Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

See Stephen Phillips MP has resigned: if only a few more Brexiters were similarly principled.

 

He says he wanted Britain out of the EU but in the single market. He must be lying. Wes is sure all of the 51.5% definitely support hard Brexit and so the issue of Brexiteers no longer having majority doesnt arise.

[badgerx16]

Other legal eagles take a different view on the legalities of the situation:-

 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml

 

 

Perhaps you would care to comment on this apparent contradiction. Or do these particular legal experts have little grasp of the legal aspects of the Parliamentary democratic process?

 

Perhaps the Supreme Court will arrive at a different conclusion to the High Court. If not, then time to call a General Election on the Brexit issue, which the Conservatives will win convincingly.

 

So, lawyers, as a group, hold differing opinions on a subject. Who woulld have thought that possible ?

[ecuk268]

Here's another view:

 

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

[buctootim]

The government will have less chance of overturning this judgement than normally imo. Usually High Court cases are heard by a single circuit judge. The Brexit case was heard by three very senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice. Its far less likely the Supreme Court will finds grounds to overturn their decision.

Edited 4 November, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

I agree that there should have been a 60% threshold of voters to trigger a change. And that should have applied to all of the Treaties subsequent to the original one we signed to join the Common Market. All these arguments about the democratic process in connection to our EU membership are totally undermined by the lack of democracy accorded to the electorate by successive governments who allowed these substantial changes which gradually turned a trading bloc towards a Federal United States of Europe without their approval.

 

Nail. Hit. Head.

[shurlock]

He says he wanted Britain out of the EU but in the single market. He must be lying. Wes is sure all of the 51.5% definitely support hard Brexit and so the issue of Brexiteers no longer having majority doesnt arise.

 

 

Poor old Les house of cards is creaking. Who would have thought in the real world -not Les comforting fantasy world that people would have different views on a complex issue, that people who voted leave may side with remainers on some issues.

Edited 4 November, 2016 by shurlock

[aintforever]

I think we would now be in a far better place as a country if the referendum had been a) binding and b) with a threshold of 60% of voters needed to trigger a change.

 

What a load of ******. The UK decided to leave the EU, the decision was crystal clear.

 

Stop crying like a big baby just because you lost.

[buctootim]

What a load of ******. The UK decided to leave the EU, the decision was crystal clear.

 

Stop crying like a big baby just because you lost.

 

 

 

 

Have you thought about a career in constitutional law? Probably just as well.

[aintforever]

Have you thought about a career in constitutional law? Probably just as well.

 

It doesn't matter how long you bang on about stats it doesn't alter the fact that more people in the UK voted to leave than stay in the EU.

 

Hard or soft, inflation or no inflation - the UK people just don't want to be in the EU.

[shurlock]

It doesn't matter how long you bang on about stats it doesn't alter the fact that more people in the UK voted to leave than stay in the EU.

 

Hard or soft, inflation or no inflation - the UK people just don't want to be in the EU.

 

So belonging to the single market is OK then?

Edited 4 November, 2016 by shurlock

[buctootim]

It doesn't matter how long you bang on about stats it doesn't alter the fact that more people in the UK voted to leave than stay in the EU.

 

Hard or soft, inflation or no inflation - the UK people just don't want to be in the EU.

 

Yes but what you're ignoring is whilst a slim majority agreed on leaving that slim majority didn't agree on what happened next. There is no option which will attract the support of everyone who voted to leave.

 

Half the people voted to leave the party and go to the pub 5 miles away. When they got outside, despite what they'd been told, it was snowing and there were no taxis. You seriously think no-one is going to change their mind when they see what the choices are?

[OldNick]

does Parliament want the govenrment to broadcast our negotiating position,if so that is madness showing your hand.

 

We push the button and have 2 years to negotiate (that is hopeful) once we have the terms that the 27 other countries are imposing on us, we then go back to Parliament to get a vote on it. What exactly do they think we can then get if the EU nations have told us what they will allow?

 

We may as well forget the negotiations and go straight to the WTO tariffs as there is not a hope in hell we can get all these things lined up in the 2 years.

[moonraker]

does Parliament want the govenrment to broadcast our negotiating position,if so that is madness showing your hand.

 

We push the button and have 2 years to negotiate (that is hopeful) once we have the terms that the 27 other countries are imposing on us, we then go back to Parliament to get a vote on it. What exactly do they think we can then get if the EU nations have told us what they will allow?

 

We may as well forget the negotiations and go straight to the WTO tariffs as there is not a hope in hell we can get all these things lined up in the 2 years.

 

That’s not what is being asked for though is it, what is being asked for is a clear view on what Governements desired outcome of Brexit will be. This does not mean giving away ones negotiating positions, I spend much of my time in business negotiating with clients and potential partners, we can always agree a common outcome, the details and strength of our various negotiating hand does not need to be compromised to agree these outcomes.

[badgerx16]

does Parliament want the govenrment to broadcast our negotiating position,if so that is madness showing your hand.

 

We push the button and have 2 years to negotiate (that is hopeful) once we have the terms that the 27 other countries are imposing on us, we then go back to Parliament to get a vote on it.

 

And what happens if, say a year and 9 months down the road from A50 beig invoked, the UK negotiaters put their 'deal' to Parliament, who promptly reject it ? Parliament reflects the will of the entire electorate, the Cabinet reflects a narrow group of self-interests and lobby groups.

[aintforever]

And what happens if, say a year and 9 months down the road from A50 beig invoked, the UK negotiaters put their 'deal' to Parliament, who promptly reject it ? Parliament reflects the will of the entire electorate, the Cabinet reflects a narrow group of self-interests and lobby groups.

 

So does the government have to get invoking A50 approved by parliament then get the final deal approved as well?

 

If that's the case they might as well just forget the whole thing because the EU will know if they don't budge an inch the deal won't get approved.

Edited 4 November, 2016 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

So does the government have to get invoking A50 approved by parliament then get the final deal approved as well?

 

If that's the case they might as well just forget the whole thing because the EU will know if they don't budge an inch the deal won't get approved.

 

Parliament should be the body that approves the invocation of Article 50, even if it is effectively a symbolic rubber-stamping of the process. After that Parliament must, when the time comes, consider, debate, and approve whatever proposed form Brexit finally takes.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm all for parliament voting for A50 and I'm all for parliament voting on any deal May brings back . However if parliament rejected Mays deal then we are stil out of the EU but we don't have a trade deal . We then have tto trade undert wto rules ,not because of Brexit but because the remoaners in parliament rejected Mays deal . The choice is Mays deal or WTO, not Mays deal or staying in .

 

If they vote her down May then needs to call an election where other parties can publish their broad outline of the Trade deal they want . The public them have a choice . WTO rules out of the EU , labours plans for life out of the EU or Torry plans for life out of the EU , or Little Timmys lib/dumbs version - rejoining the EU . That's parliamentary democracy . What isn't is remoaners taking the position that we remain in until everyone can agree with what out looks like . We've already voted out and it's quite right that democratically elected people vote on what out looks like .

[Winnersaint]

I'm all for parliament voting for A50 and I'm all for parliament voting on any deal May brings back . However if parliament rejected Mays deal then we are stil out of the EU but we don't have a trade deal . We then have tto trade undert wto rules ,not because of Brexit but because the remoaners in parliament rejected Mays deal . The choice is Mays deal or WTO, not Mays deal or staying in .

 

If they vote her down May then needs to call an election where other parties can publish their broad outline of the Trade deal they want . The public them have a choice . WTO rules out of the EU , labours plans for life out of the EU or Torry plans for life out of the EU , or Little Timmys lib/dumbs version - rejoining the EU . That's parliamentary democracy . What isn't is remoaners taking the position that we remain in until everyone can agree with what out looks like . We've already voted out and it's quite right that democratically elected people vote on what out looks like .

 

LDH what you say is pretty much as it is but it is this constant belittling rhetoric of those that disagree with you that grates. Throughout this thread you have made more valid points than right-wing trash talk, but there is always an edge. Just look at the quoted post, references to Remoaners and Lib-Dumbs is that necessary?

[aintforever]

Parliament should be the body that approves the invocation of Article 50, even if it is effectively a symbolic rubber-stamping of the process. After that Parliament must, when the time comes, consider, debate, and approve whatever proposed form Brexit finally takes.

 

Well it's a completely pointless exercise then. But like trying to haggle for a good deal down the market when the seller knows exactly what you are willing to pay.

 

The EU will just insist it's hard Brexit or nothing knowing full well it won't get through parliament.

[buctootim]

The EU will just insist it's hard Brexit or nothing knowing full well it won't get through parliament.

 

They knew that long before the High Court case. Hard Brexit would never have got through Parliament. Better to make that clear now than after two years of ruinous uncertainty.

[badgerx16]

Well it's a completely pointless exercise then. But like trying to haggle for a good deal down the market when the seller knows exactly what you are willing to pay.

 

The EU will just insist it's hard Brexit or nothing knowing full well it won't get through parliament.

And maybe the seller knows that he's really the only source for what you are looking for, and that your Mrs will have your balls if you don't go home with it.

 

You seem to think that only the UK will be playing hardball. There have already been several statements from EU leaders stating their ( non ) negotiating position, all they have to do is stick to the established position re access to the single market. It may well be that our choice ends up as either EFTA, with all the associated impediments, or WTO rules with no concessions from Europe.

[Winnersaint]

Anyone else fed up with the barely concealed fascist diatribes and encouragement for misplaced vigilantism in our right wing press.

[Lord Duckhunter]

They knew that long before the High Court case. Hard Brexit would never have got through Parliament. Better to make that clear now than after two years of ruinous uncertainty.

 

There's no such thing as "hard " or "soft " Brexit it's made up nonsense by people who want to remain in the single market . Andrew Neil showed clips of all the remain leaders saying a vote to leave will mean leaving the single market. He then cut to clips of leave leaders agreeing and stating the same . Staying in the single market means accepting free movement , not being able to do our own trade deals , being subjected to EU court rulings and paying money into the EU . I doubt anyone can find more than a handful of people who voted Leave , but wants those things to remain in place.

 

All this nonsense about no plan , is just that , nonsense . The plan is clearly as much access to the single market without conceding those areas. Canada ,will have a deal without having to accept free movement or a ban on doing deals with other nations , so it's perfectly reasonable to think we can as well. If labour or anyone else thinks they have a better plan they should put it before parliament & the people. Leaving the EU , but staying in the single market is not a plan it's deluded . Being out of Schengen & the euro zone meant or relationship with the EU was pretty much the single market only anyway , and that was rejected by the country . I can maybe see some sort of payment being made into the EU, but don't believe for one minute the British people will stand for free movement & not being able to strike out own trade deals.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There's no such thing as "hard " or "soft " Brexit it's made up nonsense by people who want to remain in the single market . Andrew Neil showed clips of all the remain leaders saying a vote to leave will mean leaving the single market. He then cut to clips of leave leaders agreeing and stating the same . Staying in the single market means accepting free movement , not being able to do our own trade deals , being subjected to EU court rulings and paying money into the EU . I doubt anyone can find more than a handful of people who voted Leave , but wants those things to remain in place.

 

All this nonsense about no plan , is just that , nonsense . The plan is clearly as much access to the single market without conceding those areas. Canada ,will have a deal without having to accept free movement or a ban on doing deals with other nations , so it's perfectly reasonable to think we can as well. If labour or anyone else thinks they have a better plan they should put it before parliament & the people. Leaving the EU , but staying in the single market is not a plan it's deluded . Being out of Schengen & the euro zone meant or relationship with the EU was pretty much the single market only anyway , and that was rejected by the country . I can maybe see some sort of payment being made into the EU, but don't believe for one minute the British people will stand for free movement & not being able to strike out own trade deals.

 

I can find stuff in this post that I can both agree, and disagree, with.

 

Yes I concur that it was ALWAYS the case that in order to enjoy the many benefits of the EU Single Market nation states have to accept the Free Movement of People principle. That free market in working people, as well as in traded goods, services, and money, is not some insignificant 'add-on' to the Single Market idea but rather an intrinsic element of the entire concept. The obvious truth of that situation was however most certainly disputed at the time by many (but not all) 'leave' proponents who were adamant that a crude analysis of trade balances vis a vis some other EU states meant that the UK could easily force through the kind of preferential trade deal it wanted against any opposition in Europe. That argument - which I saw parroted on here and in the press time and time again - was then and is now entirely divorced from the political reality of the situation that we now find ourselves in.

 

So while that may be agreed I cannot agree that the Leave Campaign collectively put forward anything like a coherent plan to the British people at the referendum as to how exactly we would achieve our departure from the EU - while at the same time inflicting the least possible damage to our economy. For that matter even today I don't think there is a single person in Europe who knows how this will all play-out in the end. Now you might call this great gamble 52% of the voting public decided to take as a brave 'leap of faith'- if you feel positive about the situation. Those less happy with the referendum result might see it more as a 'leap in the dark'. Either way we've taken the big jump now and God alone knows where we are going to land.

 

I don't think that the British people really voted to leave the Single Market last summer - indeed, had that brutal reality been honestly explained to them at the time then it is quite possible that enough people might have changed their vote to have swung the referendum result into a narrow 'Remain' win. Be that as it may, in a representative democracy parliament must have it say on the crucial negotiations that lay ahead. Our law, our constitution, and the rights of the 48% of the British people who did not want to go down this road demand this.

[Batman]

I can find stuff in this post that I can both agree, and disagree, with.

 

Yes I concur that it was ALWAYS the case that in order to enjoy the many benefits of the EU Single Market nation states have to accept the Free Movement of People principle. That free market in working people, as well as in traded goods, services, and money, is not some insignificant 'add-on' to the Single Market idea but rather an intrinsic element of the entire concept. The obvious truth of that situation was however most certainly disputed at the time by many (but not all) 'leave' proponents who were adamant that a crude analysis of trade balances vis a vis some other EU states meant that the UK could easily force through the kind of preferential trade deal it wanted against any opposition in Europe. That argument - which I saw parroted on here and in the press time and time again - was then and is now entirely divorced from the political reality of the situation that we now find ourselves in.

 

So while that may be agreed I cannot agree that the Leave Campaign collectively put forward anything like a coherent plan to the British people at the referendum as to how exactly we would achieve our departure from the EU - while at the same time inflicting the least possible damage to our economy. For that matter even today I don't think there is a single person in Europe who knows how this will all play-out in the end. Now you might call this great gamble 52% of the voting public decided to take as a brave 'leap of faith'- if you feel positive about the situation. Those less happy with the referendum result might see it more as a 'leap in the dark'. Either way we've taken the big jump now and God alone knows where we are going to land.

 

I don't think that the British people really voted to leave the Single Market last summer - indeed, had that brutal reality been honestly explained to them at the time then it is quite possible that enough people might have changed their vote to have swung the referendum result into a narrow 'Remain' win. Be that as it may, in a representative democracy parliament must have it say on the crucial negotiations that lay ahead. Our law, our constitution, and the rights of the 48% of the British people who did not want to go down this road demand this.

the prime minister said many times that a vote to leave the EU means to leave the single market

 

also, how did you come to that conclusion anyway?

[whelk]

Anyone else fed up with the barely concealed fascist diatribes and encouragement for misplaced vigilantism in our right wing press.

 

Definitely getting worse. Thankfully their circulation ain't what it used to be.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

the prime minister said many times that a vote to leave the EU means to leave the single market

 

also, how did you come to that conclusion anyway?

 

Every time some brave soul attempted to speak the truth to the people someone else would soon come on and smoother that with a blanket of lies disguised as argument.

 

That whole referendum campaign was waged amid a veritable sea of disinformation - from both sides to be fair but more decisively from the Leave side. I think a unknown number of British voters entered the polling booth sincerely believing the (tall) stories they had been told that we could leave the EU but somehow but still retain unrestrained access to what are undeniably our most important export markets.

 

Others probably voted to leave because they wanted to give the 'establishment' a bloody good kicking, they were anti-European by nature or perhaps are just your common-or-garden racist types who detest the sight of foreigners living in their neighbourhoods. I seem to remember that evidence emerged during the campaign showing that a surprising number of your fellow citizens were gullible enough to believe that the NHS really would get that promised £350m a week! I wonder how people that dim manage to get out of bed in the morning without the assistance of a instruction booklet ...

 

They had a saying in the old German army that it is best to allow the horses do the heavy thinking - because they have bigger brains of course. Well the modern British equivalent of that is that we better let our MP's take the big decisions in future - because being professional purveyors of bullsh1t they are better at recognising it.

[Batman]

no credible answer.

 

cheers anyway

[shurlock]

the prime minister said many times that a vote to leave the EU means to leave the single market

 

also, how did you come to that conclusion anyway?

 

And loads of leavers accused him of scare tactics, saying the UK -to borrow a current phrase 'could have it's cake and eat it"

[Verbal]

the prime minister said many times that a vote to leave the EU means to leave the single market

 

also, how did you come to that conclusion anyway?

 

Can you provide a link to some of the many times Cameron said that 'to leave the EU means to leave the single market'?

[buctootim]

Definitely getting worse. Thankfully their circulation ain't what it used to be.

 

I wish that were so. Although the print circulation has dropped the online site is one of the most popular in the world.

Edited 6 November, 2016 by buctootim

[trousers]

Can you provide a link to some of the many times Cameron said that 'to leave the EU means to leave the single market'?

I found one:

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

I found one:

 

 

Andrew Neil also showed clips of Angela Eagle as well as prominent leave campaigners saying the same thing . As he said afterwards , there was no doubt about it . Remain leaders said leaving EU would mean leaving single market .

[shurlock]

Andrew Neil also showed clips of Angela Eagle as well as prominent leave campaigners saying the same thing . As he said afterwards , there was no doubt about it . Remain leaders said leaving EU would mean leaving single market .

 

You born yesterday Darkiehunter? Many brexiters were claiming these were scare tactics, forcing people into a binary choice. By contrast, prominent brexiters like Daniel Hannan and BoJo were claiming the UK could and should enjoy single market access.

Edited 6 November, 2016 by shurlock

[Verbal]

I found one:

 

 

Good. It just shows how poorly Cameron and Osborne led the Remain campaign (if you want more, read Craig Oliver's book), and the low levels of knowledge about what the single market actually is, on both sides.

 

It's depressing that there is a more detailed awareness of the nuances of Brexit after the actual vote on it. (Who was debating about Article 50 before the vote?) Even now, though, there seems precious little understanding of the significant of the customs union, and still lots of confusion about 'membership' and 'access' to the single market - as well as general uncertainty about whether triggering Article 50 is irrevocable or not (the court case was lost because the government case was that it was irrevocable, which led the judges inexorably to the conclusion that primary legislation couldn't be cancelled by decree).

 

As things now stand, all we have is 'Brexit means Brexit' countered by 'Unconstitutional means Unconstitutional'. May's strategy, in the Cameron tradition, is every bit as muddled and incompetent. She's a true ally of neither Remain or Leave.

[buctootim]

She's a true ally of neither Remain or Leave.

 

A lot of hypocrisy / dishonesty coming out. The Home Secretary who did nothing to reduce immigration suddenly becoming a Prime Minister who thinks its an essential outcome. The Home Secretary who pledged loyalty to Cameron and remaining now PM leading a Hard Brexit Government. She seems to think she has a mandate to do what she wants - but she only has am mandate to leave the EU, and even that was marginal

[Lord Duckhunter]

You born yesterday Darkiehunter? Many brexiters were claiming these were scare tactics, forcing people into a binary choice. By contrast, prominent brexiters like Daniel Hannan and BoJo were claiming the UK could and should enjoy single market access.

 

Access isn't being a member. To clear up any doubt 5.15 into this interview Boris states voting to leave is a vote to leave the single market. So i don't really see what point you're trying to make. The leaders of the remain campaign together with Boris & Michael Gove made it very very clear.

 

[buctootim]

Access isn't being a member. To clear up any doubt 5.15 into this interview Boris states voting to leave is a vote to leave the single market. So i don't really see what point you're trying to make. The leaders of the remain campaign together with Boris & Michael Gove made it very very clear.

 

 

He just (around 6:15) claimed EU regulation cost British business £600m per week! I think we should spend that money on the NHS.....

[Lord Duckhunter]

He just (around 6:15) claimed EU regulation cost British business £600m per week! I think we should spend that money on the NHS.....

 

So?

[shurlock]

Access isn't being a member. To clear up any doubt 5.15 into this interview Boris states voting to leave is a vote to leave the single market. So i don't really see what point you're trying to make. The leaders of the remain campaign together with Boris & Michael Gove made it very very clear.

 

 

It's because the leave campaign has repeatedly claimed that the UK can have its cake and eat it, that it can enjoy the benefits of the single market with few of its costs. As with most of the horse**** its spouted, it has tried to be all things to all people -those tradeoffs will become clear once political reality dawns and bursts your little fantasy, exposing the lack of mandate for the hard brexit that the swivel-eyed loons have in mind. Stephen Phillips resignation and even BoJo's unceremonious dumping by Gove are a harbinger of things to come.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's because the leave campaign has repeatedly claimed that the UK can have its cake and eat it, that it can enjoy the benefits of the single market with few of its costs. As with most of the horse**** its spouted, it has tried to be all things to all people -those tradeoffs will become clear once political reality dawns and bursts your little fantasy, exposing the lack of mandate for the hard brexit that the swivel-eyed loons have in mind. Stephen Phillips resignation and even BoJo's unceremonious dumping by Gove are a harbinger of things to come.

 

There's no such thing as " hard " Brexit . Everybody made it very clear , especially the leaders of the remain side , that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market . So there clearly is a mandate to leave the single market .

 

I bet you can't find one clip of a leave campaigner stating that we shouldn't have access to it . The fantasy isn't with people who think we can have access but people who think Canada can , but we can't . Canada can do deals with the rest of the world , Canada doesn't accept free movement of EU nationals , so why should we ?

[shurlock]

There's no such thing as " hard " Brexit . Everybody made it very clear , especially the leaders of the remain side , that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market . So there clearly is a mandate to leave the single market .

 

I bet you can't find one clip of a leave campaigner stating that we shouldn't have access to it . The fantasy isn't with people who think we can have access but people who think Canada can , but we can't . Canada can do deals with the rest of the world , Canada doesn't accept free movement of EU nationals , so why should we ?

 

Canada doesn't have full access to the single market.

Edited 6 November, 2016 by shurlock

[buctootim]

So?

 

Just another made up figure isnt it? to go along with £350m

[Lord Duckhunter]

Canada doesn't have access to the single market.

 

99% of tarrifs will be axed within 7 years.

[shurlock]

99% of tarrifs will be axed within 7 years.

 

You're confusing trade in goods and trade in services. The latter is the UK's bread and butter and CETA is completely inadequate for a country with the UK's industrial profile.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There's no single market in services

[shurlock]

There's no single market in services

 

It's vastly more integrated than CETA and any other international trade agreement. Again you're proving your cluelessness and the contradictions within the leave camp if you think CETA is some kind of template that will allow Brexiters to make good on all its hubristic promises.

Edited 6 November, 2016 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

So you agree there's no single market in services and you agree that Boris said leaving the EU meant leaving the single market?

[John B]

There's no single market in services

 

There are no services in the customs union only stuff

 

What do you mean no services in single market

 

Services maybe involved if you sell something

[Lord Duckhunter]

There are no services in the customs union only stuff

 

What do you mean no services in single market

 

Services maybe involved if you sell something

 

I would hope than anyone commenting on a thread discussing the economy would know what the service sector is.

 

I didn't say ' no services in the single market " I said there's no single market in services, which is an entirely different thing .