Brexit discussion thread II

View · 14-09-2017 11:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

I referred to Leave VOTERS, not the Leave campaign. It was Leave voters who voted and who decided they have had a bellyful of EU immigrants be they new ones or old ones.

Either you respect the Leave voters' opinion and pack your bags or stop your hypocrisy about respecting their vote when you clearly are no more willing to do so than those your criticise on here.

Good evening!

There's no evidence to propose that most leave voters want me to leave. I don't know why you're suggesting that as a serious point on this thread. Most Leave voters I personally know want to control migration not to entirely end it.

Your suggestion that most Leave voters want me in particular to leave is just silly season.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leave voters perceive that there are too many immigrants from the EU in the UK and voted based on that perception. You are one of those too many EU immigrants.

Either stop pontificating to others about respecting Leave voters when you are just going to ignore them or act by leaving thus helping to reduce those "too many" EU immigrants.

Rjd2 · 15-09-2017 03:23AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

There's no evidence to propose that most leave voters want me to leave. I don't know why you're suggesting that as a serious point on this thread. Most Leave voters I personally know want to control migration not to entirely end it.

Your suggestion that most Leave voters want me in particular to leave is just silly season.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Spot on. The vast majority of the elderly vote which ensured leave won was to take back control mantra. I don't agree with that viewpoint but its lazy to say it was just immigration and it gives to much credit to a guy like Farage who was kept away from the main campaign due to how toxic he was viewed.

A lot of other factors at play, people wanting to stick it to the likes of Cameron and the government and a strong anti EU POV which was not entirely exclusive to the right.

Dennis Skinner one of the most left wing MPS was a vocal leave supporter, heck Corbyn took a holiday in the run up to the vote and has shown little interest in challenging or over turning Brexit.

Zubeneschamali · 15-09-2017 07:47AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's no evidence to propose that most leave voters want me to leave.

There's no evidence to propose most Leave voters want the UK to leave the customs union, either, but you are strangely gung-ho for that.

solodeogloria · 15-09-2017 08:03AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There's no evidence to propose most Leave voters want the UK to leave the customs union, either, but you are strangely gung-ho for that.

Good morning!

You mean no evidence apart from the entire premise that the referendum was won on. It was explicitly about taking back control.

Staying in the EU by the back door (this is soft Brexit) isn't leaving. It isn't taking back control. In order to do that you need to leave the single market and the customs union.

Taking control of borders, money (contributions to the EU), and trade policy depends on it.

We don't get to rewrite history when it is convenient. Both sides were clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 15-09-2017 08:22AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You mean no evidence apart from the entire premise that the referendum was won on. It was explicitly about taking back control.

Staying in the EU by the back door (this is soft Brexit) isn't leaving. It isn't taking back control. In order to do that you need to leave the single market and the customs union.

Taking control of borders, money (contributions to the EU), and trade policy depends on it.

That's your interpretation. But there is no more evidence for your interpretation than there is for the interpretation that the vote was a vote for migrants to leave.

solodeogloria wrote: »

We don't get to rewrite history when it is convenient. Both sides were clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

They certainly were not. Even after the vote was taken and the results known, Boris Johnston, to name but one, was still assuring people that the UK could leave the EU but retain the benefits of the single market.

As you say, we don't get to rewrite history when it is convenient. The actual historical facts are that this referendum was put to the people by a government which did not wish to leave the EU, and had no plan to leave the EU, and had developed no proposal about how that would be done, if it were ever done. Different proponents of leaving put forward different vision of how it might be done. The vote was a vote to leave but - actual, definite, verifiable, historic fact here - a vote for nothing else. There was nothing else on the ballot paper.
No coherent or developed proposal for leaving was ever put before the people.

Those who claim that the vote was a vote for a particular Brexit strategy out of the range of possible strategies - which by an amazing coincidence is always the Brexit strategy which they themselves favour - are the ones who are rewriting history. "It was a vote to leave the customs union" is every bit as much of a rewrite as "it was a vote to get rid of migrants".

solodeogloria · 15-09-2017 08:26AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's your interpretation. But there is no more evidence for your interpretation than there is for the interpretation that the vote was a vote for migrants to leave.

They certainly were not. Even after the vote was taken and the results known, Boris Johnston, to name but one, was still assuring people that the UK could leave the EU but retain the benefits of the single market.

As you say, we don't get to rewrite history when it is convenient. The actual historical facts are that this referendum was put to the people by a government which did not wish to leave the EU, and had no plan to leave the EU, and had developed no proposal about how that would be done, if it were ever done. Different proponents of leaving put forward different vision of how it might be done. The vote was a vote to leave but - actual, definite, verifiable, historic fact here - a vote for nothing else. There was nothing else on the ballot paper.
No coherent or developed proposal for leaving was ever put before the people.

Those who claim that the vote was a vote for a particular Brexit strategy out of the range of possible strategies - which by an amazing coincidence is always the Brexit strategy which they themselves favour - are the ones who are rewriting history. "It was a vote to leave the customs union" is every bit as much of a rewrite as "it was a vote to get rid of migrants".

Good morning!

Again if Boris Johnson was arguing that the UK could have access to the single market after Brexit, this isn't the same as arguing for single market membership.

On the remain side they clearly argued that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market.

Taking back control was the overriding message of the leave side of the campaign. The leave campaign were also clear that all EU migrants in the UK could stay after Brexit.

Again - it is rewriting history to claim otherwise.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

15-09-2017 08:27AM

This taking back control trope is so very frustrating.

Will the UK not be pursuing any deals whatsoever (trade/passports/aero/standards recognition) with any other countries once it has left the EU? Will it become a rogue nation on the UN level? If maintaining whole and exclusive 'control' was the goal, than ceding or making moves to share any governance would surely go against such a target.

I am one who listened and had respect and empathy for the sovereignty arguments made (poorly) during the referendum campaign, but the ridiculous lengths to which this trope is now being portrayed is bizarre.

Of coure the answer to both the above questions is no, however the 'control' trope is used to 'fend off' similar arguments.

solodeogloria · 15-09-2017 08:31AM

Good morning!

Julia Wailing Pedal:
I and others have been clear on this issue on this thread. Of course the UK will cooperate with other countries. The obvious issue with the EU from a UK perspective is the amount of control that is required to be handed over. And Juncker wants even more control. No other bloc requires the amount of control that the EU requires and what it will require into the future.

The leave side were right about this. I thought a vote to stay in the EU was a vote for the status quo. It isn't. The EU are looking for more power after Brexit than before.

After the State of the Union address and seeing how little Juncker has actually learned. I'm delighted that the UK will be out in 2019. The other countries are entitled to become federal states of the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

15-09-2017 08:36AM

I am not sure how anyone can with any degree certainty suggest there was 'clarity' regarding the single market.

Surely, surely, the counter factual - that there are countries within the single market but not within the EU - means that it was at the very least ambiguous.

Oh, and of course there were also plenty of useful quotes from the Leave side for remaining within the single market.

http://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

The ahistoricism is not on the part of those that suggest the referendum-determined exit route is unknown I don't think.

mountaintop · 15-09-2017 08:36AM

All this pro leave jargon is nuts. It was the same in the 50s and 60s with the Irish immigrants. It'll always be something for the little minded bigots. Have you're Brexit, and good riddence, but it won't solve one thing!

15-09-2017 08:40AM

The EU are responding to the exit of one of the biggest counter balances to the integration policies which they have maintained since day one.

Were the UK members, their veto could have been exercised to prevent the integration that Juncker has proposed (though of course, he has proposed very little new, other than moves to assist those already in the queue to move closer to accession).

This pretence that the EU is a simple trading bloc, and so the additional rules, structures and legislation that it owns are in any way comparable to an actual trading bloc needs to end. It is intellectualy dishonest to say the least.

solodeogloria · 15-09-2017 08:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure how anyone can with any degree certainty suggest there was 'clarity' regarding the single market.

Surely, surely, the counter factual - that there are countries within the single market but not within the EU - means that it was at the very least ambiguous.

Oh, and of course there were also plenty of useful quotes from the Leave side for remaining within the single market.

http://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

The ahistoricism is not on the part of those that suggest the referendum-determined exit route is unknown I don't think.

Good morning!

Does Norway have control over it's borders or does it have to accept free movement? (the Leave side argued for border controls. Most leave voters agree with this from polling data. Even a lot of remainers do).

Does Norway pay contributions to the EU? (The Leave campaign argued for taking control of money)

Is Norway subject to the rulings of the ECJ (Yes, it is albeit through the EFTA court. The Leave campaign argued for taking control of law)

Norway is only slightly better than present because it is outside of the customs union and able to arrange trade deals.

The Leave campaign and what it was won on wasn't a Norwegian model.

Edit: your last post makes good progress. The reason the UK is leaving is because the EU isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union with harmful aspirations to become a superstate.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 15-09-2017 08:44AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again if Boris Johnson was arguing that the UK could have access to the single market after Brexit, this isn't the same as arguing for single market membership.

Nor is it the same as arguing for leaving the single market.

solodeogloria wrote: »

On the remain side they clearly argued that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market.

Some people on the "leave" side did. Others did not. Neither the government nor the governing party - you know, the people who would actually implement Brexit if the people voted for it - ever said, either way.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Taking back control was the overriding message of the leave side of the campaign.

"Taking back control" is a slogan, solo, not a policy. A country with control of its destiny could exercise that control by choosing to participate in the single market, or by choosing not to participate in the single market (and there are actual real-world examples of both choices being made). So a vote for "taking back control" is neither a vote to participate in the single market nor a vote to leave it. Will you please stop trying to rewrite history on this question?

ambro25 · 15-09-2017 08:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The leave side were right about this. I thought a vote to stay in the EU was a vote for the status quo. It isn't.

Wrong, and I would suggest that you look up the particulars of the deal negotiated by Cameron in February 2016, which would have achieved exactly that at the next TEU/TFEU revision.

You might have missed them, within the mass of misrepresentative reporting about it by the Brexit-stoking press, which was very busy ramping up the anti EU immigration rethoric at the time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are looking for more power after Brexit than before.

Wrong again. The EU is not looking for anything, beyond progressing according to its decades-old mission statement. The EU Member States are looking to cooperate still more closely: they are the union. Not Brussels, or Juncker.

That's because of (really, thanks to-) Brexit, not 'notwithstanding' Brexit.

You should see a message in that common political momentum, about the prospects of Davis in his negotiations with Barnier.

solodeogloria wrote: »

After the State of the Union address and seeing how little Juncker has actually learned.

What you really mean is, Juncker's words don't resonate with the UK position/your bias and at all, so he's wrong/"has not learned"/is a dictator/<insert further usual Leaver tripe trope here>.

solodeogloria · 15-09-2017 08:52AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Taking back control" is a slogan, solo, not a policy. A country with control of its destiny could exercise that control by choosing to participate in the single market, or by choosing not to participate in the single market (and there are actual real-world examples of both choices being made). So a vote for "taking back control" is neither a vote to participate in the single market nor a vote to leave it. Will you please stop trying to rewrite history on this question?

Good morning!

The only one who is trying to rewrite history is you.

The leave campaign were crystal clear about taking back control in a number of specific areas. You don't get to claim that it was just a slogan when they were very clear about which areas they wanted control over.

I was in the UK in 2016. I was living in a pro-Remain borough but nonetheless met a lot of Vote Leave campaigners on the street. They were very clear that the UK would campaign for access to the single market without being a member.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them free movement from the EU would end.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that contributions to the EU would end.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that free trade deals would be possible with other countries (this requires leaving the customs union).

To claim otherwise is rewriting history.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 15-09-2017 08:54AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Both sides were clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

Not only did the Leave side say the UK could leave and stay in the Single Market, they said it was a total lie by Project Fear that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single market.

The Toygraph came out and said openly that the Leave campaign should promise a Norwegian model to take the wind out of Project Fears campaign.

Farage is on video on many occasions praisng the Swiss and Norwegian models.

15-09-2017 09:00AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure how anyone can with any degree certainty suggest there was 'clarity' regarding the single market.

Surely, surely, the counter factual - that there are countries within the single market but not within the EU - means that it was at the very least ambiguous.

Oh, and of course there were also plenty of useful quotes from the Leave side for remaining within the single market.

http://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

The ahistoricism is not on the part of those that suggest the referendum-determined exit route is unknown I don't think.

Good morning!

Does Norway have control over it's borders or does it have to accept free movement? (the Leave side argued for border controls. Most leave voters agree with this from polling data. Even a lot of remainers do).

Does Norway pay contributions to the EU? (The Leave campaign argued for taking control of money)

Is Norway subject to the rulings of the ECJ (Yes, it is albeit through the EFTA court. The Leave campaign argued for taking control of law)

Norway is only slightly better than present because it is outside of the customs union and able to arrange trade deals.

The Leave campaign and what it was won on wasn't a Norwegian model.

Edit: your last post makes good progress. The reason the UK is leaving is because the EU isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union with harmful aspirations to become a superstate.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Article 112 of EEA agreement

Taking control trope

The leave campaigns were (important from a legal and spending perspective!) not a single campaign, nor a single vision, nor a single manifesto, nor can be viewed as a mandate for any of these even if it were!

They were also mutually exclusive upon many issues.

People need to go to great lenghts to find any certainty in all of that.

solodeogloria · 15-09-2017 09:01AM

Good morning!

The last post for today I think! (it really is very very tempting to post)

ambro25 wrote: »

Wrong again. The EU is not looking for anything, beyond progressing according to its decades-old mission statement. The EU Member States are looking to cooperate still more closely: they are the union. Not Brussels, or Juncker.

"Cooperating more closely" is key word for handing more control to European institutions.

It's language that veils what's actually happening. It's like that term "pooling sovereignty". No that's just a key word for handing over control.

The mission statement is dangerous vague nonsense. "Ever closer union" doesn't define the end state. This is why at some point something like Brexit was inevitable. If you don't articulate the end goal then you will reach a point where integration becomes too much.

They should have learned the dangers of too much integration from the Euro crisis. But the response of the EU to everything is to ask member states to hand over even more control.

ambro25 wrote: »

That's because of (really, thanks to-) Brexit, not 'notwithstanding' Brexit.
What you really mean is, Juncker's words don't resonate with the UK position/your bias and at all, so he's wrong/"has not learned"/is a dictator/<insert further usual Leaver tripe trope here>.

What I mean is that Juncker is clearly arguing for a United States of Europe.

If it reaches that point I would be arguing that Ireland should leave too. The impact of corporate tax changes on Ireland in particular would be far worse than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25 · 15-09-2017 09:07AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

"Cooperating more closely" is key word for handing more control to European institutions.

It's language that veils what's actually happening. It's like that term "pooling sovereignty". No that's just a key word for handing over control.

The mission statement is dangerous vague nonsense. "Ever closer union" doesn't define the end state. This is why at some point something like Brexit was inevitable. If you don't articulate the end goal then you will reach a point where integration becomes too much.

Did you ignore, or accidentally miss, the first part of my post #2955 then? Is that why you didn't include it in your quote?

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the relevant aspect of the deal agreed between the the EU and Cameron in February 2016, which formally exempted the UK from the aspiration to “ever closer union”, that was to be confirmed by treaty change:

“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I mean is that Juncker is clearly arguing for a United States of Europe.

So did Leavers' favourite Churchill: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe" (Zurich University, 19 September 1946).

Have a nice day, and I look forward to your eventual reply later on.

Enzokk · 15-09-2017 09:10AM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Spot on. The vast majority of the elderly vote which ensured leave won was to take back control mantra. I don't agree with that viewpoint but its lazy to say it was just immigration and it gives to much credit to a guy like Farage who was kept away from the main campaign due to how toxic he was viewed.

A lot of other factors at play, people wanting to stick it to the likes of Cameron and the government and a strong anti EU POV which was not entirely exclusive to the right.

Dennis Skinner one of the most left wing MPS was a vocal leave supporter, heck Corbyn took a holiday in the run up to the vote and has shown little interest in challenging or over turning Brexit.

Without going to each and every leave voter and getting a truthful answer from them, which may be difficult as well if their reasons for voting leave will be seen as idiotic, we have to guess at the main reasons why people voted leave.

I would guess there are three main argument why people wanted to leave the EU. These may or may not be connected to the EU, but the different factions that supported to leave the EU exploited this as each one argued for a specific point but not the other.

The main argument would be immigration. You heard it from people's mouths in interviews and Nigel had his poster as well. It was to keep the Romanians and Bulgarians, and whoever else, out of the UK as they are taking our jobs.

The second argument that was used is to take back control. The fact that the UK parliament had control all along and the UK could have controlled EU migration more is neither here nor there now. People wanted control back of the borders and their fishing waters and they wanted to negotiate their own trade deals. This argument is a hard brexit argument, but can anyone say for certainty this is what all leave voters wanted?

The third argument is that they wanted to protect the NHS and there was that bus as well. They preyed on peoples fear for the NHS for their own selfish reasons. This is a real low for me. Now if only 3% of leave voters confirm they believed the bus and will vote differently had they known the truth about it the result is different.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nor is it the same as arguing for leaving the single market.

Some people on the "leave" side did. Others did not. Neither the government nor the governing party - you know, the people who would actually implement Brexit if the people voted for it - ever said, either way.

"Taking back control" is a slogan, solo, not a policy. A country with control of its destiny could exercise that control by choosing to participate in the single market, or by choosing not to participate in the single market (and there are actual real-world examples of both choices being made). So a vote for "taking back control" is neither a vote to participate in the single market nor a vote to leave it. Will you please stop trying to rewrite history on this question?

It was a attack on the EU from different sides where each side just attacked what they wanted to, even if it actually meant they are against other the other Leave campaigns. Take the official vote Leave with their bus, they still said you can have EU benefits and not be in the EU. That was against Nigel Farage who wants to close the borders. But they didn't attack Nigel and his point of view, even if it directly contradicts their own. You didn't see Daniel Hannan attacking those that wanted to leave the single market, he only reaffirmed that the UK would not be leaving the single market. Owen Patterson said only a madman would leave the single market, yet this is exactly what is happening now.

But apparently you have to respect the wishes of the electorate. I do wonder if a country voted to bring back slavery and persecution of minorities if the message would be, well they voted for it so we have to respect it? We know there would be condemnation from almost all nations and pressure on the ruler to reverse such a terrible decision, why this is now being portrayed as such a terrible evil I don't know.

Zubeneschamali · 15-09-2017 09:15AM

Enzokk wrote: »

You didn't see Daniel Hannan attacking those that wanted to leave the single market, he only reaffirmed that the UK would not be leaving the single market. Owen Patterson said only a madman would leave the single market, yet this is exactly what is happening now.

Even Farage is on record many times praising the Norwegian and Swiss models.

Peregrinus · 15-09-2017 09:20AM

Enzokk wrote: »

. . . But apparently you have to respect the wishes of the electorate.

I think you do have to respect the wishes of the electorate. But, if you take that principle seriously, you have to find out what the wishes of the electorate are. The only thing the electorate were asked is whether they wanted the UK to leave the EU. They were not asked about the single market, the customs union, immigration, the jurisdiction of the ECJ or a host of other issues. Perhaps they ought to have been asked, and they almost certainly would have been asked if the referendum had been conducted in a country with a basic clue about how to conduct referenda, but we can't rewrite history at this point. The people were asked what they were asked. And you rightly point to the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the campaign to underline why we can't interpret their answer as meaning anything more than what it says.

Those who claim a mandate for their own particular preferences, and who try to bridge the yawning chasm between what the people voted for and what they themselves now want done by pointing to three-word campaign slogans, do their cause no favours. The argument they advance is patent nonsense, and the fact that they choose to advance patent nonsense suggests that they have no stronger arguments to advance.

Calina · 15-09-2017 09:25AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I mean is that Juncker is clearly arguing for a United States of Europe.

If it reaches that point I would be arguing that Ireland should leave too. The impact of corporate tax changes on Ireland in particular would be far worse than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Tbqh solo if you have thrown in your hat with Brexit Britain, I would take the view that you have no right to be campaigning from outside the EU to get Ireland to leave too.

You have already abdicated your care for Ireland in discussions on the Irish border and in arguing for Brexit which is deeply damaging to a) the border area and b) food producers in Ireland as a whole. You have not demonstrated interest in the well being of Ireland at all in arguing for Brexit despite claiming to have voted in favour of remain.

Brexit is damaging to Ireland. Leaving the EU would also be damaging for Ireland which punches far above its weight diplomatically and economically as witnessed by being able to making the border a redline issue in the Brexit negotiations.

Supporting Brexit and arguing that you would campaign for Ireland to leave too is...well it definitely is not in Irish interests. You live in the U.K. You are even privileged enough to have a vote there which most EU citizens do not. You have bolted your interests to the UK. You won't be living in the EU and you will have no right to be telling people in the EU - i.e. Ireland - what policies they should be following particularly as they have the right to self determination, you know, like you keep shouting about Britain's democratic vote.

It seems to me lots of British based and British Brexit supporters, even the ones who voted remain, like you, do not understand that leaving the EU means leaving the EU and losing the right to influence what happens in the EU. It ceases to be your business. You voted to leave. This does not give you the right to interfere.

Professor Moriarty · 15-09-2017 09:29AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you do have to respect the wishes of the electorate. But, if you take that principle seriously, you have to find out what the wishes of the electorate are. The only thing the electorate were asked is whether they wanted the UK to leave the EU. They were not asked about the single market, the customs union, immigration, the jurisdiction of the ECJ or a host of other issues. Perhaps they ought to have been asked, and they almost certainly would have been asked if the referendum had been conducted in a country with a basic clue about how to conduct referenda, but we can't rewrite history at this point. The people were asked what they were asked. And you rightly point to the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the campaign to underline why we can't interpret their answer as meaning anything more than what it says.

Those who claim a mandate for their own particular preferences, and who try to bridge the yawning chasm between what the people voted for and what they themselves now want done by pointing to three-word campaign slogans, do their cause no favours. The argument they advance is patent nonsense, and the fact that they choose to advance patent nonsense suggests that they have no stronger arguments to advance.

This^

ambro25 · 15-09-2017 09:35AM

Calina wrote: »

<...>

It seems to me lots of British based and British Brexit supporters, even the ones who voted remain, like you, do not understand that leaving the EU means leaving the EU and losing the right to influence what happens in the EU. It ceases to be your business. You voted to leave. This does not give you the right to interfere.

Implementing the leave vote effectively strips the UK of their TEU-given right to interfere in anything EU and SM.

As you correctly noted, too few Leavers understand that nuance. Still fewer understood it before the vote. They'd have to have an understanding of international (and communal) relationships bereft of any nativist bias to do so.

I seem to recall you're based in LU? By the sounds still coming from my flavour-of-the-month headhunter, I might be joining you before long

demfad · 15-09-2017 10:23AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

.....If it reaches that point I would be arguing that Ireland should leave too. The impact of corporate tax changes on Ireland in particular would be far worse than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First of all if there is a Brexit with no deal or no transition the above statement will prove to be nonsense even before Brexit. There would need to be a massive border infrastructure in place to handle just the tariffs never mind the non trade barriers arising from no agreement with the EU (us). Delays importing and exporting from the UK will cripple our economy.

At some stage we will most likely have to align our tax regime. The key is a smooth transition to this situation while building on the other facets that make Ireland attractive and while diversifying our economy. KInd of like what should be happening next door.

demfad · 15-09-2017 10:36AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you do have to respect the wishes of the electorate.

Good post but don't agree with this ^^ . There was a high court case and a supreme court case won by Gina Miller which stated that the wishes of the UK parliament must be respected not the executive (obviously not the results of the advisory referendum).
If the UK parliament decides to Brexit, then those wishes should be respected, if they decide not to, the same. It is an MP's job to represent his constituents. That means acting in their best interests. If she/he feels that leaving the EU is decidely not in their best interest taking into account advice from referendum result (52/48), then she/he must reject Brexit.

steddyeddy · 15-09-2017 11:44AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

On the remain side they clearly argued that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Morning!

So your logic is that the leave side won but they were planning to take on the recommendations of the remain side?

Lemming · 15-09-2017 12:51PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The only one who is trying to rewrite history is you.

No, it's you. Why? Read on ...

The leave campaign were crystal clear about taking back control in a number of specific areas. You don't get to claim that it was just a slogan when they were very clear about which areas they wanted control over.

Which leave campaign? There were two.
Which specific areas were "they" (see above) clear about? I saw none of that on the ballot paper on which I was asked to answer a question of childlike simplicity.

I was in the UK in 2016. I was living in a pro-Remain borough but nonetheless met a lot of Vote Leave campaigners on the street. They were very clear that the UK would campaign for access to the single market without being a member.

You were in the UK in 2016? OOOOOOoo Congratulations to you sir! Whoppty do. Would you like a medal for that accolade? Guess what?!!!!!1111111 I was in the UK in 2016 too! And for several years before that for good measure. Can I have a medal too?

On a less caustic note; so a load of random campaigners told you what the leave campaign (which campaign?) policies were. I suppose you remember the names and positions of said campaigners as to the authority on which they spoke to you?

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them free movement from the EU would end.

Some people. But that's not what we were asked to vote on.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that contributions to the EU would end.

Some people. But that's not what we were asked to vote on.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that free trade deals would be possible with other countries (this requires leaving the customs union).

Some people. But that's not what we were asked to vote on.

To claim otherwise is rewriting history.

Says the man (?) trying to rewrite history.

Fratton Fred · 15-09-2017 01:39PM

demfad wrote: »

Good post but don't agree with this ^^ . There was a high court case and a supreme court case won by Gina Miller which stated that the wishes of the UK parliament must be respected not the executive (obviously not the results of the advisory referendum).
If the UK parliament decides to Brexit, then those wishes should be respected, if they decide not to, the same. It is an MP's job to represent his constituents. That means acting in their best interests. If she/he feels that leaving the EU is decidely not in their best interest taking into account advice from referendum result (52/48), then she/he must reject Brexit.

that's an interesting issue. Do they represent their constituents, or do they do what they think best?

This is an interview with Harriet Harman where she explains why Labour chose to support the referendum in the first place.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32863749

if you choose to take the unusual step of consulting the general population by way of a referendum, surely you are then pretty much obligated to act on the result of that referendum, regardless of whether or not you think it is a wise decision?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments