The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Magilla]

Course not! They are remainers, keep up.:)

 

But you were, so in what way were you "ruled" by the EU?

[apelike]

The odds favour a 2020 election, I was just looking at that today, I would put money on anyone other than the Conservatives.

 

Isn't that just the normal term election date?

 

I see 5/2 for 2017, 12/1 for both 2018/19 and 4/6 2020.

Conservative majority evens and no overall majority 6/5.

 

Still, I may just put a bets or two on.

[kidley]

Isn't that just the normal term election date?

 

I see 5/2 for 2017, 12/1 for both 2018/19 and 4/6 2020.

Conservative majority evens and no overall majority 6/5.

 

Still, I may just put a bets or two on.

 

My Bold

 

You better hurry up then, the way things are going the booky's are likely to close the book on the conservatives winning the next election.

[ez8004]

I would say that a general election before 2020 is very unlikely even if the Tories wanted it because Labour in their current state will not win. There needs to be a 2/3 majority to allow for an early election to be called.

[Guest]

Because Alan you want to remove the solid EU regulation that ensures we have decent standards. Any company that wants to sell here has to adhere to the standards.

 

 

Solid EU regulation ensures that eastern and some southern European countries have their standards raised. Britain doesn't need this at all. British standards in all sorts of areas actually set the benchmark.

 

Its laughable to suggest standards in Britain will drop because we're not in the EU. Ditto for human rights. All scaremongering tosh.

 

As for any company outside the EU having to adhere to EU standards, flammable and poisonous Chinese rubbish such as sofa's still get through.

[I1L2T3]

Solid EU regulation ensures that eastern and some southern European countries have their standards raised. Britain doesn't need this at all. British standards in all sorts of areas actually set the benchmark.

 

Its laughable to suggest standards in Britain will drop because we're not in the EU. Ditto for human rights. All scaremongering tosh.

 

As for any company outside the EU having to adhere to EU standards, flammable and poisonous Chinese rubbish such as sofa's still get through.

 

So you think shedding a load of EU red tape and standards is going to improve our standards?

 

Or maybe I'll ask the question again. What do you want that is different?

 

Companies that want to sell into the EU have to adhere to EU standards. Yes some things get through but then are banned from sale. But you want less red tape.

[Eater Sundae]

I would say that a general election before 2020 is very unlikely even if the Tories wanted it because Labour in their current state will not win. There needs to be a 2/3 majority to allow for an early election to be called.

 

It would be politically damaging for an opposition party to refuse the opportunity of having a general election.

[altus]

Solid EU regulation ensures that eastern and some southern European countries have their standards raised. Britain doesn't need this at all. British standards in all sorts of areas actually set the benchmark.

 

Its laughable to suggest standards in Britain will drop because we're not in the EU. Ditto for human rights. All scaremongering tosh.

I thought Brexit campaigners complained that complying with EU standards was burdensome for UK businesses that don't trade with the EU. If British standards are going to be equally rigorous you'll have to explain how they won't be equally burdensome.

 

As for human rights, didn't this government want to leave the ECHR because they didn't like some of the provisions in it? How is that not dropping British human rights standards?

 

As for any company outside the EU having to adhere to EU standards, flammable and poisonous Chinese rubbish such as sofa's still get through.

And it's illegal to import them. That's a non-point unless you are suggesting the UK manufacturers not comply with import regulations.

[ez8004]

Solid EU regulation ensures that eastern and some southern European countries have their standards raised. Britain doesn't need this at all. British standards in all sorts of areas actually set the benchmark.

 

Its laughable to suggest standards in Britain will drop because we're not in the EU. Ditto for human rights. All scaremongering tosh.

 

As for any company outside the EU having to adhere to EU standards, flammable and poisonous Chinese rubbish such as sofa's still get through.

 

You obviously don't work with EU standards. British Standards are derived from European ones, especially in engineering. It is standards like the Euronorms that form the foundations where other more bespoke standards are derived from. So if you think we are setting the benchmark, then you are either naive, misinformed or stupid.

 

Again you are talking nonsense with regards to so called "Chinese rubbish" being imported. You have no experience in this area with comments like that. For anything to be sold within the EU (including the UK), it needs to be CE marked. Anything that is CE marked needs to conform with all relevant EU safety legislation for a given product type.

Edited August 14, 2016 by ez8004

[Phanerothyme]

It's certainly a conundrum for the Tories. Half of them are indeed ultra-neoliberals who do indeed favour the free movement of labour, whereas the other half, and of course their UKIP splinter group, are in the populist anti-immigration camp. For all the trauma, the referendum hasn't erased that division.

 

Though I still think it's worth an outside bet that migration will be restricted by the EU itself, given the refugee and terrorism crises. That would spare everyone's blushes

 

 

You make some very good points here.

 

Although they tend to wrap their support for mass immigration in moral hyperbole, 'neo-liberal' Tories have historically been attracted to an 'open door' migration policy because of the bottomless supply of cheap foreign labour it provides, regardless of the consequences for the wages, living standards or the cultural heritage of the indigenous population (or, for that matter, on the 'brain drain' effects on the provider countries). It is significant that, although many Tories opposed the 1948 Nationality Act, which in effect offered an open door into the UK for all citizens within the Empire or Commonwealth (a combined population of around 800 million at the time), the Tories did not immediately repeal this ludicrous piece of legislation when they regained power, probably for the reasons stated above. In the current Tory party, the 'conundrum' you mention is perhaps personified by, on the one hand, 'spreadsheet Phil' Hammond and on the other by David Davis. Only time will tell which strand of Conservative thinking will come out on top in the Brexit negotiations.

 

Incidentally, 'Captain Swing' would probably have been a Brexiter, in that 'his' activists and supporters were seeking to defend their wages, livelihoods and cultural heritage from changes in demand conditions for labour imposed on them by capitalists seeking maximum profit, regardless of the effects on working people.

 

Regarding your other point about the possibility that the EU might itself restrict cross-border migration and also migration from outside the Union, this would be ironic indeed, because had this happened before the 23rd June, the likelihood is that the referendum would have had a different outcome. However, this possibility in my view is based on an underestimation of the inflexibility and dogmatic nature of the EU, which continues to hold free movement as an article of faith, even though the principle was designed for circumstances which are very different to those prevailing today.

 

Great posts. Forum at its best.