanted all along as a remainer?

 

 

I've expressed my views on those questions here before. Its a telltale tic of yours that when you're stumbling and flailing, you bombard posters with poorly connected questions that have nothing to do with the original question. Don't say I don't pay attention to you pal

 

Why do I need to specify which indicative votes? Its a process pal, a process to discover where the will of HoC lies and while I'd prefer the softest Brexit possible (as many thoughtful leavers do), I'd accept the outcome to find some compromise. Last time Ken Clarke's customs union proposal lost by only 3 votes and the common market 2.0 lost by 21 votes - very fine margins. If the alternative -to hold a second referendum (which lost by 12 votes) is still too toxic- the solution lies somewhere between the CU and the Common Market 2.0. As I say, with a new set of circumstances and the worst case scenario of a no deal becoming much starker, it's more than conceivable that one of those two proposals (or a variant of them) would now pass. They certainly have a better chance of passing than May's deal.

Edited 28 August, 2019 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

Obviously, but it was never really clear what out meant. The logical thing to do would be make a decision when more facts are known.

 

It obvious why Brexiteers are terrified of a second referendum, and it is nothing to do with preserving democracy. It’s because they know they would lose.

 

Surely the most democratic thing to do would be to hold a vote on whether or not to have a second referundum - a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote?

[OldNick]

Now the opposition has seen the precipice, I would go back and revisit some of the indicative votes that came close to passing first time round. I suspect they would have the numbers now. And yes outside your scorched earth, spittle flecked understanding of Brexit, they would amount to leaving.

Ok perhaps in future you can show some respect and rather than try and be offensive ( not that it worries me) and actually come back and give a reasonable reply I notice you kind of back the soft option of another form of soft Brexit if I read that correct. That would be fine by me. Of course are we being arrogant to believe the EU would vote to allow us that??? I would have thought that May would have come back with such a plan if it was on the table.

[shurlock]

Ok perhaps in future you can show some respect and rather than try and be offensive ( not that it worries me) and actually come back and give a reasonable reply I notice you kind of back the soft option of another form of soft Brexit if I read that correct. That would be fine by me. Of course are we being arrogant to believe the EU would vote to allow us that??? I would have thought that May would have come back with such a plan if it was on the table.

 

No her red lines ruled out those options - again it show how swivel-eyed some have become (not necessarily you) that they can't see the woods through the trees and how many Brexit boxes May's deal and outline for the future relationship ticked.

 

Arrogant about what? You continue to misunderstand the EU position - they're not out to get us or punish us. Its simply about addressing their substantive concerns and both the permanent customs union (with limited SM alignment for NI) and common market 2.0 do that.

Edited 29 August, 2019 by shurlock

[Sheaf Saint]

The question was In or Out. The majority voted for the Out.

 

But that was on the basis of promises by the leave campaign of leaving with a deal. There isn't, and never has been, any popular mandate for a no-deal Brexit.

 

Given what we now know about what a no deal Brexit will actually entail, let's just imagine for a second what the Vote Leave campaigning would have looked like if they had a) known what we know now and b) been honest about it:

 

Vote Brexit for:

 

Massive queues and delays at borders, especially at Dover where we import most of our RoRo goods from Europe

Shortages of food, medicine, water treatment chemicals etc...

Economic hardship for possibly up to 30 years while we negotiate worse trade deals with the rest of the world than the one we already have as part of the EU

The imposition of a hard border between NI and Eire and a return to bloody sectarian violence

The eventual breakup of the UK when Scotland inevitably becomes independent

 

Ask yourself - what effect would this have had on the referendum result? Do you honestly think it would still have gone the way it did?

[Johnny Bognor]

Obviously, but it was never really clear what out meant. The logical thing to do would be make a decision when more facts are known.

 

It obvious why Brexiteers are terrified of a second referendum, and it is nothing to do with preserving democracy. It’s because they know they would lose.

 

To be fair, it was not really clear what remain meant. The status quo / don't rock the boat? Further integration? Full integration into an EU superstate? Remain was as little defined, as was leave.

[shurlock]

But that was on the basis of promises by the leave campaign of leaving with a deal. There isn't, and never has been, any popular mandate for a no-deal Brexit.

 

Given what we now know about what a no deal Brexit will actually entail, let's just imagine for a second what the Vote Leave campaigning would have looked like if they had a) known what we know now and b) been honest about it:

 

Vote Brexit for:

 

Massive queues and delays at borders, especially at Dover where we import most of our RoRo goods from Europe

Shortages of food, medicine, water treatment chemicals etc...

Economic hardship for possibly up to 30 years while we negotiate worse trade deals with the rest of the world than the one we already have as part of the EU

The imposition of a hard border between NI and Eire and a return to bloody sectarian violence

The eventual breakup of the UK when Scotland inevitably becomes independent

 

Ask yourself - what effect would this have had on the referendum result? Do you honestly think it would still have gone the way it did?

 

I understand that Cummings team at No.10 are sending detailed instructions to departments to ensure schools don't go without school lunches.

#mess

[OldNick]

No her red lines ruled out those options - again it show how swivel-eyed some have become (not necessarily you) that they can't see the woods through the trees and how many Brexit boxes May's deal and outline for the future relationship ticked.

 

Arrogant about what? You continue to misunderstand the EU position - they're not out to get us or punish us. Its simply about addressing their substantive concerns and both the permanent customs union (with limited SM alignment for NI) and common market 2.0 do that.

Arrogant to believe that we can go and make them an offer and they will accept it even though it is different to the negotiated deal. They have said it wont and cant change,surely what you propose is different?

Thank-you for your reply btw

[van Hanegem]

Well, at least someone is making a profit out of Brexit...

 

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2019/08/21/massive-brexit-beach-party-planned-holland-say-goodbye-uk-10606270/amp/

[OldNick]

I understand that Cummings team at No.10 are sending detailed instructions to departments to ensure schools don't go without school lunches.

#mess

This is becoming ridiculous and scaremongering IMHO. Surely any proper civil service implements safeguards for all foreseeable problems. If there are no school dinners I suspect that will be the least of our worries as schools will not be open.

[CB Fry]

To be fair, it was not really clear what remain meant. The status quo / don't rock the boat? Further integration? Full integration into an EU superstate? Remain was as little defined, as was leave.

That is disingenuous bollo cks.

 

Cameron had just negotiated a slightly amended relationship with the EU with a couple of new concessions so the remain option was the ratification of that. Funnily enough, "full integration into an EU superstate" was not in that agreement.

[badgerx16]

This is becoming ridiculous and scaremongering IMHO. Surely any proper civil service implements safeguards for all foreseeable problems. If there are no school dinners I suspect that will be the least of our worries as schools will not be open.

 

The Department for Education guidance contains " worst case" scenarios that include a lack of food for school dinners due to panic buying and price hikes post October 31st.

[CB Fry]

This is becoming ridiculous and scaremongering IMHO. Surely any proper civil service implements safeguards for all foreseeable problems. If there are no school dinners I suspect that will be the least of our worries as schools will not be open.

How much time and money should the civil service truly invest in something described as a "million to one chance" by the Prime Minister?

[doddisalegend]

That is disingenuous bollo cks.

 

Cameron had just negotiated a slightly amended relationship with the EU with a couple of new concessions so the remain option was the ratification of that. Funnily enough, "full integration into an EU superstate" was not in that agreement.

This

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[rallyboy]

There will be no price hikes - man of the people Rees-Mogg has just promised cheaper food, clothes and footwear...

He wouldn't lie to us, none of them would, they care about us.

[Wes Tender]

But that was on the basis of promises by the leave campaign of leaving with a deal. There isn't, and never has been, any popular mandate for a no-deal Brexit.

 

Given what we now know about what a no deal Brexit will actually entail, let's just imagine for a second what the Vote Leave campaigning would have looked like if they had a) known what we know now and b) been honest about it:

 

Vote Brexit for:

 

Massive queues and delays at borders, especially at Dover where we import most of our RoRo goods from Europe

Shortages of food, medicine, water treatment chemicals etc...

Economic hardship for possibly up to 30 years while we negotiate worse trade deals with the rest of the world than the one we already have as part of the EU

The imposition of a hard border between NI and Eire and a return to bloody sectarian violence

The eventual breakup of the UK when Scotland inevitably becomes independent

 

Ask yourself - what effect would this have had on the referendum result? Do you honestly think it would still have gone the way it did?

 

Some serious omissions there. You forgot about the plague of locusts, the killing of the firstborn, the four horsemen of the apocalypse riding across the country, World War 3, no Mars bars.

[Wes Tender]

Surely the most democratic thing to do would be to hold a vote on whether or not to have a second referundum - a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote?

 

But if we held a referendum on whether to hold another EU referendum and the vote was no, then the yes side would immediately insist that the no camp didn't know what they were voting for, they were old and uneducated and that therefore there should be another vote. When that was refused, the yes camp would claim that the no camp was undemocratic, and afraid of undergoing another democratic vote. There would be mass marches with massively over-estimated attendances and petitions. Yes backing MPs would take control of Parliament with the help of the Speaker and attempt to change the law so that the no vote was declared invalid.

 

It would probably take three years and we wouldn't be any further forward.

[shurlock]

That is disingenuous bollo cks.

 

Cameron had just negotiated a slightly amended relationship with the EU with a couple of new concessions so the remain option was the ratification of that. Funnily enough, "full integration into an EU superstate" was not in that agreement.

 

And the European Union Act 2011 included a referendum lock so that any amendments of future EU treaties -necessary for any real transfer of power from London to Brussels- would have to be approved both by an Act of Parliament and by the electorate in a referendum. That along with other rights, powers and derogations put clear restrictions on the ability to depart from the status quo.

 

Baldrick is living up to his name again.

[badgerx16]

Some serious omissions there. You forgot about the plague of locusts, the killing of the firstborn, the four horsemen of the apocalypse riding across the country, World War 3, no Mars bars.

And yet you still voted leave !

[OldNick]

And the European Union Act 2011 included a referendum lock so that any amendments of future EU treaties -necessary for any real transfer of power from London to Brussels- would have to be approved both by an Act of Parliament and by the electorate in a referendum. That along with other rights, powers and derogations put clear restrictions on the ability to depart from the status quo.

 

Baldrick is living up to his name again.

Could you trust the population to get that referendum correct? lol

[scotty]

Could you trust the population to get that referendum correct? lol

:lol::thumbup:

[aintforever]

Some serious omissions there. You forgot about the plague of locusts, the killing of the firstborn, the four horsemen of the apocalypse riding across the country, World War 3, no Mars bars.

 

That would all be irrelevant anyway, it is essential we pretend the public knew what was being voted for and plough on regardless of how much of a sh!t idea it appears. It is vital that we ignore all facts and experts and just honour the vote.

[Johnny Bognor]

That is disingenuous bollo cks.

 

Cameron had just negotiated a slightly amended relationship with the EU with a couple of new concessions so the remain option was the ratification of that. Funnily enough, "full integration into an EU superstate" was not in that agreement.

 

Not really.

 

Look at how the EU has changed over the last 10 years. Do you honestly believe that the EU will be as David Cameron envisioned it, in 10 years time? Will it look the same in 10 years time? Of course it won't.

 

What will it look like? Who knows?

 

So my point stands in that there are remainers who didn't really know what they were voting for.

[shurlock]

Not really.

 

Look at how the EU has changed over the last 10 years. Do you honestly believe that the EU will be as David Cameron envisioned it, in 10 years time? Will it look the same in 10 years time? Of course it won't.

 

What will it look like? Who knows?

 

So my point stands in that there are remainers who didn't really know what they were voting for.

 

The EU or the Eurozone?

 

Which parts have fundamentally changed? Which changes have been taken without the UK’s consent. I see you’ve completely ignored the fact that major treaty change -a new Maastricht or Lisbon- would require a referendum.

 

Which parts have fundamentally altered the UK’s relationship with the Eu

[Johnny Bognor]

And the European Union Act 2011 included a referendum lock so that any amendments of future EU treaties -necessary for any real transfer of power from London to Brussels- would have to be approved both by an Act of Parliament and by the electorate in a referendum. That along with other rights, powers and derogations put clear restrictions on the ability to depart from the status quo.

 

Baldrick is living up to his name again.

 

Bolting the door after the horse has bolted. Much power has already been transferred thanks to the Lisbon Treaty (ahem... EU constitution). We weren't asked then. Because we all know what the answer would have been. The French and Dutch were asked but said no. Along with the Irish. A number of countries cancelled their referendums, again because everyone knew it would be a fat resounding NO. But the EU project carried on regardless....

 

It's scandalous how the EU has got so far, ignoring the will of European peoples....

[shurlock]

Not really.

 

Look at how the EU has changed over the last 10 years. Do you honestly believe that the EU will be as David Cameron envisioned it, in 10 years time? Will it look the same in 10 years time? Of course it won't.

 

What will it look like? Who knows?

 

So my point stands in that there are remainers who didn't really know what they were voting for.

 

The EU or the Eurozone?

 

Which parts have fundamentally changed? Which changes have been taken without the UK’s consent. I see you’ve completely ignored the fact that major treaty change -a new Maastricht or Lisbon- would require a referendum for approval.

[Johnny Bognor]

The EU or the Eurozone?

 

Both. The EU fundamentally changed after the EU Constitution (Ahem, sorry Lisbon Treaty). We were never asked.

 

The Eurozone has changed in terms of accession countries.

 

Which parts have fundamentally changed? Which changes have been taken without the UK’s consent. I see you’ve completely ignored the fact that major treaty change -a new Maastricht or Lisbon- would require a referendum.

 

Which parts have fundamentally altered the UK’s relationship with the Eu

 

The last time the people were asked (French, Dutch, Irish), they all said NO. But it carried on regardless. Scandalous!!! How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

 

And it goes back to what does remain really mean? Is it the final destination? Or is it signing up to the journey towards that destination? Or does it mean keeping things as they are?

 

FWIW, when I considered voting remain, I was thinking vote for the status quo. Dont rock the boat. I quickly realised there was no status quo, so switched sides

Edited 30 August, 2019 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

Bolting the door after the horse has bolted. Much power has already been transferred thanks to the Lisbon Treaty (ahem... EU constitution). We weren't asked then. Because we all know what the answer would have been. The French and Dutch were asked but said no. Along with the Irish. A number of countries cancelled their referendums, again because everyone knew it would be a fat resounding NO. But the EU project carried on regardless....

 

It's scandalous how the EU has got so far, ignoring the will of European peoples....

 

Shifting the goalposts a tad

 

The question is not whether Lisbon shifted too much power or not (FWIW independent analysis by the government suggests the balance of competences, on the whole, is about right).

 

No the question is whether remainers didn’t know what they were voting for. We all knew about Lisbon at the time of referendum, so it’s wholly irrelevant. The point is that there are clear constitutional constraints that circumscribe the scope for further integration never mind the UK’s absolute veto in big areas such as foreign affairs, taxation, justice and the EU budget.

 

While there might be reform in areas in which the EU has an existing exclusive competence or where competences are shared subject to a majority in the EU Council of Ministers, we ultimately know what those areas are (hence the word existing), ensuring any change would be incremental, not radical relative to the status quo and the leap into the dark that is Brexit. It’s a ludicrous false equivalence and I bet you know that deep down too Balders.

Edited 30 August, 2019 by shurlock

[rallyboy]

Beyond the smoke and mirrors, has anyone else noticed that there isn't any actual negotiating going on?

The EU disbanded their team, though their concierge assures us that the doors are open.

And we still haven't gone to them with any ideas or plans.

 

Yet we still pretend that a deal can be done.

[Johnny Bognor]

Shifting the goalposts a tad

 

The question is not whether Lisbon shifted too much power or not (FWIW independent analysis by the government suggests the balance of competences, on the whole, is about right).

 

No the question is whether remainers didn’t know what they were voting for. We all knew about Lisbon at the time of referendum, so it’s wholly irrelevant. The point is that there are clear constitutional constraints that circumscribe the scope for further integration never mind the UK’s absolute veto in big areas such as foreign affairs, taxation, justice and the EU budget.

 

There were clear constitutional constraints for the French, requiring a referendum if there was a change to their constitution, but where did that get them when they said NO? So forgive me, if I am not filled with any confidence that any future constraints will be effectual. The ultimate vision of the eurocrats is for ever closer integration. That is their goal and it is not something I (or many leavers) subscribe to.

 

 

While there might be reform in areas in which the EU has an existing exclusive competence or where competences are shared subject to a majority in the EU Council of Ministers, we ultimately know what those areas are (hence the word existing), ensuring any change would be incremental, not radical relative to the status quo and the leap into the dark that is Brexit. It’s a ludicrous false equivalence and I bet you know that deep down too Balders.

 

The change may be incremental (in fact it has to be, to minimise any opposition), but no one, not even you me old pedigree chum, can tell me what the EU will look like in say 5, 10, 15, or 20 years time? Therefore, you didn't really know what you were voting for either.

[shurlock]

There were clear constitutional constraints for the French, requiring a referendum if there was a change to their constitution, but where did that get them when they said NO? So forgive me, if I am not filled with any confidence that any future constraints will be effectual. The ultimate vision of the eurocrats is for ever closer integration. That is their goal and it is not something I (or many leavers) subscribe to.

 

 

 

 

The change may be incremental (in fact it has to be, to minimise any opposition), but no one, not even you me old pedigree chum, can tell me what the EU will look like in say 5, 10, 15, or 20 years time? Therefore, you didn't really know what you were voting for either.

 

You’re all over the shop

 

You’re confusing incremental changes with fundamental treaty changes (protected by a referendum lock) and drawing in vain on the French experience when it has zero relevance to the UK given the two countries fundamentally different historical, economic and philosophical attitudes to the EU and integration.

Edited 30 August, 2019 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

The change may be incremental (in fact it has to be, to minimise any opposition), but no one, not even you me old pedigree chum, can tell me what the EU will look like in say 5, 10, 15, or 20 years time? Therefore, you didn't really know what you were voting for either.

 

Whatever you seem top be afraid of at least inside the EU as a member state we would have had control over what might happen. Outside we can only watch and worry.

 

Even if, 10 years down the road, the EU should somehow morph into a supra-national political entity I would personally much rather be a part of it instead of on the outside waiting for a few scraps to be tossed our way.

[shurlock]

Whatever you seem top be afraid of at least inside the EU as a member state we would have had control over what might happen. Outside we can only watch and worry.

 

Even if, 10 years down the road, the EU should somehow morph into a supra-national political entity I would personally much rather be a part of it instead of on the outside waiting for a few scraps to be tossed our way.

 

Which future UK governments would never let happen - that's why the UK isn't part of the euro, schengen and has secured myriad other opt-outs. Europhiles in this country like John Major have always been pragmatic and fairweather europhiles, unlike say France where there has been a deeper ideological commitment among the governing classes towards the idea of Europe. Yet Baldrick thinks that there is some deep state cabal intent on thrusting us into a European superstate. When facts and reality don't agree, there's always the warm embrace of conspiracy I suppose.

[Guided Missile]

Nigel Farage goes to the Commission , pushing Article 24 of GATT here.

 

All sounds good to me.

 

To revisit this as well, it appears to me that this will be the "deal" that get's us out of the EU on the 31st October. That is, use GATT Article XXIV. 5b to be exact, which states:

b) with respect to a free-trade area, or an interim agreement leading to the formation of a free-trade area, the duties and other regulations of commerce maintained in each of the constituent territories and applicable at the formation of such free-trade area or the adoption of such interim agreement to the trade of contracting parties not included in such area or not parties to such agreement shall not be higher or more restrictive than the corresponding duties and other regulations of commerce existing in the same constituent territories prior to the formation of the free-trade area, or interim agreement as the case may be.

As todays article in the Torygraph states:

Yes this needs the EU’s and the WTO’s agreement, for sure. Call this a ‘basic deal’. But it’s massively in the EU’s interest to agree, saving £13bn a year of tariffs on EU goods (UK only £5bn), and it’s precisely the kind of tariff free approach that the WTO exists to accomplish.

In Andrew Neil's interview with Boris Johnson, Neil (and Whitehall) claimed that:

5c can overturn 5b — but expert lawyers explain that this 5c applies only in the case of an ‘interim arrangement leading to the formation of a free trade area’. The phrase ‘interim agreement’ means more than the colloquial phrase - it has a very specific meaning under GATT Article XXIV. It refers to a case where two parties move gradually towards a free trade area with a plan and schedule of reducing tariffs over time. The EU used this very provision when it was first established as the EEC.But the UK and EU already have zero-tariff trade between them, which we merely seek to maintain, whilst replacing EU membership with a ‘SuperCanada’ style Free Trade Agreement and mini deals on non-trade areas. So 5c does not pertain. Boris was absolutely correct - 5b is sufficient and 5c is irrelevant.

So, job done....

[Guided Missile]

Even Lorand Bartels agrees here:

I have written a basic UK-EU FTA (in my personal capacity) to show what minimum one needs to satisfy Art XXIV GATT. It does not of itself guarantee frictionless trade. And not all PEM rules of origin will be suitable. But it works as an emergency measure.

[shurlock]

Jesus wept. He could fill the Sea of Galilee with that whopper JJ.

[Trader]

Whatever you seem top be afraid of at least inside the EU as a member state we would have had control over what might happen. Outside we can only watch and worry.

 

Even if, 10 years down the road, the EU should somehow morph into a supra-national political entity I would personally much rather be a part of it instead of on the outside waiting for a few scraps to be tossed our way.

 

We wouldn’t have had control. That’s the whole f u c k i ng point of why we want to leave.

[OldNick]

You’re all over the shop

 

You’re confusing incremental changes with fundamental treaty changes (protected by a referendum lock) and drawing in vain on the French experience when it has zero relevance to the UK given the two countries fundamentally different historical, economic and philosophical attitudes to the EU and integration.

I think that is a bit unfair. The French voted a No but were walked over roughshod and it still went ahead. So why wouldn't the same happen with our establishment doing the same in lieu with the Burocrats in Brussels.

I recall when Edward Heath was challenged in a pub locally by somebody saying 'We voted for the common market, not to be integrated in the EU' Heaths reply was ' it was all there written in the Treaty of Rome, you should have read it Old Boy'

That is the problem IMO only a few would ever read what we were signing up for, its the devil in the detail and the majority would only skim read or just the headlines and make a judgement from there. That is why we are where we are.

[shurlock]

I think that is a bit unfair. The French voted a No but were walked over roughshod and it still went ahead. So why wouldn't the same happen with our establishment doing the same in lieu with the Burocrats in Brussels.

I recall when Edward Heath was challenged in a pub locally by somebody saying 'We voted for the common market, not to be integrated in the EU' Heaths reply was ' it was all there written in the Treaty of Rome, you should have read it Old Boy'

That is the problem IMO only a few would ever read what we were signing up for, its the devil in the detail and the majority would only skim read or just the headlines and make a judgement from there. That is why we are where we are.

 

Because the UK establishment is far more ambivalent about the EU and integration than the French establishment. Read a comparative history of the two countries and while you’re at it explain why UK isn't part of the euro, schengen etc. Europhiles in this country have always been pragmatic and fairweather europhiles, unlike say France where the commitment to Europe runs far deeper among the establishment. Denmark held a referendum in 2015 on converting its full opt-out on justice into a flexible one and it was narrowly rejected by the electorate. The EU didn’t force it to overturn the decision. As I say there are lots of odd people harbouring weird conspiracies.

Edited 30 August, 2019 by shurlock

[OldNick]

e

Because the UK establishment is far more ambivalent about the EU and integration than the French establishment. Read a comparative history of the two countries and while you’re at it explain why UK isn't part of the euro, schengen etc. Europhiles in this country have always been pragmatic and fairweather europhiles, unlike say France where the commitment to Europe runs far deeper among the establishment.

Fair point but it still doesn't gloss over the case that votes have been made by the people and then it is forgotten. Ireland voted out one time and so they had another vote to get the decision changed. Its all cr@p anyway whoever runs the shop doesn't suit all.

[shurlock]

eFair point but it still doesn't gloss over the case that votes have been made by the people and then it is forgotten. Ireland voted out one time and so they had another vote to get the decision changed. Its all cr@p anyway whoever runs the shop doesn't suit all.

 

Ireland was given legal guarantees on a host of issues related to tax, abortion, defence and workers rights -the so-called ‘Guarantees’. The Irish public was presumably happy with the concessions, so changed its mind in a second referendum (with a bigger winning majority than no had secured in the original referendum). It wasn’t browbeaten into accepting the same thing it had rejected. In 2015, the Danish public voted against converting its permanent opt-on on justice into a flexible one. No concessions were forthcoming and the decision was accepted. It’s not terribly hard to follow.

Edited 30 August, 2019 by shurlock

[OldNick]

Ireland was given legal guarantees on a host of issues related to tax, abortion, defence and workers rights -the so-called ‘Guarantees’. The Irish public was presumably happy with the concessions, so changed its mind in a second referendum (with a bigger winning majority than no had secured in the original referendum). It wasn’t browbeaten into accepting the same thing it had rejected. In 2015, the Danish public voted against converting its permanent opt-on on justice into a flexible one. No concessions were forthcoming and the decision was accepted. It’s not terribly hard to follow.

Not hard to follow. If they had voted yes the first time would they had a second vote? SO the Irish were kind of bribed.

Perhaps there is hope we can be given some morsels and the no deal is avoided. Had the EU been a bit more helpful Cameron may have back with a better chance of avoiding this mess

[Weston Super Saint]

Ireland was given legal guarantees on a host of issues related to tax, abortion, defence and workers rights -the so-called ‘Guarantees’. The Irish public was presumably happy with the concessions, so changed its mind in a second referendum (with a bigger winning majority than no had secured in the original referendum). It wasn’t browbeaten into accepting the same thing it had rejected. In 2015, the Danish public voted against converting its permanent opt-on on justice into a flexible one. No concessions were forthcoming and the decision was accepted. It’s not terribly hard to follow.

 

Those tax 'guarantees' certainly seem to have put a hole in Apple's finances....

[badgerx16]

Make up your own minds and interpretations, this is GATT Article 24. To my mind, para © stating "shall include" is pretty definitve;

 

5. Accordingly, the provisions of this Agreement shall not prevent, as between the territories of contracting parties, the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area or the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area; Provided that:

(a) with respect to a customs union, or an interim agreement leading to a formation of a customs union, the duties and other regulations of commerce imposed at the institution of any such union or interim agreement in respect of trade with contracting parties not parties to such union or agreement shall not on the whole be higher or more restrictive than the general incidence of the duties and regulations of commerce applicable in the constituent territories prior to the formation of such union or the adoption of such interim agreement, as the case may be;

(b) with respect to a free-trade area, or an interim agreement leading to the formation of a free-trade area, the duties and other regulations of commerce maintained in each of the constituent territories and applicable at the formation of such free–trade area or the adoption of such interim agreement to the trade of contracting parties not included in such area or not parties to such agreement shall not be higher or more restrictive than the corresponding duties and other regulations of commerce existing in the same constituent territories prior to the formation of the free-trade area, or interim agreement as the case may be; and

© any interim agreement referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall include a plan and schedule for the formation of such a customs union or of such a free-trade area within a reasonable length of time.

[badgerx16]

This is the opinion of Roberto Azevedo, Director General of the WTO;

 

 

( https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit )

 

"What is the truth of the matter? Alarmingly, when I put this question to Azevêdo, he said Gatt 24 would simply not apply with a no-deal outcome. “Article XXIV of the GATT is simply the provision of global trade law under which free trade agreements and customs unions are concluded,” he explained. The problem is that it only kicks in in the event of such a deal being struck. “If there is no agreement, then Article XXIV would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would.”"

[benjii]

This is the opinion of Roberto Azevedo, Director General of the WTO;

 

 

( https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit )

 

"What is the truth of the matter? Alarmingly, when I put this question to Azevêdo, he said Gatt 24 would simply not apply with a no-deal outcome. “Article XXIV of the GATT is simply the provision of global trade law under which free trade agreements and customs unions are concluded,” he explained. The problem is that it only kicks in in the event of such a deal being struck. “If there is no agreement, then Article XXIV would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would.”"

 

Exactly. It's not an antidote to no deal. It's an alternative route to a deal, with it's own constraints, that does nothing to address issues such as regulatory alignment and the Irish border

[Whitey Grandad]

We wouldn’t have had control. That’s the whole f u c k i ng point of why we want to leave.

 

When I say ‘we’ I mean the UK government which would have had control. If by ‘we’ you mean you and me then we (you and I) have control over nothing and nobody.

[Trader]

When I say ‘we’ I mean the UK government which would have had control. If by ‘we’ you mean you and me then we (you and I) have control over nothing and nobody.

 

I know exactly what you meant - and yes ‘we’ as in the UK government would have had no control over what might happen.

 

The EU Commission is the body in the EU which controls all. Member states have nothing to do with it, nor does the EU ‘parliament’. They all do what they’re told.

[Jonnyboy]

But that was on the basis of promises by the leave campaign of leaving with a deal. There isn't, and never has been, any popular mandate for a no-deal Brexit.

 

Given what we now know about what a no deal Brexit will actually entail, let's just imagine for a second what the Vote Leave campaigning would have looked like if they had a) known what we know now and b) been honest about it:

 

Vote Brexit for:

 

Massive queues and delays at borders, especially at Dover where we import most of our RoRo goods from Europe

Shortages of food, medicine, water treatment chemicals etc...

Economic hardship for possibly up to 30 years while we negotiate worse trade deals with the rest of the world than the one we already have as part of the EU

The imposition of a hard border between NI and Eire and a return to bloody sectarian violence

The eventual breakup of the UK when Scotland inevitably becomes independent

 

Ask yourself - what effect would this have had on the referendum result? Do you honestly think it would still have gone the way it did?

 

At least there will be less Polish scroungers in Southampton, because Poland will have a better economy.