EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Struner]

Move to Ireland!

 

[Peter Kelford]

No-one apart from some extreme right wing nutter elements. Even relatively right wing 'ruling' parties in Italy, Hungary, Poland etc have rowed back from many of their anti-EU positions. Its just a Brexiteer wet dream that the whole EUs about to fall apart, part of their echo chamber bullcr@p that they meme to each other constantly.

Marine Le Pen has also realised that leaving the EU isn't going to work.

 

[Doppelganger]

Move to Ireland!

This sort of thing isn't helpul.

People telling others to just move is too simplistic and very often not an option in the short term.

 

[Struner]

This sort of thing isn't helpul.
People telling others to just move is too simplistic and very often not an option in the short term.

I think you misunderstood me
I was reacting to this:

In the old days it had it's complications. Although you were unlikely to be asked for your passport to being the milk in, shops and restaurants that straddled the border had (a) parts of the shops where stuff was sold under one tax regime, and where there were laws regarding opening/closing time you could only have a beer on one side of the room. people straddling the border could decide which country they paid tax to by altering the position of their front door - ie if it were cheaper to be in Belgium then you built your front door on the Belgian side of the line.

Wish we had something similar here after Brexit where your own house could be either inside or outside the EU!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Marine Le Pen has also realised that leaving the EU isn't going to work.

Has she? I thought she was still very anti EU?

 

[Howardh]

Move to Ireland!

Nah, it'll be full of Tory MP's and Leave EU members running away from the mess they've created. Don't want to share a country with them again.

 

[Struner]

I was only referring to the island of Ireland!

 

[Peter Kelford]

Has she? I thought she was still very anti EU?

But to have any hope of getting some sort of majority, she's realised that she will have to stop talking about the EU negatively.

 

[dcsprior]

Of course which is the main reason why he (and May before him) will never do such a thing despite it probably being something which could command a majority in the House of Commons, would respect the Referendum result and even be something which I suspect a large number of those who voted remain would be able to live with (I certainly would be happy if we were EEA/Customs Union).

But it would very likely push the ERG group of Tory MPs over the edge and probably tear the party apart. It would also probably cause the Tory membership to loose their collective minds as well. It would also probably push the crazies that Johnson is trying to court into the arms of the Brexit Party fracturing the Tory vote as well as the party itself.

So despite it probably being a very good course of action for the country as a whole (short of revoking A50 and forgetting about the whole thing) it unacceptable as long as the Tories continue to put party before country.

I'm actually rather disappointed in parliament for not having used the time they gained back from the Supreme Court's judgement on prorogation to pass something directing Johnson to negotiate a brexit deal which involves us remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union.

Also I think that at the very start, May probably could've sold this to even the ardent Brexiteers - perhaps on the basis that even if a hard brexit were the best outcome, the least risky and disruptive way of getting there would be a series of relatively small changes (an argument that still applies IMO)

 

[SteveP29]

Whether you are a Remain or Depart, the EU were never going to make it easy, a few other sitting in the wings to see how it goes, before jumping ship

Family Fortunes klaxon.
Try again.

 

[Gooner18]

I'm actually rather disappointed in parliament for not having used the time they gained back from the Supreme Court's judgement on prorogation to pass something directing Johnson to negotiate a brexit deal which involves us remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union.

Also I think that at the very start, May probably could've sold this to even the ardent Brexiteers - perhaps on the basis that even if a hard brexit were the best outcome, the least risky and disruptive way of getting there would be a series of relatively small changes (an argument that still applies IMO)

Does staying in the single market and customs union not take away the whole point of leaving the EU?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Does staying in the single market and customs union not take away the whole point of leaving the EU?

Yes, but without the democratic and veto advantages of being a member. What would happen was that IF (THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY) an 'undesirable' state wanted to join, or if the EU wanted to change cornerstone EU principles, Britain wouldn't even be heard.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The following semi-joke:

The Europhile wants to revoke Art. 50 and stay
The Far-Right People wants no-deal
The Eurosceptic wants a quick deal
The Democrat wants a 2nd referendum
The MP wants nothing
The EU27 wants the UK in the single market and customs union but out of the EU.
The EU government wants the UK to remain
The elder statesman wants a compromise

 

[Gooner18]

Yes, but without the democratic and veto advantages of being a member. What would happen was that IF (THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY) an 'undesirable' state wanted to join, or if the EU wanted to change cornerstone EU principles, Britain wouldn't even be heard.

Exactly no point in staying in both the above and having no say in nothing we would be bound by , either leave both or stay in the EU

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but without the democratic and veto advantages of being a member. What would happen was that IF (THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY) an 'undesirable' state wanted to join, or if the EU wanted to change cornerstone EU principles, Britain wouldn't even be heard.

There is of course no reason we couldn't stay now and leave later, based on changing evidence.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Exactly no point in staying in both the above and having no say in nothing we would be bound by , either leave both or stay in the EU

There is of course no reason we couldn't stay now and leave later, based on changing evidence.

Exactly. Being in the EU imposes upon us no more of what is seen by Brits as 'undesirable' but gives us constitutionally protected powers, like a veto on prospective new treaties or policies. As EU members, we elect a parliament, we can veto contentious issues and we benefit from EU subsidies. On the other hand, leaving but sort of staying in is the best leave scenario for the economy but the damage of this unhappy compromise is bound to catch up with us years later.

The best (and in my view, only rational) choice is obviously to remain in the EU as a full member, and being the recognising of the fact that the EU has already put up with a lot of our special status already.

 

[Wuffle]

I'm always amused when those who voted Remain constantly refer to those who voted to Leave the EU as "right wing" thus ignoring the sentiments of prominent Labour Party members like Tony Benn and Peter Shore (and wasn't the current Labour leader an ardent anti -EU supporter up until recently ? )

The sad fact is that Cameron had no plan in place if Leave won and promptly ran away thus ensuring that the Tory Party went into panic and elected May in the vain hope she would be Thatch Mk II and we all know where that has led, had there been Leave people in charge of the negotiations I suspect that things would probably have been handled much better

Pigs ear is what it is

 

[fowler9]

I'm always amused when those who voted Remain constantly refer to those who voted to Leave the EU as "right wing" thus ignoring the sentiments of prominent Labour Party members like Tony Benn and Peter Shore (and wasn't the current Labour leader an ardent anti -EU supporter up until recently ? )

The sad fact is that Cameron had no plan in place if Leave won and promptly ran away thus ensuring that the Tory Party went into panic and elected May in the vain hope she would be Thatch Mk II and we all know where that has led, had there been Leave people in charge of the negotiations I suspect that things would probably have been handled much better

Pigs ear is what it is

To be fare the Tories hard core leavers are hard right. I don't think everyone who voted leave is hard right.

 

[EM2]

...had there been Leave people in charge of the negotiations I suspect that things would probably have been handled much better

Pigs ear is what it is

Davis, Raab and Barclay have been the three Secretaries of State for Exiting the European Union, and are all Leavers. Davis was also the chief negotiator before Olly Robbins.

 

[Enthusiast]

As EU members, we elect a parliament,

Which, being unable to promote or modify legislation is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

...we can veto contentious issues

Can we? Most vetoes were knocked on the head with the expansion of qualified majority voting, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

... and we benefit from EU subsidies.

What, like getting back around half of the cash we pay in (provided we spend it as directed).

 

[EM2]

Which, being unable to promote or modify legislation is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

We have a commissioner as well. That's what they are supposed to do. And also the European Parliament and the Council review proposals by the Commission and propose amendments. If the Council and the Parliament cannot agree upon amendments, a second reading takes place.

In the second reading, the Parliament and Council can again propose amendments. Parliament has the power to block the proposed legislation if it cannot agree with the Council.

But apart from that, you're 100% correct here.

Can we? Most vetoes were knocked on the head with the expansion of qualified majority voting, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

From Wikipedia:

Certain policy fields remain subject to unanimity in whole or in part, such as:

• membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);
  • change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[29]
• taxation;
• the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);
• harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;
• certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);
• the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;
• the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;
• the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;
• citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);
• certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

What, like getting back around half of the cash we pay in (provided we spend it as directed).

The budget contribution is not made just to get some of it back.

 

[edwin_m]

Does staying in the single market and customs union not take away the whole point of leaving the EU?

What is the point of leaving the EU? In six months following this topic I've yet to see one that's even vaguely convincing.

I'm always amused when those who voted Remain constantly refer to those who voted to Leave the EU as "right wing" thus ignoring the sentiments of prominent Labour Party members like Tony Benn and Peter Shore (and wasn't the current Labour leader an ardent anti -EU supporter up until recently ? )

Both Tony Benn and Peter Shore have been dead for several years so it's not known what side they might have taken in the current debate. Although there are some leavers in the Labour party, its membership is overwhelmingly pro-remain and the Tory membership is overwhelmingly pro-leave.

Which, being unable to promote or modify legislation is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Most of the time the British Parliament is equally unable to do so, because the governing party has a majority and in normal circumstances can pretty much get its way on everything. The European parliament just vetoed Macron's choice for commissioner, whereas the British parliament has no power to veto the equivalent appointment (cabinet minister).

Can we? Most vetoes were knocked on the head with the expansion of qualified majority voting, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

We still have a veto, for example, over new countries joining. Contrary to the lie told by the Leave campaign that we couldn't stop Turkey joining. ​

 

[Peter Kelford]

I'm always amused when those who voted Remain constantly refer to those who voted to Leave the EU as "right wing" thus ignoring the sentiments of prominent Labour Party members like Tony Benn and Peter Shore (and wasn't the current Labour leader an ardent anti -EU supporter up until recently ? )

The sad fact is that Cameron had no plan in place if Leave won and promptly ran away thus ensuring that the Tory Party went into panic and elected May in the vain hope she would be Thatch Mk II and we all know where that has led, had there been Leave people in charge of the negotiations I suspect that things would probably have been handled much better

Pigs ear is what it is

Erm... these people that you name haven't just gone out and started screaming 'Project Fear - Rich Remainers!'. On the other hand, the key ambassadors of the Brexit movement belong to the far-right. In fact, as Edwin points out they don't even exist anymore...

 

[Peter Kelford]

What is the point of leaving the EU? In six months following this topic I've yet to see one that's even vaguely convincing.

I am another person at a loss.

Both Tony Benn and Peter Shore have been dead for several years so it's not known what side they might have taken in the current debate. Although there are some leavers in the Labour party, its membership is overwhelmingly pro-remain and the Tory membership is overwhelmingly pro-leave.

I think Jeremy Corbyn is trying to find the best way of going forwards not excluding moderate leavers from his party. Unfortunately, Theresa May tried and failed to do that.

Most of the time the British Parliament is equally unable to do so, because the governing party has a majority and in normal circumstances can pretty much get its way on everything. The European parliament just vetoed Macron's choice for commissioner, whereas the British parliament has no power to veto the equivalent appointment (cabinet minister).

There we go. And also as a part-constituency part proportional representation Parliament, I think this sets an excellent example of what we should be doing in the UK. It's also got a constitutional court with clear power (which doesn't exist in the UK).

We still have a veto, for example, over new countries joining. Contrary to the lie told by the Leave campaign that we couldn't stop Turkey joining.

We have a veto on this and many other matters (including new treaties). Cameron even managed to get us a 7-year immigration control and opt-out from the 'ever closer union'. Brexiteers would rather ignore that so they can go and cut off their nose to spite their face. How convenient that they forget that so they don't need to admit our already exceptional status in the EU.

 

[Gooner18]

We still have a veto, for example, over new countries joining. Contrary to the lie told by the Leave campaign that we couldn't stop Turkey joining.

Turkey will never be allowed to join the EU as long at they continue to illegally occupy northern Cyprus

 

[Grumpy Git]

I've asked the following question on several different non-political forums (one overwhelmingly frequented by ardent 'no-deal' leavers) and as yet, have yet to have one reply:

"What laws and/or rules that we currently have to comply with under EU rules would you change the day after a "'no-deal' Brexit?"

 

[Enthusiast]

The budget contribution is not made just to get some of it back.

Indeed it's not. The budget contributions made by the UK are principally to support the transfer of cash from the donor nations to the recipients (with a "small amount" skimmed off for administrative costs, such as those associated with moving the circus ten times a year from Brussels to Strasbourg). But to suggest that an advantage of being an EU member is that the UK "benefits from EU subsidies" is just plain nonsense. The money that UK industries receive from the EU are not subsidies. They are simply returns of monies which, had they not been paid in the first place, could have been distributed by the UK government as it wished. I suppose it largely depends whether you prefer the nation's tax receipts to be under the control of Westminster or Brussels.

As far as national vetoes go, they are gradually being whittled down. In the not too distant vetoes will be lost in a number of areas of taxation as this paper suggests:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-liv/30107.htm

The EU does not do things in big bangs. It operates "salami style" and remaining in the EU is no more opting for the status quo than leaving is. The EU does not do the status quo.

 

[dgl]

I've asked the following question on several different non-political forums (one overwhelmingly frequented by ardent @no-deal' leavers) and as yet, have yet to have one reply:

"What laws and/or rules that we currently have to comply with under EU rules would you change the day after a "'no-deal' Brexit?"

Ahh yes, but they are not the paymasters
You ask the likes of Mogg in private what laws he would want repealed and there is probably a long list, although nothing that either doesn't affect the man on the street negatively or doesn't both make him shed loads of cash and allows him to hide ot for tax purposes.

The only Mogg I want having a say at No. 10 is Larry!

 

[Grumpy Git]

Ahh yes, but they are not the paymasters
You ask the likes of Mogg in private what laws he would want repealed and there is probably a long list, although nothing that either doesn't affect the man on the street negatively or doesn't both make him shed loads of cash and allows him to hide ot for tax purposes.

The only Mogg I want having a say at No. 10 is Larry!

I completely agree dgl, (I forgot to add the caveat "............ that affects the lives of normal working-class folk" to the end of my question) - I did include this in the other forums!

As a self-employed engineer, I've just endured the worst 6 months of my career, UK capital spend is basically zero currently and I'm glad I've got some savings.

 

[Enthusiast]

"What laws and/or rules that we currently have to comply with under EU rules would you change the day after a "'no-deal' Brexit?"

I don't think you quite get it. It isn't the fact that EU legislation is necessarily so bad that it must be immediately repealed. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. It's the fact that the country is increasingly subject to legislation over which it has practically no control and which is very often not in its best interests (it's impossible to satisfy the requirements of 28 very disparate nations).