Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. Well put.

It is not an enviable situation to be in which ever way it goes. Is the EU a safe shelter?

I think it can be seen as such. It's certainly the position that has been being used for 30 years.

[jakswan]

It's funny how reticent the Brexit supporters have become since the referendum. We can't get any of them to tell us what the supposed benefits are.

We won what is the point?

Do you want me to admit it will be disaster and a terrible thing for the country, fine I'll concede it all, declare Jeremy the winner of the internet.

During May's time the Norway deal was never on the table.

https://ig.ft.com/brexit-second-round-indicative-votes/

MP's voted against a customs union, by the looks of it courtesy of the SNP abstaining.

If cowboy Corbyn had gone earlier I think Starmer would have got a Norway type deal through.

As somebody who wanted the Norway deal, do you think what we actually have is better than staying in the EU or worse?

Don't know yet, will admit from my POV it could be worse.

[ippy]

What are you not going along with? There were blatant, barefaced lies from the leave campaign. Are you saying that is just my opinion? The evidence is out there, just look at any picture of the leave campaign bus and ask yourself if you really expect the NHS to get £350m a week extra from Friday.

I suppose it'd be a bit on the wishful side if I was to think that politicians never tell lies, telling lies goes with the political territory but this wouldn't make any difference to me because I've never wanted to be in the EU going right back to before we had the original first vote on the subject.

Never wanting to be a part of the EU doesn't mean I have an obligation to supply ammunition for remainers to keep on venting their spleens at me, not that I'm a fan of Boris but that last election without need to reference the referendum must have spelled out in large capital letters how the majority of UK citizens feel about the EU, lies or otherwise.

There you are, there must be something there for you to get your teeth into.

ippy.   

[Aruntraveller]

must have spelled out in large capital letters how the majority of UK citizens feel about the EU

Except it didn't.

The only reason the conservatives got their thumping majority was due to our anachronistic, undemocratic, unreformed voting system. Only the very stupid would not recognise that fact.

The Tories got 43.6% of the vote, but gained 365 seats out of a total of 635.

Do the maths. That's a majority share of seats on a minority vote. I know it was ever thus but it needs changing and was not a reflection of how the UK citizens felt about the EU.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Did anyone hear Michael Gove on Today on radio 4 this morning? You would by now have thought that when asked about the tangible benefits of the deal he'd have a set of solid answers to parade. Not a bit of it - apparently British exporters can now be "match fit" when trading with the world outside the EU. No mention of what "match fit" would actually mean, no mention of the fact the UK businesses have been trading readily around the globe pretty much forever, no mention of how that situation would improve in practical terms by turning out backs on the largest and most developed market in the world. No mention in fact of any solid, tangible gain that would begin to off-set the damage we've done to ourselves.

Is the Brexit deal good news? Yes in the sense that waking up from the anaesthetic to be told by the surgeon that they'd only had to amputate one leg rather than both of them is good news, but that's not much of an achievement I'd have thought.       

[Harrowby Hall]

... this wouldn't make any difference to me because I've never wanted to be in the EU going right back to before we had the original first vote on the subject.

Your memory is faulty. There never was a "first vote on the subject". You never voted to join the Common Market. Joining the Common Market was an election pledge by the Conservative Party in a general election.  The UK was already a member of the Common Market when Harold Wilson called his referendum.

The purpose of the Wilson referendum was exactly the same as that of the Cameron referendum - to kick a troublesome, noisy party fringe in the nuts.  This was an act in which Harold Wilson clearly showed greater skill than David Cameron.

[ippy]

Your memory is faulty. There never was a "first vote on the subject". You never voted to join the Common Market. Joining the Common Market was an election pledge by the Conservative Party in a general election.  The UK was already a member of the Common Market when Harold Wilson called his referendum.

The purpose of the Wilson referendum was exactly the same as that of the Cameron referendum - to kick a troublesome, noisy party fringe in the nuts.  This was an act in which Harold Wilson clearly showed greater skill than David Cameron.

I'm fine with your post you're welcome to your view, it does however amaze me I'm sure if I said the weather on referendum day was either lovely or rubbish, because I'm a member of leaving the EU side you would find some kind of none to friendly comment to make, but don't worry about it H H, you're not on your own.

ippy

[ippy]

Except it didn't.

The only reason the conservatives got their thumping majority was due to our anachronistic, undemocratic, unreformed voting system. Only the very stupid would not recognise that fact.

The Tories got 43.6% of the vote, but gained 365 seats out of a total of 635.

Do the maths. That's a majority share of seats on a minority vote. I know it was ever thus but it needs changing and was not a reflection of how the UK citizens felt about the EU.

Constituencies that have never been tory?

ippy

[Stranger]

I suppose it'd be a bit on the wishful side if I was to think that politicians never tell lies, telling lies goes with the political territory but this wouldn't make any difference to me because I've never wanted to be in the EU going right back to before we had the original first vote on the subject.

Rarely have the lies been so shameless and amount to the exact opposite of what would actually happen. It may not have made a difference to your own cult-like blind faith, but it does undermine the notion that this is what the majority wanted. The referendum result was by a tiny margin, so even if only a small percentage were taken in by promises of lots of money for the NHS (or Turkey being about to join of any of the other lies), that could well have made all the difference. And let's not forget that Johnson, and others in the rabid right wing press, had been lying about the EU for a long time.

Trent has already covered the GE non-majority. Facts (evidence) don't seem to bother you much, do they?

[Stranger]

Constituencies that have never been tory?

What about them? They can't turn the minority who voted Tory into "the majority of UK citizens" that you claimed.

[Aruntraveller]

Constituencies that have never been tory?

ippy

Matters not. If you are claiming that the Tory vote was as a result of leavers, then the rest Labour, Lib dems SNP etc. are the result of remainers and in terms of votes are the larger grouping - so not a ringing endorsement for Brexit.

The above is because you continue to view the matter in simplistic terms. Real life is much more complicated. Even though you seem determined to ignore that fact.

[jakswan]

Cameron referendum

EU Referendum Bill
MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

…but it does undermine the notion that this is what the majority wanted.

Isn’t that rather the point? Presumably “what the majority wanted” wasn’t just the “in or out?” question on the ballot, but also the things they were told “out” would actually achieve. Otherwise the question would be largely meaningless – akin to “up or down?” or “left or right?”.

And the problem with that of course is that what we’ve actually got now bears almost no relation to the outcomes many Brexiters voted for.     

[Harrowby Hall]

EU Referendum Bill
MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour

So what?

David Cameron's prime motivation was to put a lid on the ERG. He was convinced that any referendum would support the status quo. This view was the mainstream view within the House of Commons. He even permitted a simple majority to determine the outcome.

Both main parties were certain that a national vote would support Remain (as did the LibDems). Hence the overwhelming result of the free vote.

[ippy]

Rarely have the lies been so shameless and amount to the exact opposite of what would actually happen. It may not have made a difference to your own cult-like blind faith, but it does undermine the notion that this is what the majority wanted. The referendum result was by a tiny margin, so even if only a small percentage were taken in by promises of lots of money for the NHS (or Turkey being about to join of any of the other lies), that could well have made all the difference. And let's not forget that Johnson, and others in the rabid right wing press, had been lying about the EU for a long time.

Trent has already covered the GE non-majority. Facts (evidence) don't seem to bother you much, do they?

Well if there was something dodgy it doesn't seem to be anything dodgy enough that it would have amounted to a legitimate demand for a re run of the referendum and yes I am very content with that result, however it's looking more like a wait and see with this treaty.

ippy

[jakswan]

So what?

You referred to it as Cameron's referendum, the Uk Parliament supported it with a massive majority.
 

David Cameron's prime motivation was to put a lid on the ERG. He was convinced that any referendum would support the status quo. This view was the mainstream view within the House of Commons. He even permitted a simple majority to determine the outcome.

Both main parties were certain that a national vote would support Remain (as did the LibDems). Hence the overwhelming result of the free vote.

I think the political establishment voted it through to deal with growing support for UKIP, who had won the EU elections in 2014.

Greens, LIbDems, Labour at various times all have supported a referendum, not because they wanted to leave but because it was an issue with the electorate.

The ERG may or may not have been Cameron's motivation, but the reason we had the referendum and have now left is because of the electorate. 

[Nearly Sane]

An unusual unity in Northern Ireland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-55462155?__twitter_impression=true

[Gordon]

No doubt Brexit enthusiasts will see this being but a minor inconvenience: funny how the 'benefits' of Brexit add cost and complexity.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390

[Nearly Sane]

Rumblings in Labour party



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55474148

[ippy]

No doubt Brexit enthusiasts will see this being but a minor inconvenience: funny how the 'benefits' of Brexit add cost and complexity.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390

The link you've posted Gordon, it seems to be a link to something or other from the Guardian?

ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

So as well as paying for access to the Erasmus scheme for NI, Ireland are going to cover EHIC as well. Clever stuff


https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/united-ireland-trends-as-dublin-commits-to-funding-eu-health-cards-and-erasmus-for-citizens-north-of-the-border/29/12/

[Gordon]

The link you've posted Gordon, it seems to be a link to something or other from the Guardian?

ippy.

So it is: are you going to dispute what it says?

[ippy]

So it is: are you going to dispute what it says?

I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.

Anyway I thought that the Guardian worked on a principle something like, say if any of their reporters found something like a certain obscure brand of ,any, cheese would become 3p a ton cheaper as a result of leaving the EU and then tried to get this information printed, it would lead to instant dismissal for the said reporter.

Is that a part of why you're not that keen on the idea of leaving the EU? You know taking the Guardian seriously and the BBC too I suppose?

ippy
 

[Aruntraveller]

I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.

Yes it is clear you prefer fantasy fiction.

[Gordon]

I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.

Anyway I thought that the Guardian worked on a principle something like, say if any of their reporters found something like a certain obscure brand of ,any, cheese would become 3p a ton cheaper as a result of leaving the EU and then tried to get this information printed, it would lead to instant dismissal for the said reporter.

Is that a part of why you're not that keen on the idea of leaving the EU? You know taking the Guardian seriously and the BBC too I suppose?

ippy

Whilst it is always sensible to retain a degree of scepticism about any news media, The Guardian and the BBC seem to me to be reasonably balanced in their reporting: do you have evidence, beyond that they may not agree with you or you don't like what they say, that they are prejudiced? In relation to the link I posted, about increased costs to the general public who purchase good from the EU over a certain value (such as via eBay), can you counter what The Guardian reported?

Like many of my fellow Scots I value the EU, and given the lurch towards the Tories/Brexit elsewhere in the UK I'd rather ditch the UK.