The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Ridgewalk]

On the contrary this is a very biased time to hold the referendum since we are dealing with the uncertainly provoked by Brexit, but have yet to enjoy the benefits as they're still 2 years and change away.

But I suspect you know this already.

 

 

"the benefits" ! Jam tomorrow eh ?

[unbeliever]

Nobody is trying to reverse the result of the first referendum. The argument is for a vote of the details of Brexit. A general election would be the sensible and fair way to do it.

 

It's also worth a reminder that as democratic processes go the referendum was not a great success. Farage openly admitted to lying in the campaign. I've no idea what drugs Cameron was on.

 

On the contrary many people are trying to reverse the result of the first referendum.

The plan is, as far as I can tell (and as far as I prefer) to offer as much tariff free trade to the EU as they will agree to. There is also the matter of financial services passports. If the EU refuse then we are entitled to WTO MFN status which means that EU businesses wanting to sell in the UK will pay a lot more to the UK exchequer than UK businesses wanting to sell in the EU will pay into theirs. So that's a net plus for the UK economy and it would be a simple enough matter for the government to return some or all of this extra revenue as a tax cut.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 18:53 ----------

 

"the benefits" ! Jam tomorrow eh ?

 

Well we haven't got our £10bn/year back yet for a start. :pointless_emoticon_substituting_for_reason:

Edited October 14, 2016 by unbeliever

[Ridgewalk]

WE all know that`s highly unlikely, and, one assumes, we`d get worse terms than we`ve got now.

 

 

 

"The Referendum result means whatever the Brexiteers want it to mean". They`re saying the public voted for this and that, most disingenuously of all "the vote was not for a soft Brexit". How the hell would they know ? In fact all the statistics prove they`re wrong. Only 52% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. It can be taken as read that the 48% who voted to remain don`t want a "hard Brexit", so that means that at least 96% of those who voted to leave the EU must have wanted a "hard Brexit". That`s obviously absolute TOSH. I`d bet anyone who wants to take me on that many of those who voted Leave didn`t (and probably don`t even now) know the single market works. Basically the Brexit lobby are the tail that is wagging the Government dog, in a big way. And it`s repugnant. Let`s remember Boris Johnson was given the Foreign Secretary job. A man who has never been thought of as being worth any cabinet post at all. The sole reason, he was a major Brexit supporter.

 

 

Good post. Watched Pfeffel yesterday being questioned during a Select Committee, Chaired by Liz Kendall I think, not sure which one, and his behaviour was schoolboyish in the extreme. The bloke is a man child who seems to see life as a " jolly jape", when in fact his self serving behaviour will have serious consequences for people's lives

[I1L2T3]

There's a fundamental flaw though. Say each party puts forward its manifesto of Brexit terms. Super. We all vote the way we want and first past the post wins. Marvellous.

 

Off they trot to Brussels with their mandate and the other 27 nations say....nope.

 

What happens then?

 

Fair point but I'd imagine something like one party (or more) has a manifesto of signle market access and free movement. Another might have a manifesto of hard Brexit etc...

 

We know people want to leave. It's a case of how and it is profoundly undemocratic to eleiminate people from that process. It will impact the rest of our lives and it shouldn't be left to opportunistic idealogues behaving like demagogues.

[unbeliever]

Fair point but I'd imagine something like one party (or more) has a manifesto of signle market access and free movement. Another might have a manifesto of hard Brexit etc...

 

We know people want to leave. It's a case of how and it is profoundly undemocratic to eleiminate people from that process. It will impact the rest of our lives and it shouldn't be left to opportunistic idealogues behaving like demagogues.

 

This is not unreasonable. Although the last general election was fought with the referendum on the agenda. Do you think there is a majority in the commons for an early general election. As of 30th September Labour were 9 points down in the polls and a motion for an early GE would require their support.

[Litotes]

On the contrary many people are trying to reverse the result of the first referendum.

The plan is, as far as I can tell (and as far as I prefer) to offer as much tariff free trade to the EU as they will agree to. There is also the matter of financial services passports. If the EU refuse then we are entitled to WTO MFN status which means that EU businesses wanting to sell in the UK will pay a lot more to the UK exchequer than UK businesses wanting to sell in the EU will pay into theirs. So that's a net plus for the UK economy and it would be a simple enough matter for the government to return some or all of this extra revenue as a tax cut.

 

Several points here - it was the second referendum which was reversing the result of the first.

 

They might agree to nothing or a very small amount which mean they did not refuse, just limited the amount.

 

WTO MFN status is only a net plus for the UK economy if the total tax of EU companies is greater than that of the UK companies. There is no guarantee that this is the case.

[I1L2T3]

This is not unreasonable. Although the last general election was fought with the referendum on the agenda. Do you think there is a majority in the commons for an early general election. As of 30th September Labour were 9 points down in the polls and a motion for an early GE would require their support.

 

It was fought by the Tories with a referendum on the agenda plus retention of single market access.

 

"We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out. No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference."

 

Now that has changed and it has been changed by May who helped fight the the 2015 election on that platform

 

We should have a fresh election to validate her approach. There's nothing to be scared of. May would most likely win and then the whole thing is put to bed.

[unbeliever]

Several points here - it was the second referendum which was reversing the result of the first.

 

No, because there was no EU at the time. Even if you were right I've already agreed to another referendum in another 40 years.

 

They might agree to nothing or a very small amount which mean they did not refuse, just limited the amount.

 

Not sure how to interpret this.

 

WTO MFN status is only a net plus for the UK economy if the total tax of EU companies is greater than that of the UK companies. There is no guarantee that this is the case.

 

There very much is. The UK's exports to the EU are biases toward services which are tariff free under WTO MFN rules and they operate a large surplus with the UK anyway.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 19:22 ----------

 

It was fought by the Tories with a referendum on the agenda plus retention of single market access.

 

"We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out. No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference."

 

Now that has changed and it has been changed by May who helped fight the the 2015 election on that platform

 

We should have a fresh election to validate her approach. There's nothing to be scared of. May would most likely win and then the whole thing is put to bed.

 

This was surely contingent on winning the referendum, which they lost.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 19:26 ----------

 

We offer to retain tariff free trade not because we need it because they do, and they're our friends. I can't seem them refusing, but if they do it's not really our problem. Moe tax revenue from tariffs is always handy.

[I1L2T3]

This was surely contingent on winning the referendum, which they lost.

 

Not necessarily because leaving the EU did not necessarily mean leaving the single market. The Swiss and Norwegian models were much discussed. In fact leaving the single market was hardly discussed at all pre-referendum. Many of us sussed that Gove's position, for example, could only mean that but it was never made clear in the referendum campaign. It wasnt made clear because it could have scared a lot of the electorate.

 

For sure some people will have interpreted a no vote as meaning a herd Brexit but not everybody will have.

 

The only way to test what people really want is a fresh election, fought on detailed policy sets.

[Santo]

Fair point but I'd imagine something like one party (or more) has a manifesto of signle market access and free movement. Another might have a manifesto of hard Brexit etc...

 

We know people want to leave. It's a case of how and it is profoundly undemocratic to eleiminate people from that process. It will impact the rest of our lives and it shouldn't be left to opportunistic idealogues behaving like demagogues.

 

Yes, I would imagine all manifestos would differ considerably. But the winning party might have a manifesto that is soundly rejected by the EU members when the time comes. In fact we could have a situation where the government has to implement Brexit using essentially what another party had pledged to do in their manifesto.

 

It all seems rather tricky for where I'm standing.

 

Perhaps, because the Tories won an election (pledging the referendum) and are the party in power that 'lost' it they should be the ones to carry its burden. With lots of parliamentary debate and voting where necessary?