Brexit, for once some facts.

[Kudoscycles]

It's becoming obvious that the EU don't want a trade deal after Brexit but they will happily take £100 billion off us on the way.
That's not surprising,Fox is busy trying to get free trade deals out of China and India,why would the EU want to give the UK a free trade deal when it looks likely that the UK will be a dumping warehouse for cheap goods out of Asia,a 'no border' in Ireland would be an open conduit for those goods to 'back door' into the EU,as well as any UK-EU port route ,without a strong customs regime.
The EU must see Brexit as an end to the strong protection wall that they have created around the 28 states. For that reason I think they would like us to stay,they can then control us but if we are to leave get as much money from us as possible then erect a strong tariff wall down the middle of the English Channel.
It's looking likely that we will crash out of the EU,I wonder what the tariffs between from the EU to the UK will be after under WTO rules? I assume that the EU will extend the Chinese anti dumping duties to the UK,on normal bikes that is 50% plus,on e-bikes duty is 6%...however, I did read somewhere that the anti dumping duties on bikes is due to be scrapped in 2019.
This is the problem of Brexit,nobody really knows how difficult and costly trade between the UK and EU is going to be ,post Brexit. Nobody EU or UK seems to be preparing for the customs changes.
Maybe,we will be presented with a choice between staying or leaving,any half way 'soft Brexit' doesn't seem attractive to either the UK or EU,I am still of the opinion that Davis and Barnier are only half hearted negotiating and we will scrap Brexit,but the pain is still not enough for Brexiters to consider that.
KudosDave

 

[Woosh]

It's becoming obvious that the EU don't want a trade deal after Brexit but they will happily take £100 billion off us on the way.

I don't think we are going to pay any money until there is a trade deal. All agreements are subject to the final deal, all or nothing.
I think the EU wanted us to revisit the result of the referendum, if there is any doubt that the UK electorate has changed their mind.

Their logic goes like this: no deal is better than a bad deal.

If we remain in the single market, then it's a good deal for both. If we go for EFTA, then that may be a good deal for both. Anything else is a bad deal for them. Their logic dictates that we shall crash out with no deal.
The EU would of course take our money but not if they have to give us a deal that suits Mr Fox or Mr Johnson.

 

[PeterL]

Saw this earlier and it makes an interesting read as indeed does the reference on the bottom line.

What is the real reason the government is pursuing Brexit?

I see that you've rejected every answer so far as inadequate (without offering any additional guidance on what you are looking for), so I have no real expectation that mine will fare better. However, I wonder if what you're missing is the relevant history here.

There has always been a significant minority in the UK that did not wish to be part of the European project. In 1975, the advisory referendum on continued membership of the EEC returned a Yes vote, but 32% voted No.

All the parties have had to deal with Euroscepticism over the years, and the Tories in particular have been riven by the issue since it first arose.

Over time, the EEC/EU grew and changed, adding in a shared currency, the Schengen zone, and quantities of regulation. It grew from 6 nations to 28, and with each step Eurosceptics in the UK became more uncomfortable and more numerous.

About 20 years ago, a fringe political party called the UK Independence Party (UKIP) began to beat the Out of EU drum. This gradually picked up support not only among the general population (I've been seeing Out of EU bumper stickers for years), but also renewed interest with the politicians who had always thought that membership of the EU wasn't right for the UK. Both the political parties and the media gleefully fanned this flame, with political failures frequently blamed on Brussels and stories about bizarre EU rules ever popular in the Daily Mail and even the more respectable papers.

Gradually the pressure grew, particularly within the Tory party, until finally David Cameron called a referendum to quell his own back benchers and dissipate the increasing threat from UKIP to his right.

And he lost. The reasons why he lost have been discussed at great length and I won't go into them here (except to say that I think racism played a much smaller part than is generally believed), but having asked the country and received an answer, the government was obliged to go through with it.

The fact that it was an advisory referendum isn't really relevant. The Leave vote cannot be ignored without causing serious harm to our democratic institutions, and all of our political parties recognise that. In a democracy, you can't just say ‘oh, that vote didn't count’. This is why those who still hope for Remain are positioning their argument in terms of a second referendum when the divorce deal is known.

(This is an interesting piece on why the referendum was set up as advisory rather than binding: Why wasn’t the referendum binding?)

 

[oldgroaner]

Over time, the EEC/EU grew and changed, adding in a shared currency, the Schengen zone, and quantities of regulation. It grew from 6 nations to 28, and with each step Eurosceptics in the UK became more uncomfortable and more numerous.

You are missing out the very valid point that our Government pushed for the last big expansion phase, arent you?
Bit of a self inflicted wound wouldn't you say?
"The fact that it was an advisory referendum isn't really relevant. The Leave vote cannot be ignored without causing serious harm to our democratic institutions, and all of our political parties recognise that. In a democracy, you can't just say ‘oh, that vote didn't count’."

The 4% majority in no way counts as a mandate does it? ask Nigel Farage's opinion on that, it is way too small to count as the normal 2:1 majority required in legitimate referendums, and reflects that the Government has taken the cowardly course of instigating a course of action it doesn't want and knows full well can only lead to disaster, economically and socially, just to avoid what would have been slight trouble.
As to regulations, we instigated a lot of those ourselves, a fact conveniently forgotten.
And the Government has always had the right to expel foreign criminals, it is just to disorganised and tight fisted to have the right organs of state in place to enforce the policy.
Sorry you really will have to come out with better material than you are doing
.Finally I ask once again: where is the convincing and valid argument in favour of Brexit making it something more than a bet made by people who wanted to protest, and are expecting their lives to improve.
By now even the least mentally agile must have started to doubt that is going to happen.

The real Question is this: Davis was the author of the Bill for the Referendum, but did not disclose to the Public it was Advisory only, even though he wrote the darned thing and "Advisory" is there.
It was because he knew nobody would bother to vote, wasn't it?

Deliberate omission that should have been disclosed, the first of many doubtful acts to follow.
"The leave Vote didn't count" simply because the true status of that Vote was deliberated concealed from them, so do stop trying to say tripe about democracy being observed, as Davis had deliberately perverted it.
The public had ever/y right to know what the Referendum Vote validity was BEFORE they put their crosses in the box.
Lies from start to finish, that's the Brexit story
A Tory Disaster from start to finish.

 

[flecc]

The fact that it was an advisory referendum isn't really relevant. The Leave vote cannot be ignored without causing serious harm to our democratic institutions

This is simply untrue, a margin of under 4% in a referendum in which a high proportion abstained is not a mandate for such a permanent drastic change. For such an important shift in national status a minimum level for change should have been set, but that can be compensated for after the event since it was only an advisory referendum. Since the qualifying population failed to deliver a decisive outcome, nullifying the indecisive marginal result would have been a sensible course.

And not setting a pass level was not the only defect in that referendum. We and the Scottish government permitted 16 year olds the vote in their independence referendum, recognising that it was more their future than anyone else's. That was just as true in our referendum so the same should have been allowed.

I see no harm could have come to our democratic institutions with such secure grounds for ignoring the marginal outcome.
.

 

[Woosh]

I see no harm could have come to our democratic institutions with such secure grounds for ignoring the marginal outcome.
.

the conservative party cannot ignore the result of the last vote until a majority of its card carrying membership accepts that brexit does not work.
The only way to reverse brexit is for the tories to lose power first, then a second referendum.

 

[flecc]

the conservative party cannot ignore the result of the last vote until a majority of its card carrying membership accepts that brexit does not work.
The only way to reverse brexit is for the tories to lose power first, then a second referendum.

Agreed, the time to have ignored the outcome on the grounds I've stated was immediately that outcome was known. With the country so evenly divided that would have been reluctantly accepted then, albeit with irritation.
.
.

 

[Kudoscycles]

This is simply untrue, a margin of under 4% in a referendum in which a high proportion abstained is not a mandate for such a permanent drastic change. For such an important shift in national status a minimum level for change should have been set, but that can be compensated for after the event since it was only an advisory referendum. Since the qualifying population failed to deliver a decisive outcome, nullifying the indecisive marginal result would have been a sensible course.

And not setting a pass level was not the only defect in that referendum. We and the Scottish government permitted 16 year olds the vote in their independence referendum, recognising that it was more their future than anyone else's. That was just as true in our referendum so the same should have been allowed.

I see no harm could have come to our democratic institutions with such secure grounds for ignoring the marginal outcome.
.

And the expats living in the EU should have been allowed to vote...it seems incredulous that the very people who were most affected by the vote were excluded from it.
KudosDave

 

[Kudoscycles]

It is difficult to see how Davis and Barnier are going to come to a deal when it is obvious that,at this time,their masters don't want a deal....
KudosDave

 

[Woosh]

It is difficult to see how Davis and Barnier are going to come to a deal when it is obvious that,at this time,their masters don't want a deal....
KudosDave

the EU reckons the tories need at least 4 months to negotiate between their MPs what kind of brexit they want. Until then, there is not much to discuss.
From the tories point of view, they need to work out between themselves first if they want TM at the helm. Hopefully, we'll know that in the next month.

 

[Danidl]

Saw this earlier and it makes an interesting read as indeed does the reference on the bottom line.

What is the real reason the government is pursuing Brexit?

I see that you've rejected every answer so far as inadequate (without offering any additional guidance on what you are looking for), so I have no real expectation that mine will fare better. However, I wonder if what you're missing is the relevant history here.

There has always been a significant minority in the UK that did not wish to be part of the European project. In 1975, the advisory referendum on continued membership of the EEC returned a Yes vote, but 32% voted No.

All the parties have had to deal with Euroscepticism over the years, and the Tories in particular have been riven by the issue since it first arose.

Over time, the EEC/EU grew and changed, adding in a shared currency, the Schengen zone, and quantities of regulation. It grew from 6 nations to 28, and with each step Eurosceptics in the UK became more uncomfortable and more numerous.

About 20 years ago, a fringe political party called the UK Independence Party (UKIP) began to beat the Out of EU drum. This gradually picked up support not only among the general population (I've been seeing Out of EU bumper stickers for years), but also renewed interest with the politicians who had always thought that membership of the EU wasn't right for the UK. Both the political parties and the media gleefully fanned this flame, with political failures frequently blamed on Brussels and stories about bizarre EU rules ever popular in the Daily Mail and even the more respectable papers.

Gradually the pressure grew, particularly within the Tory party, until finally David Cameron called a referendum to quell his own back benchers and dissipate the increasing threat from UKIP to his right.

And he lost. The reasons why he lost have been discussed at great length and I won't go into them here (except to say that I think racism played a much smaller part than is generally believed), but having asked the country and received an answer, the government was obliged to go through with it.

The fact that it was an advisory referendum isn't really relevant. The Leave vote cannot be ignored without causing serious harm to our democratic institutions, and all of our political parties recognise that. In a democracy, you can't just say ‘oh, that vote didn't count’. This is why those who still hope for Remain are positioning their argument in terms of a second referendum when the divorce deal is known.

(This is an interesting piece on why the referendum was set up as advisory rather than binding: Why wasn’t the referendum binding?)

This is an interesting sentence...
" with each step Eurosceptics in the UK became moreuncomfortable and more numerous"
And begs the question why was it
1. Brits are brighter than europeans nd can see truths which others can't
2. They were fed a diet of innuendo and false information
3. Couldn't compete so claim the game is rigged.
4. Were losing prosperity as African possessions were gaining independence and they wanted a fall guy.

The argument about any referendum in the UK as advisory needs no elaboration. Parliament is supreme... you can thank your Mr Cromwell for that . We in Ireland thank him for nothing.

The concept that the hardest of all brexits should result from what was a hung vote is bewildering to the rational mind.
It was basically a hung vote because had some 600 thousand who cited leave had voted stay the result would have been remain. Now 600 thousand is a big number but not in a total poll of 36 million. Worse those Britons living abroad and who might reasonably be expected to vote remain were excluded .

 

[Woosh]

The concept that the hardest of all brexits should result from what was a hung vote is bewildering to the rational mind.

I don't find it irrational.
Brexit is a creation of the tory party whose majority of card carrying membership supports hard brexit.
If there is one irrational fact in the brexit equation, that must be the fact that the UK electorate gave the tories a mandate to rule for another 5 years.

 

[tommie]

you can thank your Mr Cromwell for that . We in Ireland thank him for nothing.

Really, are you sure??

your good friend Tom Reilly says Ireland owes Cromwell an apology.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/ireland-owes-oliver-cromwell-an-apology-says-this-irish-author

 

[Danidl]

Really, are you sure??

your good friend Tom Reilly says Ireland owes Cromwell an apology.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/ireland-owes-oliver-cromwell-an-apology-says-this-irish-author

Not my good friend, ... Did you not know that there is almost as much rivalries between Drogheda and Dundalk as between............ Well I'll let you fill in the gap yourself. Fortunately I am not an native of either town so I can be more detached. Even were he not guilty of the rape of Drogheda, and I am not accepting he wasn't, there were other atrocities... but it is interesting.
Following his campaigns in Ireland, he would have torched farms, etc etc and gave the lands to his supporters. Up to about 1970 there was a women living in a townland I know very well, who went by the name Cromwell, and had very similar facial features to Oliver, even to the same warts and all. The east Meath area would have been settled by demobbed Roundheads

This historian is really searching hard . The Cathars to which he refers were massacred some four hundred years previously, ..... at a time the Normans in England were still consolidating their rule. The simony and sales of indulgences was a practice long outlawed by the counter reformation.

While Drogheda has a population of say now 25000 to 30000 in those days it was more likely only a tenth of it, and certainly a lot of people would have fled , so why not accept Cromwell s word. ?

 

[Danidl]

I don't find it irrational.
Brexit is a creation of the tory party whose majority of card carrying membership supports hard brexit.
If there is one irrational fact in the brexit equation, that must be the fact that the UK electorate gave the tories a mandate to rule for another 5 years.

Any UK government and elected MP s are assumed to be responsible people charged by your Queen with the most prudent management of her realm. Following an unfunded, unthought out strategy, even where it is threatening to break down many of the principles they hold dear , where all the indicators to date are negative. , I am supposing irrational.

 

[Kudoscycles]

It's not just the Tories who are in-fighting. Merkel and Macron are against Barnier taking over Junckers job.
It appears the EU are not keen on our transitional arrangement so May's Florence speech was a waste of times.
I am still a remainer but it must be time to walk away from these negotiations and start preparing for a crash out Brexit,maybe the Germans will then have to decide whether that is what they want.....they are no more prepared for such an event than we are.
KudosDave

 

[Kudoscycles]

It appears that Theresa May has received advice that Article 50 advised an 'intent' to withdraw but not actually withdraw ,so it can be legally reversed prior to March 2019.
See article by Jessica Simor.
Kudoscycles

 

[Danidl]

Even if that were true, and it does not follow that other countries in Europe would assume such flexibility,and distinction between a formal letter advising of a decision and the subsequent renaging. Can one imagine the uproar that would ensue? Put simply no letters of comfort, no documents coming from the British government could ever be trusted.
The Brexit supporters would , and I feel in this case , rightly shafted. The wide scale belief is that an exit is on the cards. Were the justification for not going on being the figleaf of "intention " not deed .. the political process would be seriously damaged.
A person carrying a load of tools , including oxygen acyte torch into a bank would be charged and convicted for the intention to rob, and the law would not wait for the deed to be actually done.
If you formally petition the court for a divorce, can you later withdraw it?.. I don't know ,

I say this with regret because I hope that Brexit can be avoided, but I cannot see how.

 

[anotherkiwi]

You have all read this of course?

https://www.ft.com/content/0407854e-f9d0-11e6-9516-2d969e0d3b65?mhq5j=e7

I don't think the FT is a left wing radical newspaper with biased opinions? I may be wrong...

 

[Woosh]

You have all read this of course?

https://www.ft.com/content/0407854e-f9d0-11e6-9516-2d969e0d3b65?mhq5j=e7

I don't think the FT is a left wing radical newspaper with biased opinions? I may be wrong...

no, that page is behind the FT's paywall.