Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Brexit
Brexit Voting [29 vote(s)]

Voted Leave - Would Still Vote Leave
20.7%
Voted Leave - Would Now Vote Remain
0.0%
Voted Remain - Would Still Vote Remain
75.9%
Voted Remain - Would Now Vote Leave
0.0%
Didn't Vote - Would Now Vote Leave
0.0%
Didn't Vote - Would Now Vote Remain
3.4%
Other
0.0%


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 12949
Date:
Brexit


One of the other major doubts I have about the proposal relates to the Facilitated Customs Agreement. From what I have seen, this means that when goods are bound for the UK but entering via the EU, the EU will have to collect our tax at their border, and the reverse would be true for goods entering through the UK, bound for Europe.

This seems an incredibly complex arrangement and will be very hard to monitor. One of my pet hates in this world is the large corporate companies finding loopholes in legislation to avoid paying their fair share in tax. This Facilitated Customs Arrangement looks like it could become a Corporate Smugglers dream world with a million ways to avoid the tariffs and tax that they should really be paying.

Also, what incentive is there for the EU to collect our taxes. If they just let goods pass through their territory without collecting our tax, what do they lose ?

This maybe a system that looks good on paper, but in the real world it will be a disaster to administrate and as usual the large companies will benefit to the detriment of Joe Taxpayer.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 12949
Date:

Sitting here with my foot strapped up, can't go out, can't drive. So what better to cheer me up than a good ol' Brexit rant.

Interesting poll taken by Sky News which was released today. Now before I go any further, I do note that if the last few elections/referendums are anything to go by, polls can be wildly inaccurate. But if it gives me my excuse for a rant, all well and good.

You will find the full details of the results here.

www.klfm967.co.uk/news/uk-news/2645493/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals/

news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

But here are a few summary stats.

Question: Do you think Brexit will be good/bad for the UK economy

Good: 35%
Bad: 52%

Do you think there should be a 2nd referendum

Yes: 50%
No: 40%

If there was a referendum with a "transferable vote" format (as per the Justine Greening suggestion), how would you vote

1st Round

Remain: 48%
Leave with No Deal: 27%
Accept Chequers Deal: 13%
Wouldn't vote/Don't know: 11%

Eliminate last two options above and apply 2nd preference votes

Remain: 59%
Leave with no deal: 41%

I really do think that the argument for a 2nd referendum is getting stronger by the day. I know that the government is saying that it has ruled this out "under any circumstances" but at this stage they have to do that, otherwise they completely destroy any negotiating position that they have. It would simply encourage the EU to give us the worst deal possible (or no deal at all) so as to gamble on a Remain vote at the 2nd referendum. After all, that is what they want.

I also understand Strongbow's comment that you can't keep rerunning a referendum until you get the result you want. It is an argument I have used on many occasions against an IndyRef2 in Scotland. But I do believe that if there is a dramatic change in circumstances, then a 2nd vote is justified. For example, with regard to IndyRef2, were the UK to go ahead with Brexit, it would be a fundamental change to Scotland's situation, specifically when 62% of Scots voted to Remain in the EU. For me, I hope they don't leave the UK and I am not saying the result of an IndyRef2 would be different to the first one, but I do believe that using the departure from the from the EU as a reason for a 2nd vote would be a valid and justifiable argument.

Where the EU Referendum was concerned, people would argue that there hasn't been any significant change to the position. I would disagree. What has changed is the public's understanding of what Brexit actually entails, and the potential consequences, be they positive or negative, of the decision.

I hear plenty of Brexiteers arguing that people knew what they were voting for - namely to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and Leave the Single Market. This is partially correct and I accept that most people understood that when they voted. But they were ALSO told that these institutional and business structures would be replaced by a Free Trade Deal (the easiest in history according to Liam Fox), meaning that the effect on trade between the UK and the EU would continue with negligible negative effect.

I am also aware that there are many Brexiteers who want to leave under any circumstances. Those people are entitled to that opinion. But I also believe that there are a substantial number of people, whom if they were told that there would be NO free trade deal, would have voted differently.

The lure of being able to build on our trade with the EU by signing our own independent trade deals with the rest of the world is a very tempting position. But the gamble of LOSING/DIMINISHING the trade with the EU and hoping to replace it with other trade deals is a completely different proposition, so if there is No Deal on offer (as I suspect will be the case), a 2nd referendum is IMO absolutely justified.

Oh well. What will be will be. If you've read this far, thank you and congratulations. You must be as bored as I am today LOL.

__________________


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1787
Date:

Leave won the referendum. No main political party strongly wanted to leave, nor much media, the city etc etc. It was the people that voted. Brexit has not been handled with much positivity and, I think largely gone quite badly. If after what ever happens we do not meaningfully leave....I wonder how history will judge this? I don't mean whether its what you want, just what should have happened in a democratic country when a result was made.

There is still a great deal of "well leave was wrong", "they didn't understand" "it was unfair, unclear, poorly explained" But those that voted leave are not wrong in the sense that they won.

If you wanted to leave and were on the winning side of the referendum, if it does not meaningfully happen from that persons point of view democracy if utterly finished. That covers a significant number of people. What does that hold for the future or, are people so not bothered as long as we don't leave?

__________________

 



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 12949
Date:

I have heard similar arguments but I do struggle to see how asking the people to vote on the final deal is undemocratic.

In simple terms my point of view is this. (I am assuming here that no deal is struck which is what I believe will be the case)

Intially the question was "Do you want to stay in Europe or leave and trade with them under a free trade deal".

I see no harm (and certainly nothing undemocratic) in going back to the people and saying "The option you voted for is no longer available. We now have Remain or No Deal as options. Which do you want?"

If people still vote for Leave under those circumstances, I will hate it but I will certainly respect it.







__________________


Lower Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Date:

Oh I love a good Brexit rant so let me go off a bit...

 

I feel the only argument anyone really has left is thats that it was the will of people etc which isnt a great start because I wanted the unicorns that were promised. 

 
The people have spoken, its the will of the people and this is democracy. These are three arguments used to dismiss anyone who has any concerns about Brexit and Im just going to break them all down. The will of the people tends to change, especially as more information continues to show how bad the economic consequences of leaving the EU will be- even with a trade deal the North Easts economy is likely to shrink by 11%!!!!! and 16% if we crash out (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/last-truth-brexit-devastate-north-14260552.amp). Additionally to this it seems there was likely involvement from companies such as Cambridge analytica and individuals such as Aaron Banks who funded LeaveEU appears to have had meetings with Russian officials multiple times before the referendum vote (https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting). It is also still very unclear where he has made all of his money, in not saying these two facts are linked but...(https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/peter-geoghegan-adam-ramsay/we-need-to-talk-about-arron). I understand there are flaws to this- how much influence did the group really have? The leave campaign also continued to advertise for Brexit during the days after Jo Cox was murdered despite agreement that both sides would stop campaigning. These days (from 17th-20th June) are when the polls started to shift towards a leave vote. Coincidence? While this isnt technically breaking the law it is still gross behaviour? I know no one thinks theyve been duped but theres a reason these companies put so much money in advertising!! It works!! If there has been foreign interference in our democracy though, surely that is the true threat on our sovereignty and democratic society, not the EU? I mean throw in the fact that there has literally been a civilian killed on our streets by a Russian nerve agent so lets leave our closest allies and (attempt to) become closer aligned to the USA who..well, has Donald Trump. Great. 
 
Im aware that the EU isnt perfect and does have its flaws, however, it is better than any current alternative. During the referendum campaign and since, immigration has been seen as a key issue for leavers and the EU was bringing turkey in and we were going to get swamped!!!! Conversely, article 7 in the official journal of the EU states that 

  All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they: 

A) are workers or self employed persons in the host member state; or 

B) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004L0038R%2801%29). I personally think freedom of movement is a good thing- as shown by EU immigrants giving more money to the state than taking- results vary dependent on expert but it is still widely accepted as true (https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/). But as article 7 states, the member state has the prerogative to ask people from the EU to leave the UK if they are considered a strain on the state after three months. However, no Labour or Conservative government has ever implemented these very laws. This is particularly ironic as despite the screams that parliamentary sovereignty was the most important thing, it seems that our own parliament have chosen not to implement laws that (apparently) the majority of Brits would support. This law being introduced while we stay in the single market, the customs union, the Galileo project and Euratom, amongst many others, seems preferable to going it alone, no?

 

The unelected bureaucrats in Brussels is another...interesting line which is often used. Is it the EUs fault that just 35% of people turned out to vote MEPs in to the European Parliament? (http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm). It is that Parliament which makes a codecision with the Commission to determine whether the legislation should go to the council of ministers (technically elected too). While its a messy system, the UK has only been on the losing side 2% in its history (https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/). This is hardly a grave injustice that warrants us to not even have a seat at the table. 

 

While I know personal jibes are not the way to win an argument. Why is Jacob Rees-Mogg given such a platform when he, himself has invested in a Russian bank which the EU has sanctioned since 2014 (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/20/rees-mogg-criticised-over-firms-russian-bank-investment). Does this not count as a conflict of interests? I cant comprehend how this isnt a huge issue that just seems to be ignored? 

 

I still dont get the appeal of Brexit. Unwavering nationalism in the face of adversity (and facts) seems so daft in 2018, yet here we are, in the land of Brexit and Trump. Leaving the EU will not solve any issues the country has, only worsen them, thus allowing only a privileged few to thrive. Imagine if all the time and money being put into Brexit and been focused elsewhere? Is this really worth it? 

 

Ready to be reassured that it will be ok x



__________________


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1787
Date:

Bob in Spain wrote:


Intially the question was "Do you want to stay in Europe or leave and trade with them under a free trade deal".


 Bob.  You are hugely popular on this board, also with myself!  But do you really, really believe that that was the question that was put to the people or one that you are judging how we should go forward on now?



__________________

 



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 33989
Date:

Shhh wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:


Intially the question was "Do you want to stay in Europe or leave and trade with them under a free trade deal".


 Bob.  You are hugely popular on this board, also with myself!  But do you really, really believe that that was the question that was put to the people or one that you are judging how we should go forward on now?


I agree with Bob and Jajon (who makes lots of good, detailed points that few people ever seem to have realised, let alone taken on board) and I'd say it's pretty undeniable that Bob's characterisation of the question is how it was sold by the leave campaign, particularly to the swing voters in the middle, even if the idea of a trade deal (or not) wasn't specifically included in the question. It's surely ludicrous for the leavers to claim, as many of them now do, that everyone who voted leave wanted the no-deal option, and the poll Bob quotes clearly backs that up.

Re. the transferable vote idea: encouraging as the poll results are, I'd guess there's a bit of a paradox here, in that the least popular first preference option (leave with the Chequers deal) might well be by far the most popular second preference, so the result might well be different if you're trying to make the most people happy than it would be if you were trying make the fewest people seriously unhappy - the latter approach would imply cutting the option with the most 3rd/no preference votes first instead of the option with the fewest first preference votes.

I realise that paradox wouldn't be an issue if one option got 50%+ first preference votes (or even just below 50%, since people may see May's fudge as the worst of both worlds and put remain and no deal 1st and 2nd, in either order) but we can't assume now that the poll Bob cites would reflect the %s by the time such a referendum was held, or even that it accurately reflected the population as a whole at the time it was taken.

While I don't think issues this complicated should ever be put to referenda (after all, what do we elect MPs for if it's not because they should then have the time to consider the most complex issues in the round, with ample access to information), given that we had one and it's very clear that leave voters can't agree what they actually voted on, I don't see that it could safely be either confirmed or reversed without another referendum. If some form of leave won the second referendum, I'd accept it ... as long as the franchise had been extended to include those most likely to be affected (e.g. Bob), many of whom were disenfranchised the first time round, which to my mind was one of the biggest scandals of the lot.



__________________

GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!

GB top 25s (ranks, whereabouts) & stats - http://www.britishtennis.net/stats.html



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 12949
Date:

Shhh wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:


Intially the question was "Do you want to stay in Europe or leave and trade with them under a free trade deal".


 Bob.  You are hugely popular on this board, also with myself!  But do you really, really believe that that was the question that was put to the people or one that you are judging how we should go forward on now?


Firstly, thank you for your compliment. The board is full of great people and it is certainly not my intention to upset anyone.

I know I can be heavily biased on this issue.  I have a real axe to grind given that I stand to lose everything that I have worked for over nearly 20 years to build a life for myself here in Spain, as a result of a ballot in which I was deemed ineligible to vote.  Reassurances that I hear from politicians that "citizens rights will be protected as part of any deal" mean nothing at all as I also hear, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".  A No Deal scenario could spell life changing disaster for me personally and so it would be safe to say that I am extremely stressed out over the situation and maybe that is colouring my interpretation.

In answer to your question, I accept that was not the direct question that was put to the people on the ballot paper, but I also believe that some people voted Leave because that was the vision being sold to them by Brexiteers.  I have already quoted the Liam Fox Brexit sales pitch about "the easiest trade deal in history".  Should that vision not come to fruition, I believe that those people should be given the chance to reevaluate. 

Given that I am not in the UK, perhaps I am not in the best position to judge the real motives behind why people voted Leave.  So can I, in good faith, also ask you a question.

Do you think that if Leave had fought the campaign on the basis that "We are leaving the EU. There will be no trade deal between the UK and the EU and all such trade will be subject to tariffs under WTO rules with all the additional costs and administrative burdens that this will bring", would the result have been the same ?  Perhaps it would, but I am not convinced.  That is why I believe that once the final situation is clarified, people should be given the chance to have a more informed vote.

 

 



__________________


Pro player

Status: Offline
Posts: 1005
Date:

Bob, what have you done to your foot!?

Also, I hate Brexit with a fiery passion. I'm in Scotland so I feel duped from IndyRef (oh please stay said everyone else) and now Brexit is going to me and a significant amount of other Scots out of the EU and Europe which we did not vote for.

I am sick, sick, sick of voting (we had general elections, IndyRef, Brexit and Scottish Govt elections one after the other, I'm all electioned out) and the lies and the politicians. I also kinda blame Labour here, they did NOTHING to present a 'remain' argument, only the SNP and Lib Dems did I think and who has forgiven the Lib Dems for Clegg and tuition fees?

It's all a bl**dy mess and I wish I had some Irish in me somewhere but I don't and nor do I want to leave Scotland. So I'm stuck with whatever happens.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 13557
Date:

Bob - the remainers are just filling the news with lots of scare stories. You will not be impacted too much.

The EU are stringing the deals out to scare off more potential countries that want to leave and break up the EU.
The majority of the arrangements are in place.NI has a fall back and if no trade deal is agreed(it will, it in both countries interests) then WTO rules is not that bad an option. It is what we use for the rest of the world.

Don't worry.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 12949
Date:

Paulisi - Thanks for the reassurance and I do hope you are right but no deal technically means end to freedom of movement and that is what worries me. Doubt I will relax totally until this is all over.

Flamingo Wings - Nothing to serious, thanks. Been pushing it too hard on the exercise bike. Lots of inflammation in the metatarsals. Foot strapped up to the hilt. Supposed to rest and not drive for 3 days. Toughest part is trying to shower with my foot in a plastic bag.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 26483
Date:

Bob, I don't know about Spain but I don't think there will be an Armaggedon scenario when (would like to say if) we leave the EU - I have some faith in the other EU countries: certainly France has seemed very fair in saying how it will protect the rights of Britons living in France (which unfortunately does not cover me but does cover most of the others who are in a precarious position otherwise).

However, as to the economy and trade deals - yes, disaster.

Isn't is 44% of the UK trade exports go to the EU? And a lot of our other exports to other countries are covered by EU bloc regulations (makes it easy for everyone). Those also will all collapse the minute we are no longer in the EU.

And, no, we won't have new trade deals really quickly and neatly with other countries. We've already had a couple of years to put them in place and, surprise, we have put in place precisely zero. And that's because, as you say, it takes ages.

I was talking to an old member of the Irish trade ministry (who had also worked in Switzerland) and knew about negotiating trade treaties firsthand in both countries. He said that the amount of time needed for each one was huge, completely underestimated by the politicians who are prattling on about these emperor new clothes trade deals we're supposed to have. Just not feasible.

And services (our biggest sector) is being ignored. Financial services are a very large part of our GDP (over 10%) and are being ignored.

I think (and pray/hope) that you will be OK in your personal situation. But I think the country and its economy will be severely hit.

NB If the Remainers had won, and then it was found out a few months afterwards, that the EU were going to grant membership to Russia and Turkey and Algeria, and that politicians hadn't told anybody that when they'd had the referendum, do you think the vote would have been valid? Personally, no. SO given the Bexiteers broke the funding rules (which are there to ensure a fair vote), and the politicians blatantly lied about what the vote would give the people, I have no trouble with the 'undemocratic-ness' of another vote.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 12949
Date:

It's Sunday. I'm bored again waiting for LUFC to kick off, so I thought I would stir the Brexit pot a little. wink

Here is a previously unseen (by me anyway) clip of Brexiteer in Chief, Mr Jacob Rees Mogg

https://twitter.com/MarieAnnUK/status/1026020128155201537

#PeoplesVote



__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard