EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure that the ID requirements of internal flights is quite related to Brexit so can I ask that we leave it there?

 

[furnessvale]

Still waiting for you explanation of why this EU treaty is of great benefit to Germany and not the UK?

I have offered you explanations in the past which you have totally ignored. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[jellybaby]

What will stop however, is the ability of non-UK and non-Irish citizens to work and claim benefits in the UK - that is the context that the pro-Brexit people mean.

Or at least the ability for EU citizens to work legally. Some people think there will be more illegal employment post Brexit with the reduction in tax income and increase in worker exploitation that goes with that.

 

[nlogax]

I have offered you explanations in the past which you have totally ignored. I have better things to do with my time.

You've offered suggestions such as Googling for 'ports directive' and Googling ('in vain') for results which would show it to be beneficial to the UK. Not forgetting that one link to a statement that certain organisations were against it.

Not really substantive as explanations go. Not really explanations at all, right?

 

[Howardh]

What sort of photo ID demonstrates nationality apart from a passport?

Blue badge, I think (need to check mum's but I'm not going to the car in this weather - teeming down!)

 

[Puffing Devil]

I have offered you explanations in the past which you have totally ignored. I have better things to do with my time.

Show me one. I may have challenged, but not ignored.

You have a history of posting unsubstantiated rhetoric and don't like being called out on it, like many in the leave camp who swallow the propaganda and out and out lies from the leave politicians and media.

Until you can support it, it's not a fact and counts for nothing in a debate.

 

[Geezertronic]

Blue badge, I think (need to check mum's but I'm not going to the car in this weather - teeming down!)

Driving license card?

 

[furnessvale]

Show me one. I may have challenged, but not ignored.

You have a history of posting unsubstantiated rhetoric and don't like being called out on it, like many in the leave camp who swallow the propaganda and out and out lies from the leave politicians and media.

Until you can support it, it's not a fact and counts for nothing in a debate.

Yawn.

 

[Doppelganger]

Driving license card?

That deffo doesn't show nationality...

 

[Puffing Devil]

Yawn.

At that is exactly why we're in this mess. The voice of the Brexiteer when asked for any evidence to support their claim.

Which is why we have a government led by a liar, a cabinet stuffed with liars none of whom display any competence or concern for others, who continue to lie and mislead spending more on preparing for a no deal that we were assured would never come.

 

[EM2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49183324
Brexit: £2.1bn extra for no-deal Brexit planning

The government has announced an extra £2.1bn of funding to prepare for a no-deal Brexit - doubling the amount of money it has set aside this year.

The plans include more border force officers and upgrades to transport infrastructure at ports.

There will also be more money to ease traffic congestion in Kent and tackle queues created by delays at the border.
...
The new money consists of £1.1bn which will be provided to departments and devolved administrations immediately, while a further £1bn will be made available if needed.

This comes on top of £4.2bn, which has been allocated since 2016 for Brexit preparations by the previous chancellor, Philip Hammond.

 

[Doppelganger]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49183324
Brexit: £2.1bn extra for no-deal Brexit planning

And still no extra £350 million a week for the NHS...

 

[Doppelganger]

This tells you all you need to know about Brexiteers and how they try to continually deceive:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...ce-that-dominic-raab-warned-of-no-deal-brexit

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab says he made it clear to voters during the Brexit campaign that they ran the risk of the UK leaving without a deal.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the former Vote Leave campaigner was challenged on whether the result of the 2016 referendum gave ministers a mandate to take Britain out of Europe without a withdrawal agreement.

Boris Johnson’s administration has said it wants to renegotiate the agreement that Theresa May struck with Brussels but failed to get past parliament – but the new government says it is prepared to leave on 31 October, deal or no deal.

Asked about what he said during the referendum campaign, Mr Raab told the BBC:

“We made clear – those on the campaign – that we should strive for a good deal, but if that wasn’t available, that we should go on and make a success of Brexit, and so that was discussed…

“I was questioned on it by the BBC almost every time I appeared and so was Michael Gove… There’s all sorts of interviews which said that of course we’d prefer a deal, but that there would be a risk.”

Challenged on the accuracy of his memory by the interviewer, Mr Raab added: “In fairness, the institutional memory of the BBC is a bit sketchy on this as a whole, so you’re not alone.”

The analysis
FactCheck has searched the Vote Leave website, Mr Raab’s personal site, various BBC web pages, online newspaper archives, YouTube and elsewhere.

We’ve listened to as many clips as we can find of interviews given by Mr Raab and Mr Gove between February 2016, when the EU referendum campaign unofficially began, and the vote on 23 June 2016.

We can’t find an interview where Mr Raab warned explicitly about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit during the referendum campaign.

The closest thing we can find are two references to the possibility of the EU refusing to agree trading terms with Britain out of spite – but in both cases Mr Raab was at pains to point out that he did not think this was a realistic outcome of negotiations.

In an article for the Daily Telegraphpublished on 23 February 2016, Mr Raab wrote: “The Remain campaign assert the EU would cut off its nose to spite its face, vindictively defying its own interests by shutting Britain out of its markets altogether.

“That’s not remotely credible. And, if it were, fear of their spite is hardly a compelling reason to stay in the EU.”

In a similar vein, appearing on the BBC’s Daily Politics show alongside the then-Labour MP Chuka Umunna on 19 April 2016, Mr Raab said:

“There is a strong mutual interest. The only reason that we would be in trouble outside is if the EU is going to behave in an utterly vindictive, spiteful way that ran against its own interest. And I would say this: Chuka, is that the kind of club we really want to be a part of?”

In most of the interviews he gave during the referendum campaign, Mr Raab repeated the idea that the EU would allow Britain to trade with the bloc on favourable terms because it would be in Europe’s economic interests.

In an BBC interview in April 2016, he said: “I think we would not see any trade barriers go up because we’re the fifth biggest economy in the world…

“Look at the options being put out there – Swiss, Norwegian, Turkish,” he said “…We’re very well placed and mutual self-interest suggests we’d cut a very good deal. And it’s certainly not in the Europeans’ interest to erect trade barriers.”

‘Scaremongering’
On several occasions, Dominic Raab specifically shot down suggestions that Europe might introduce tariffs or other barriers to free trade – which will happen under a no-deal scenario.

Appearing on Question Time on 03 March 2016, Mr Raab told the audience: “We heard this week the suggestion that we’d be locked out of trade. Actually, if you look what Britain’s former ambassador to the EU Lord Kerr has said, there’s no doubt we’d keep having a strong trading relationship with the EU if we were out.

“The CBI have said we’d have a high-level, ambitious free trade deal. And even the prime minister has said it’d be scaremongering to suggest otherwise. So let’s talk about the facts and the substance and enlighten the debate – not try and cast a shadow over it.”

In a Telegraph article two days before the vote, he wrote: “Of course we’ll continue trading with the EU. Only a suicidal German chancellor or French president would go into their 2017 elections promising to put thousands of German car workers and French farmers out of jobs by hiking tariffs with Britain.”

It has to be said that the prospect of a no-deal Brexit did not feature heavily in questions that journalists or Remainers were asking during the referendum. Indeed, Chuka Umunna told him in their debate that insisting that a deal would be possible was “a bit of a straw man argument” because “I’m not saying that we wouldn’t be able to trade with our European partners or with others… It’s a question of the terms.”

The first clear examples we can find of Mr Raab acknowledging “no deal” as a realistic possibility come after the referendum result.

Writing in the Times a month after Vote Leave won, Mr Raab said: “The British Batna (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is to leave the EU with no deal and rely on World Trade Organisation rules.”

What about Michael Gove?
Dominic Raab said fellow Vote Leave campaigner Michael Gove was also questioned repeatedly by journalists about a no-deal Brexit. We can’t find any evidence of this either.

In fact, Mr Gove was questioned by the BBC’s Andrew Marr on 8 May 2016 and specifically asked about the World Trade Organisation rules which would govern trade in the event of “no deal”.

Mr Marr said: “Once we’re outside we either have to negotiate a new agreement with the EU or we don’t. Those agreements become null and void once we leave. That’s the point of leaving.

Mr Gove replied: “I think this is a misunderstanding that many people have… If you don’t have tariffs, both sides can accept that there is no need to erect them.”

If Mr Gove did raise the possibility of a no-deal Brexit in the referendum campaign, it must have been an accident, because he wrote this in a Daily Mail article in March this year:

“But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.

“Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence.”

The verdict
Mr Raab appears to be wrong about his colleague Michael Gove warning about the risk of a no-deal Brexit during the EU referendum campaign. Mr Gove says that “wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead”.

We can’t find any evidence of Mr Raab talking about the dangers of leaving without a deal before the vote either.

But we need to be cautious about declaring that it’s Mr Raab’s memory that is “sketchy” here.

There are BBC interviews from the time that we can’t access, because the footage and transcripts are no longer online.

It’s possible that there are interview clips out there somewhere that back Mr Raab’s recollection of the referendum campaign.

We have asked his aides for help in tracking down material that supports his version of events.

Of course we will update this blog if we find anything.

 

[433N]

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland ...

So Where's Wally today then ?

 

[Killingworth]

I have offered you explanations in the past which you have totally ignored. I have better things to do with my time.

At 616 pages I'd avoided this thread until now but curiosity got the better of me. This post confirms that was the right thing to do and I'll be avoiding it in future.

Minds have been closed. The fault is in ourselves. A large part of this country has tried to ignore the benefits of the EU but has decided to hang all sorts of ills upon it with often gossamer threads of fact.

There is so much wrong with this country that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. For the last 3 years we've concentrated on an issue that we still don't seem to understand.

We can't blame the EU for most of the decisions that have determined how we live.
They aren't responsible for the beggars on our high streets. They didn't order 2 aircraft carriers without aircraft at vast expense and oversee a navy down to 19 frigates and destroyers of which only 10 can currently be deployed worldwide.

It wasn't the EU that has overseen our university priorities of quantity over quality. A nation that has bright young people wanting to become doctors but being turned away and going to study in Europe to qualify. Yet we continue to have to seek immigrants to man the NHS, not least because many who have qualified can't stand the conditions and leave.

No, I haven't time to go into this further. Our preoccupation for ignoring any benefits that flow from membership is why we've got ourselves in this mess. We're now going to spend billions making the best of it. We'll muddle through, our young people making the best of it.

Funny thing is the German people seem to have been doing rather well at that for the last 70 years. Instead of hanging on and learning from them we're hell bent on driving over a cliff towards an ill defined pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Boris bluster seems to have won the day, for now. I hope our young folk will be able to make it all work for him. They'll be the ones to benefit most if they can.

Holding a referendum without a 60:40 trigger to decide constitutional change was a very big error.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Holding a referendum without a 60:40 trigger to decide constitutional change was a very big error.

A NON-LEGALLY BINDING referendum may I remind everyone.

 

[433N]

Holding a referendum without a 60:40 trigger to decide constitutional change was a very big error.

Of all the issues following the referendum, this one has been ignored - largely because you know what the response will be from Leavers if you bring it up.

It was stupendously silly to not have a 60:40, or even two-thirds majority requirement as wouldn't be unusual in other countries. Why ? Simply, 52:48 doesn't cover the sampling error in 'the Will of the People'.

Yet, it is so in keeping with the silly British 'First Past the Post' system which relies on never having to form a consensus amongst opposition parties. Of course, we never fitted in with the EU ; it requires consensus politics to find agreement between many countries with diverse national interests. Why would we fit in ? We have winner-takes-it-all winner-can-do-what-winner-likes.

Now, I find I must have daily lessons in 'democracy' from people who think Aristotle plays centre-half for Brazil.

Inselaffen ; as Johnny Foreigner would say.

 

[edwin_m]

This tells you all you need to know about Brexiteers and how they try to continually deceive:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...ce-that-dominic-raab-warned-of-no-deal-brexit

BBC is saying something very similar, presumably with access to the recordings that Channel 4 couldn't cover: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49165836

BBC Reality Check searched for mentions of no deal in:

• BBC programme running orders
• Today programme interviews
• Transcripts from the Andrew Marr show
• Vote Leave's campaign material
• Texts of keynote speeches
• Articles written by Mr Raab and Mr Gove

There are plenty of examples of him saying the UK would secure a deal, on the other hand.

 

[edwin_m]

It was stupendously silly to not have a 60:40, or even two-thirds majority requirement as wouldn't be unusual in other countries. Why ? Simply, 52:48 doesn't cover the sampling error in 'the Will of the People'.

What Cameron should probably have done, if he had to have a referendum at all, was to make clear that it would be a mandate to negotiate an exit deal after which there would be another referendum either to confirm the deal or to revert to the status quo. This would have avoided the false choice where the upsides and downsides of remaining were clear but leaving was defined only as what a politician or voter thought it might be at the time. In 2016 the Brexiters would have accepted that - Rees-Mogg is even on record suggesting it a few years before.

Perhaps we should have a referendum on the continued existence of the Tory party, which many people would argue has damaged the UK far more than the EU ever might? As no party has got anywhere near 50% of the popular vote in recent history it's prettly likely then would lose. They would then be unable to assume power ever again, with no right to re-consider.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which is why we have a government led by a liar, a cabinet stuffed with liars none of whom display any competence or concern for others, who continue to lie and mislead spending more on preparing for a no deal that we were assured would never come.

I wonder if a comparison could be drawn to your most eloquently wording posting above:-

Which is why we have the major opposition party led by an extreme left-wing socialist, a shadow cabinet stuffed with extreme left wing socialists none of which display any competence or concern for others who do not espouse their viewpoint, who continue to be beholden to the even more extreme socialist Momentum puppet-masters in their party organisation and preparing to stand up to larger countries who will think their party's views are not of the 21st century.

 

[cactustwirly]

I wonder if a comparison could be drawn to your most eloquently wording posting above:-

Which is why we have the major opposition party led by an extreme left-wing socialist, a shadow cabinet stuffed with extreme left wing socialists none of which display any competence or concern for others who do not espouse their viewpoint, who continue to be beholden to the even more extreme socialist Momentum puppet-masters in their party organisation and preparing to stand up to larger countries who will think their party's views are not of the 21st century.

Both parties are run by liars and idiots

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps we should have a referendum on the continued existence of the Tory party, which many people would argue has damaged the UK far more than the EU ever might? As no party has got anywhere near 50% of the popular vote in recent history it's prettly likely then would lose. They would then be unable to assume power ever again, with no right to re-consider.

Perhaps you would extend that scenario to all other political parties who also have not in recent times achieved a 50% share of the popular vote and then wonder why no political parties then will exist in Britain.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps you would extend that scenario to all other political parties who also have not in recent times achieved a 50% share of the popular vote and then wonder why no political parties then will exist in Britain.

It wasn't a serious suggestion, more to highlight the ridiculousness of making such a fundamental decision on such flimsy arguments.

But I suspect the country would be a better place if we got rid of the people in positions of leadership or influence in both major parties. And probably most of the minor ones too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Spent a few months away from this thread. Come back and I still despair at the state of this country. What a joke we are.

Sack all of them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is it not at times like this when King Arthur and his knights are said to come to the aid of Britain?

 

[433N]

Is it not at times like this when King Arthur and his knights are said to come to the aid of Britain?

Well, it would certainly be nice to have protection from an EU Army which is sent in to protect its citizens when their countries are taken over by right wing despots.

 

[nidave]

It's a bit later than advertised but an emergency budget looks likely. Are we still calling it project fear or as its being done by leavers its all good and we knew about it all the time when the ballots were cast??

The chief secretary to the Treasury has declined to rule out an emergency no-deal Brexit budget before 31 October, when the UK could crash out of the European Union

Government refuses to rule out emergency no-deal Brexit budget

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...budget?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[NoMorePacers]

It's a bit later than advertised but anemergency budget looks likely. Are we still calling it project fear or because its being said by leavers its all good and we knew about it all the time when the ballots were cast.


Government refuses to rule out emergency no-deal Brexit budget

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...budget?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Well everything is Project Fear until it actually happens.

 

[ainsworth74]

They didn't order 2 aircraft carriers without aircraft at vast expense and oversee a navy down to 19 frigates and destroyers of which only 10 can currently be deployed worldwide.

Erm, you mean these aircraft carriers with these aircraft on them?

(Image of pair of F-35s on HMS Queen Elizabeth via UK Defence Journal)

Those aircraft carriers with no aircraft?

As for the destroyer/frigate force I can only agree it's too small but you'll struggle to find many navies anywhere that have, by proportion, as many ships deployed or deployable as the Royal Navy manage.

 

[Killingworth]

Erm, you mean these aircraft carriers with these aircraft on them?

(Image of pair of F-35s on HMS Queen Elizabeth via UK Defence Journal)

Those aircraft carriers with no aircraft?

As for the destroyer/frigate force I can only agree it's too small but you'll struggle to find many navies anywhere that have, by proportion, as many ships deployed or deployable as the Royal Navy manage.

Queen Elizabeth ordered 2008, commissioned December 2017 and currently undergoing training to enter service in 2020. As part of trials aircraft have landed but won't be deployed until this autumn.

HMS Prince of Wales may be operational by 2023. We will only be able to operate one at a time and the cost is enormous, £3 billion each and some . However, they'll look good at reviews but where we'll be able to deploy them safely to be effective is a very interesting debate. Not really for a rail related forum, but we could easily have electrified the Midland mainline for the cost of those two ships.

Off topic now as that's not the Brexit debate although it's part of the aftermath.