• 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.

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,272
Location
St Albans
If we remained within the A50 extention, we would be on the same terms as before inc. the rebate (although the amount of rebate would be discussed in real time as we go along...as before.)
- Nathalie Loiseau, the French European affairs minister.
We wouldn't have left, why should anything change?
That's correct, Article 50 can be invoked by any member nation and has a mandated 2 year duration. It can only be withdrawn by the member that invoked it and neither the EU nor any other member can prevent that. The status following its withdrawl is as befor its invokation, i.e. we become a member with the same status as in March 2017. All this waffle about how we will be punished is just 'leaver project fear'*, so the rebate, the Euro exemption and the Schengen exemption will be as before article 50 was invoked.
* to use a term that leavers understand. :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
It doesn't matter which way anyone voted, whether leave or remain, nothing can alter the fact that the deal on offer is nothing more than an absolute unconditional surrender to the will of the EU brought about by the absolute incompetence of our present Government which contains MPs of ALL persuasions.

You obviously missed my last post where I pointed out that the end of free movement was in the agreement, a cruel, savage blow to Remainers.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
b) the EU's position would be exactly the same, and the same as they indicated before the referendum) and anybody except the most naïve observer recognises that there are 27 other nations that have proven to be fully behind the EU negotiators in reminding the UK of that.
Still if you think that's another blame channel then keep repeating it. Meanwhile I'll just wait for the politicians accede to what is now a wish for 75% of the electorate, i.e. a referendum based on the real situation rather than lies (disguised as aspirations).
so what you are saying is that the EU told us what the deal was 2 yrs ago and this is the deal that we have been presented with.. so the 2 yr negotiation period that's laid down in Article 50 and the last 18 months of mud slinging and "hard negotiations" are nothing but a sham....
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
If we remained within the A50 extention, we would be on the same terms as before inc. the rebate (although the amount of rebate would be discussed in real time as we go along...as before.)
- Nathalie Loiseau, the French European affairs minister.
We wouldn't have left, why should anything change?
Don't tell me, tell Guenther Oettinger. He seems to have a different idea but what does he know. After all he isn't a member of this forum! :)
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
so what you are saying is that the EU told us what the deal was 2 yrs ago and this is the deal that we have been presented with.. so the 2 yr negotiation period that's laid down in Article 50 and the last 18 months of mud slinging and "hard negotiations" are nothing but a sham....
No, it just means that the UK's negotiating team is so monumentally useless that they couldn't convince the EU that a single idea that they had was better for both sides than what was already on the table.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,191
so what you are saying is that the EU told us what the deal was 2 yrs ago and this is the deal that we have been presented with.. so the 2 yr negotiation period that's laid down in Article 50 and the last 18 months of mud slinging and "hard negotiations" are nothing but a sham....
If we decided to remain in the EU, yes, indeed, a very expensive and pointlese exercise when the money, let's see, could have been spent on the NHS instead and time spent solving our care crisis.
If we get May's deal through, the BrINO deal, then pretty much the same could be argued. In reality the deal offered could have been done in the months before the referendum and the public vote on that deal or remain; and to be honest remain may well have won in that case.
Seeing as no-deal is very unlikely to happen - (a) the logistics and (b) it wouldn't get through Parliament or if it did (c) general election/further referendum then - where have we gone exactly in the last 2 years?
All we have is a deal which robs us of our freedom of movement (not to mention EHIC card), costs us an arm and three legs, loses us our votes and power in the EU and seems to be hated by everyone outside 10 Downing St. meanwhile the rest of the world (hello, Vladimir) are laughing their liederhosen off at us.
Still. I've just spent a grand this morning organising a week's holiday...get away from the shambles for a while.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Is anyone here making plans to leave the UK before the end of the transition period in order to keep free movement? Or even before March in case of a "no deal"? Or are you waiting to see what happens if the deal gets voted down?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,191
Is anyone here making plans to leave the UK before the end of the transition period in order to keep free movement? Or even before March in case of a "no deal"? Or are you waiting to see what happens if the deal gets voted down?
There's always the Channel islands, still got free movement there (except there's no NHS and you have to be pretty well loaded). It's OK for the Telegraph owners, should be OK for everyone else.
 

Muttley

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Messages
247
so what you are saying is that the EU told us what the deal was 2 yrs ago and this is the deal that we have been presented with.. so the 2 yr negotiation period that's laid down in Article 50 and the last 18 months of mud slinging and "hard negotiations" are nothing but a sham....
Yep, and for some reason their still calling it a draft document. A draft, that can't be changed.

1) Did anyone see Clare Perry's defence on QT ?
There she claimed that the NI backstop will never be used, and yet it seems to be causing so many problems.

2) Did anyone see Andrew Neil on This Week ?
His summation of the document was that it could only be more humiliating for TM if they made her sign it in a railway carriage in a French forest.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,191
Yep, and for some reason their still calling it a draft document. A draft, that can't be changed.

1) Did anyone see Clare Perry's defence on QT ?
There she claimed that the NI backstop will never be used, and yet it seems to be causing so many problems.

2) Did anyone see Andrew Neil on This Week ?
His summation of the document was that it could only be more humiliating for TM if they made her sign it in a railway carriage in a French forest.
Pah, luxury.

Northern pacer.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Brexit could mean having two buy 2 houses in retirement, one in Ireland and one where you actually want to retire, moving back to Ireland every 90 days. OK for the rich, not for the average pensioner.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,869
Location
Yorkshire
Evidence is after an event not before.
I believe this is meaningless and designed to detract from, and dismiss, legitimate concerns.

Here is what evidence means:
evidenceThe available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
I think most people, when faced with overwhelming evidence that an impending change is clearly going to be negative, do not need to wait until after the event to act on the evidence.
It's strange how some people have a go at UKIP, but the membership is on the increase again. There was a lot of voters voted for them.
A sizeable minority of people will have dubious motives, we have to accept that as a fact of life, but they will never be a majority.
As soon as some people here hear the word UKIP they call them racist fanatics
But you surely can't deny there is at least a correlation between the two ;)
its usually the woolly left who have to take a lot of the responsibility for this fast becoming a broken society.
Who are you calling the "woolly left"? The far left and the far right are both bad; polarisation and extremism benefits no-one. Why do only people on the "left" need to "take responsibility"? As for it being a "broken society", I would say more young people today are respectful and tolerant people than was the case a few decades ago. I suspect you are out of touch with young people today.
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,747
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Crazy idea: Perhaps TM was genuinely trying to deliver a Brexit deal (which she has) that recognised that 48% of voters (half the country, let's face it) did not want to leave, rather than, you know, just ignore them.

I see... so to satisfy the minority she has come up with a deal that ties us even tighter to the EU whilst abdicating all our power... in short this deal is Brexit it name only and it is a betrayal of the majority who voted to leave

There seems to be a misconception amongst some leave supporters that Brexit, and it's path should be decided by and made only for the benefit of those who voted to leave. I have often referred people with such views to the wording on the referendum voting slip, in particular the complete absence of any references as to how a leaving deal be formulated.

Any deal agreed with the EU, or indeed the lack of such has an effect on all our citizens, of which those who voted to leave are a minority. You voted to request that the government initiate proceedings ti leave the EU (keeping in mind referendums in this country are not legally binding). This they have done. What you did not vote for is how any deal may be formulated, indeed there were many different thoughts among the various leave factions about how it should be done, so your "side" did not even have a single, definitive flight path for Brexit. So the betrayal exists only in your mind.

it really never ceases to amuse me how smug, superior and sneering remainers are of those of us who voted leave.... just because we came to a different conclusion to you about what would be the best way to vote does not make us any more or less intelligent or informed than you... and tbh at this late stage in the game such snide aspersions about the character of those that disagree with you do nothing but make you look rather the opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

It doesn't matter which way anyone voted, whether leave or remain, nothing can alter the fact that the deal on offer is nothing more than an absolute unconditional surrender to the will of the EU brought about by the absolute incompetence of our present Government which contains MPs of ALL persuasions.

IMHO after the referendum and departure of Cameron then May should've appointed a "National Government" and ensuring that all significant parties had an imput, along with ensuring that the Nationalist parties {SNP, Plaid etc} had a place at the table to argue the particular needs of the individual nations... not forgetting to ensure there was a balance of remainers and leavers in the team.

Unfortunately some leave supporters routinely demonstrate an inability to understand exactly what it was they voted for, as shown above.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Just as Leavers deride Remain warnings as 'Project Fear' because some of them haven't come to pass, I'd like to ask Leave supporters what promises that were made by Leave have come true?
For example:

'Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market.'
David Davis

'Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards'
John Redwood

'The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history'
Liam Fox

'The idea that we’ll do a transitional arrangement where you’re still in, paying money, still with free movement of people – that we’ll do the long-term deal in slow motion … That is plainly not what we’re after'
David Davis

'We made it clear that control of our own borders was one of the elements we wanted in the referendum, and unregulated free movement [during transition] would seem to me not to keep faith with that decision'
Liam Fox

'Because we will no longer be members of the single market, we will not be required to pay huge sums into the EU budget'
Theresa May

'Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU … The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit, but they will be fully negotiated'
David Davis

'I am confident that using the most up-to-date technology, we can get a non-visible border operational along the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland'
David Davis
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Have you actually looked at the relationship between Rees-Mogg and Irish investments?

Never let the truth get in the way of a good anti Brexit rant!
Firstly, what najaB said (quoted for your convenience).
Secondly, I think you need to take a look at the definition of "rant". A one sentence statement hardly qualifies.
Well, his firm has invested in several Irish funds due to uncertainty about their future of London in a post-Brexit world. Says a lot about how confident he is about the 'roaring success' that Brexit is going to bring.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...investment-fund-conservative-mp-a8461021.html
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
Well, his firm has invested in several Irish funds due to uncertainty about their future of London in a post-Brexit world. Says a lot about how confident he is about the 'roaring success' that Brexit is going to bring.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...investment-fund-conservative-mp-a8461021.html
Rees Mogg owns around 15% of this company which he is reducing to 10%. He does not make investment decisions for this company.

The Irish fund was set up at the request of existing investors 75% of which are not from the UK.

The fund was set up using approx £40 Millions of capital. The total funds in this company are £8 Billions+.

I could go on but it appears Rees-Mogg's greatest crime is to be wealthy.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,191
Rees Mogg owns around 15% of this company which he is reducing to 10%. He does not make investment decisions for this company.

The Irish fund was set up at the request of existing investors 75% of which are not from the UK.

The fund was set up using approx £40 Millions of capital. The total funds in this company are £8 Billions+.

I could go on but it appears Rees-Mogg's greatest crime is to be wealthy.
So you're happy for the UK to become a tax-haven for the rich, and as someone who is already "wealthy" JRM stands to gain?
But a deregulated economy in which workere rights and conditions could be diminished?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
No, it just means that the UK's negotiating team is so monumentally useless that they couldn't convince the EU that a single idea that they had was better for both sides than what was already on the table.

Indeed. Apparently the likes of Boris, Leadsome and Duncan-Smith want invisible technology to use on the Irish border. An expert was summoned to appear before MPs on the issue of invisible technology and was asked the timescales for something similar to the scanners which allow freight trains to run between Estonia and Russia without stopping and his answer was it would not be possible to implement a solution like that within two years. Therefore, either the pro-hard Brexit lot need to drop the idea or need to sign up to the idea of an extended transitional period to allow that kind of technology to be implemented.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,191
Indeed. Apparently the likes of Boris, Leadsome and Duncan-Smith want invisible technology to use on the Irish border. An expert was summoned to appear before MPs on the issue of invisible technology and was asked the timescales for something similar to the scanners which allow freight trains to run between Estonia and Russia without stopping and his answer was it would not be possible to implement a solution like that within two years. Therefore, either the pro-hard Brexit lot need to drop the idea or need to sign up to the idea of an extended transitional period to allow that kind of technology to be implemented.
Ecen so it doesn't stop ordinary vans and lorries crossing the border daily (not to mention people) - lets' say a van that hasn't pre-registered and crosses the border and CCTV picks it up. Then what, if it's chased down and stopped then isn't that a hard border - not AT the border but at the point where the vehicle is stopped? And who would risk the chance that it's not milk and eggs being carried in the back but two tooled-up paramilitaries that don't like their Ireland being split?
There's only one answer to eaving but keeping the border open, and that's to stay in the Custom's Union and Single Market.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,191
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top