• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

404250

Member
Joined
25 May 2018
Messages
367
Can someone please explain why labour are so against May's deal, apart from the obvious of they don't want Tory success over Brexit? May's deal keeps workers rights, and is almost staying in the customs union due to the backstop. Seems madness that Brexiteers reject it for not being a true Brexit, yet Labour claim it's too hard a Brexit.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,792
Location
Nottingham
You are missing that the EU in on a road of constant evolution of its constitution, rules and goals, moving towards “ever greater union”, i.e. federalism.
The calls for reform are heavily weighted towards the federalist aims and the big players in the game are almost all of that persuasion.

As David Campbell’s “concessions (remember them) were never ratified and are now effectively defunct, the UK is not immune from future reforms or decisions that go against it own national interests.
It’s arguable that it would not have been immune in the long run, regardless.

For example, there are moves to include non-eurozone members in being equally liable (with the euro-zone members) for bailing out the euro, because the debt burden is so high.

Qualified majority voting comes in soon and removes invidual members veto in almost all matters, other than defence and foreign policy.
The intention is that those two areas will lose veto rights in due course as the EU defence force and its associated ministry are established, which will lead to removal of defence provision and policy from the remit of individual states.
Also, there is an ambition for the union to establish its own central foreign policy regime, superceding that of the individual member states.

These changes are not simple enhanced cooperation between member states, but transfer of total authority to the EU institutions.

There’s a whole lot of reading on policy to ultimately transfer “competencies “ from individual member states to central control .
This is not fantasy or science fiction.

At the moment there is slow progress on such matters, but it’s coming in due course unless something interrupts and changes the fundamental ambitions of federalism.
Leaving on the basis of what might happen (or what one poster alleges might happen) isn't a sensible course of action. If nothing else, a UK outside the EU would be highly disadvantaged by the emergence of an "EU Superstate" with no chance to influence it.

Whereas if we stay in we have some scope to change proposals that are to the UK's disadvantage, and in the past have actually had significant support for many of the UK's proposals. If, as a last resort, it becomes intolerable then that would be the time to leave.

Would you leave this forum because you think the moderators might decide to ban your favourite discussion topic?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,792
Location
Nottingham
Can someone please explain why labour are so against May's deal, apart from the obvious of they don't want Tory success over Brexit? May's deal keeps workers rights, and is almost staying in the customs union due to the backstop. Seems madness that Brexiteers reject it for not being a true Brexit, yet Labour claim it's too hard a Brexit.
The intention of the present deal is for the UK to leave the customs union. The backstop may end up keeping us in, since no workable alternative solution to the Irish border has been found. But Labour would stay in the customs union regardless, and forgo the negligible benefits of striking our own free trade agreements outside the EU.

However Labour also appears to be wanting something that't not on offer - closeness to the single market without free movement.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The intention of the present deal is for the UK to leave the customs union. The backstop may end up keeping us in, since no workable alternative solution to the Irish border has been found. But Labour would stay in the customs union regardless, and forgo the negligible benefits of striking our own free trade agreements outside the EU.

However Labour also appears to be wanting something that't not on offer - closeness to the single market without free movement.

Labour, or more specifically Corbyn (and probably McDonnell) have little to immediately lose. Any prospect of a general election gives them a route to power, probably their only realistic chance of power. How old will Corbyn be in 2022 when the next election is theoretically scheduled?

Naturally should Corbyn win power then it becomes his problem, but for someone unlikely to be seeing re-election himself again simply on age grounds is that a massive problem? He would be far more interested in implementing his ideological dreams. Of course no one really knows exactly where Corbyn stands on Brexit (*) and there’s the added complication of how this interacts with the membership.

(* to be fair we don’t really know May’s true personal position either - I suspect she’s not actually that bothered but merely made a calculation on what she thought would be the winning result, thus keeping her head below the parapet to maximise her leadership chances).
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,520
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
so why vote for them then? why have elections at all?

Because electing an MP is not electing them to represent your precise views. It is electing them on the basis of "I trust you to go to Parliament and act in my best interests". Note that your best interests do not necessarily follow your opinion, which I suspect to be the case in a very large number of people who voted Leave on lies and misunderstandings. (Some did not of course).
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
Extraordinary comments by Nigel Farage getting lost amid the noise: he is lobbying EU governments (possibly Italy) to *veto* any British govt request to extend A50 so as to force a No Deal Brexit on March 29.

That's Farage lobbying foreign govts to oppose Britain's parliament

The irony is too good.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,520
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The one which always amuses me is Nicola Sturgeon. Happy to criticise one referendum, but meanwhile dying to have her own (repeat) referendum on independence. In the same way that one union is the font of all evil yet another union is all things bright and beautiful.

I think that is quite an ignorant view. A smallish nation state within the EU is quite viable. A slighly larger but still smallish nation state with delusions of former grandeur outside of it quite a lot less so.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,520
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Extraordinary comments by Nigel Farage getting lost amid the noise: he is lobbying EU governments (possibly Italy) to *veto* any British govt request to extend A50 so as to force a No Deal Brexit on March 29.

That's Farage lobbying foreign govts to oppose Britain's parliament

The irony is too good.

That is getting close to an act of treason/Far-Right coup. Time to get him arrested to make the point?
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Can someone please explain why labour are so against May's deal, apart from the obvious of they don't want Tory success over Brexit? May's deal keeps workers rights, and is almost staying in the customs union due to the backstop. Seems madness that Brexiteers reject it for not being a true Brexit, yet Labour claim it's too hard a Brexit.

My impression is that both major parties are doing their best to appeal to people of every opinion on the EU, in order to keep their parties together (as attitudes toward the EU don't split along party lines).

Theresa May sought to maintain the middle road and keep all of her party on-side by hovering in the middle ground and defer any concrete decisions until a good option presented itself. Jeremy Corbyn, as opposition leader, has been able to say "that's not what we'd do" , while leaving what they would do nebulous enough that members of his party can interpret the vague message in the way they'd like.

As we've seen, members of both parties have gotten fed up with this approach in recent weeks/months.

My personal opinion is that the first objective of the Labour leadership is to get into power; only then will they decide what they're actually going to do about the issue.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I think that is quite an ignorant view. A smallish nation state within the EU is quite viable. A slighly larger but still smallish nation state with delusions of former grandeur outside of it quite a lot less so.

The “delusions of former grandeur” is quite telling there!

Why isn’t it viable for the UK to exist outside the EU? Grandeur or otherwise, the U.K. is still one of the larger economies in the world.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,520
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The “delusions of former grandeur” is quite telling there!

The UK does have delusions of grandeur. We are a pathetic little island in the north Atlantic attempting to punch above our weight. China could crush us in an instant, both economically and militarily. The US is no longer a friend, really; without it we are basically nothing.

Why isn’t it viable for the UK to exist outside the EU? Grandeur or otherwise, the U.K. is still one of the larger economies in the world.

And getting weaker. The answer is we are tiny. People will do deals with us, but on very unfavourable bases.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Why isn’t it viable for the UK to exist outside the EU? Grandeur or otherwise, the U.K. is still one of the larger economies in the world.
It's viable, in terms of "it could be done". But given that we've spent several decades serving as a "gateway" for many international companies to access the European market. If we sever ties with the EU, we wouldn't be as tempting a location. And I feel that close ties with neighbours is a more viable economic strategy than seeking business with more distant countries.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
Really?
If you'ree trying to help me understand your point of view, at least use something that's realistic.

But being unrealistic was the point of the example.

Yes, we can leave the EU. That bit's easy. If the Government does nothing for the next two weeks, we'll leave by default.

But the Leave campaign in 2016 wasn't just about leaving. It was also about making promises about what would happen if we left that were based on utter fantasy... the idea that countries would come begging to us for trade deals exclusively on OUR terms, that in a World in which all countries depend on each other and every country is constrained by all sorts of agreements, the UK could somehow be completely independent and in full control of its destiny - when in practice that is true for no other country on the planet. And that's even before you start thinking about all the lying about the nature of the EU that was an integral part of the Leave campaign (and a fair dose of morally pretty repugnant xenophobia - I realise that not everyone who voted Leave would have been motivated by xenophobia, but that was still clearly a very big part of the Leave campaign that was presented to the UK).

So what that all adds up to was that Leave were selling a package that was unrealistic fantasy. Not too unlike my analogy of voting to move the UK to the Moon.

In that situation, to keep arguing that, the people voted so we must respect the will of the people and we absolutely must proceed with Brexit no matter what is - frankly - daft. At the very least, if you're going to keep running the 'will of the people' argument, you should check whether the 'will of the people' is the same now that there's more information about how un-rosy a future outside Europe is likely to be.

The media reports how our country has spent the last two years in hiatus as companies are unsure what's happening. The sooner we're out of that situation, the better - that's what's important.

I rather doubt that. I woudl rather imagine that the reality will be: If we do leave, there is going to be so much work to do in untangling the likely economic mess, sorting out what rules we're going to have to replace the EU rules, getting imports and exports on a stable basis, negotiating our place in the World, etc. etc. that the current situation of the Government having very little bandwidth to deal with pressing domestic issues will carry on for years into the future.

I also fail to understand why remainers have decided that if we leave the EU, workers rights will be eroded.

That will be because, if we do leave this month, it will be under a Tory Government. And vast numbers of people have no confidence in the Tories to respect workers rights, once they are no longer bound by EU rules to do so.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Because electing an MP is not electing them to represent your precise views. It is electing them on the basis of "I trust you to go to Parliament and act in my best interests". Note that your best interests do not necessarily follow your opinion, which I suspect to be the case in a very large number of people who voted Leave on lies and misunderstandings. (Some did not of course).
So what do we do when we see large numbers of MPs knowingly not acting in our best interests on the basis that they have to honour an advisory referendum held nearly three years ago (and also of course that they have to put their party's interests above their constituents' interests)?
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
I think that is quite an ignorant view. A smallish nation state within the EU is quite viable. A slighly larger but still smallish nation state with delusions of former grandeur outside of it quite a lot less so.
And I'd second that. Indeed, we can see how the EU is supportive of its smaller members (and I don't hold Greece as a representative example), not least in the way in which it has looked after the interests of Ireland in the current negotiations with the UK despite the efforts of the UK to try and re-exercise some imperial hold over that country. In the case of Nicola Sturgeon, she did try to argue before the referendum that the views of the four nations ought to be taken into account rather than just a simple UK majority. Because she was ignored she now finds that a Scotland that voted very clearly to remain is being dragged down to perdition on England's coat-tails (and she sees the representatives of a Northern Ireland that voted to remain acting as the arch-supporters of an extreme Brexit).
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
So what do we do when we see large numbers of MPs knowingly not acting in our best interests on the basis that they have to honour an advisory referendum held nearly three years ago (and also of course that they have to put their party's interests above their constituents' interests)?

In the current system: lobby them to change their approach, and, if need be, vote for a different candidate at the next election.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
And I'd second that. Indeed, we can see how the EU is supportive of its smaller members (and I don't hold Greece as a representative example), not least in the way in which it has looked after the interests of Ireland in the current negotiations with the UK despite the efforts of the UK to try and re-exercise some imperial hold over that country. In the case of Nicola Sturgeon, she did try to argue before the referendum that the views of the four nations ought to be taken into account rather than just a simple UK majority. Because she was ignored she now finds that a Scotland that voted very clearly to remain is being dragged down to perdition on England's coat-tails (and she sees the representatives of a Northern Ireland that voted to remain acting as the arch-supporters of an extreme Brexit).

In what way has the U.K. attempted to impose “some imperial hold” over ROI?

I suspect most people find the whole Irish border situation pretty frustrating if not ridiculous, but then so is much of Northern Irish politics.

As for Scotland, they voted to remain part of the U.K. in their referendum. Consequences come with that decision. Is public opinion in Scotland quite so entrenched towards the EU as the SNP advocate? I’ve heard it said that the Scottish EU referendum result was partly an attempt to avoid Sturgeon re-igniting the independence debate, as opposed to a love of the EU. How true is this? I’ve heard it suggested by a number of Scottish people.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
In the current system: lobby them to change their approach, and, if need be, vote for a different candidate at the next election.
Neither of those much use in our system. If they have a safe seat, once they're in they're impervious to lobbying and in many cases safe against all but a swing of 1945-type proportions. For myself, I've always lived in safe seats held by a party that I would never consider voting for.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
Isn't that the job of an MP?
To vote for what their constituents want?
Because as I understood it, they are elected spokespeople essentially.

Plus, please point me to quantifiable FACT things will be worse off in 15 years time.
Because we'll need 10-15 years to work out whether leaving the EU was good or bad.
In the context of my original point, it's not my job to produce any evidence that remaining or leaving is better or worse, that's the whole point of the representative democracy. It's the job of the MPs to listen to the evidence and then they should vote in what's in our best interests. This includes making U-turns and going against popular opinion when the evidence points that way.

This then raises another question, which is "how do I know that I can trust my MP to act on the evidence? " to which the answer is "how cynical are you?" ;)
 

Giugiaro

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2011
Messages
1,129
Location
Valongo - Portugal
It's the job of the MPs to listen to the evidence and then they should vote in what's in our best interests. This includes making U-turns and going against popular opinion when the evidence points that way.

This then raises another question, which is "how do I know that I can trust my MP to act on the evidence? " to which the answer is "how cynical are you?" ;)

If I could upvotes posts, this would be one of them.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Well I'm in a pickle now thanks to Brexit.
Had a holiday in Spain booked for June, been booked since last year. Been told recently by the doctor I need to see a specialist at cardiology - informed my holiday insurers of that and they say they can't insure me for any mishaps caused by that; ie they can't cover when they don't know the situation, and it won't be resolved before I go as the consultancy is after the holiday. They would still cover me for broken ankles etc (not related).
OK; if I had an issue over there the EHIC would get me immediate assistance for (or for virtually) free.
But we don't know if we will have the EHIC card by then....
Bloody thanks, Brexit. So I have cancelled the holiday and taken a small financial hit (the insurance excess) so that's my little something to look forward to gone.
One good thing is that I'm OK in Gibraltar in that it's been confirmed that I would be treated under their version of the NHS - all I would need is my passport.
**Sighs**
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,520
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
So what do we do when we see large numbers of MPs knowingly not acting in our best interests on the basis that they have to honour an advisory referendum held nearly three years ago (and also of course that they have to put their party's interests above their constituents' interests)?

Well, there is that :)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,520
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Well I'm in a pickle now thanks to Brexit.
Had a holiday in Spain booked for June, been booked since last year. Been told recently by the doctor I need to see a specialist at cardiology - informed my holiday insurers of that and they say they can't insure me for any mishaps caused by that; ie they can't cover when they don't know the situation, and it won't be resolved before I go as the consultancy is after the holiday. They would still cover me for broken ankles etc (not related).
OK; if I had an issue over there the EHIC would get me immediate assistance for (or for virtually) free.
But we don't know if we will have the EHIC card by then....
Bloody thanks, Brexit. So I have cancelled the holiday and taken a small financial hit (the insurance excess) so that's my little something to look forward to gone.
One good thing is that I'm OK in Gibraltar in that it's been confirmed that I would be treated under their version of the NHS - all I would need is my passport.
**Sighs**

That may have been the prudent choice anyway - EHIC just gets you what the locals get, which may not be 100% free treatment and definitely doesn't include repatriation if that was to be necessary.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Neither of those much use in our system. If they have a safe seat, once they're in they're impervious to lobbying and in many cases safe against all but a swing of 1945-type proportions. For myself, I've always lived in safe seats held by a party that I would never consider voting for.

In that regard, while I have lived in some fairly "safe" constituencies, I feel blessed to live in a country (Wales) where there are four* mainstream parties, not two and a bit. Anglesey's managed to be represented by all four parties over the course of the 20th century!

Electoral reform is probably best discussed in a separate thread, though.

*One could argue five, given UKIP's current numbers in the Welsh Assembly, but I doubt that they'll still be around in such numbers after the next election.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
I think that is quite an ignorant view. A smallish nation state within the EU is quite viable. A slighly larger but still smallish nation state with delusions of former grandeur outside of it quite a lot less so.
Like Singapore you mean?
 

d9009alycidon

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
837
Location
Eaglesham
The one which always amuses me is Nicola Sturgeon. Happy to criticise one referendum, but meanwhile dying to have her own (repeat) referendum on independence. In the same way that one union is the font of all evil yet another union is all things bright and beautiful. I suppose she’s thankful all this is a good distraction from the Salmond sex scandal.

A referendum that thankfully she has no chance of winning, the SNP have been found out for the chancers that they are, their current policy on income tax is alienating many middle income earners (would you vote for a 53% income tax+NI) and their other looney policies are equally costing them popularity, I predict that their bubble is shortly going to pop very loudly. We just need a credible opposition at Holyrood, which may well be the Tory Party, something that would have been unheard of a decade ago
 

d9009alycidon

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
837
Location
Eaglesham
In that regard, while I have lived in some fairly "safe" constituencies, I feel blessed to live in a country (Wales) where there are four* mainstream parties, not two and a bit. Anglesey's managed to be represented by all four parties over the course of the 20th century!

Electoral reform is probably best discussed in a separate thread, though.

*One could argue five, given UKIP's current numbers in the Welsh Assembly, but I doubt that they'll still be around in such numbers after the next election.

Do you really want proportional representation? And have the major parties rely on fringe groups with their own agendas to push through votes - example: despite only having list MPs, the Tree Huggers have a disproportionate leverage on policy at Holyrood
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
A referendum that thankfully she has no chance of winning, the SNP have been found out for the chancers that they are, their current policy on income tax is alienating many middle income earners (would you vote for a 53% income tax+NI) and their other looney policies are equally costing them popularity, I predict that their bubble is shortly going to pop very loudly. We just need a credible opposition at Holyrood, which may well be the Tory Party, something that would have been unheard of a decade ago

Like Corbyn and a hypothetical general election, does Sturgeon have anything to lose by pushing for a referendum at this point? She’s been around long enough that her own natural shelf-life must be starting to wane, whilst SNP as a force have already declined from their peak in terms of Westminster seats. There doesn’t seem to be anyone else as iconic to the independence movement as her and Salmond. So worth a punt as a shot to nothing?

I tend to agree it probably wouldn’t be won though. From an admittedly very small sample of opinion, the mood I detect is that people are tired of the subject.

One can conject as to how Sturgeon might react if she did manage to win an independence referendum and then found honouring the result subverted by others not least the Westminster MPs!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top