Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Legal request to stop prorogation has been denied:

Judge refuses to halt parliament suspension plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49521132

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst we know there were false promises during the Referendum such as the £350M NHS rubbish and immigration issues I don’t believe (but open to correction) there were any “easiest deal in history” promises made in the campaign or indeed and specific promises around a deal. And even if there was were they official Referendum promises or just political rubbish spouted out for the media?

I'm not sure how you can differentiate between the media and the people who consume that media. But there was lots of talk of 'easiest deal in history' from the likes of David Davis, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson on the government side and Farage et al outside of that. A quick twitter or google search would find all this. The laughable part of all this is that people defending their current 'no deal' stance are using the remain literature as proof that that's where they got the idea.

Here's one example.

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, and the public indicated to Parliament they wanted to leave, not they wanted to leave but only if we got a deal.

As I stated previously I’m only playing devils advocate, but the over-riding point is that there was no option in the first instance to vote on deal or no deal so when people state “they voted to leave”, but “they didn’t vote to leave without a deal” it is not really an accurate argument to make because there was never a question of them voting on such a point.

You can't separate the vote from the campaign. It's never been done in the history of elections. If campaigns had no effect on how people voted, politicians and parties wouldn't be spending millions on them. That the question was simplistic, just means that the campaigns had to fill in the gaps. And the same talking points that were raised during the campaign are still being trotted out today. "Taking back control", "Sovereignty" and "Our borders" etc.

GM228 wrote: »

Most EU states had a VAT type system long before the EU.

The UK has had such long before EU membership, it was just called a "Purchase Tax" before being renamed VAT when they joined the EU. It was introduced in 1940 to help the war effort, but remained until being renamed VAT in 1973 to comply with EU requirements, it was also a lot dearer than the EU VAT.

Nitpick: Purchase tax was quite a different system to VAT, not just a different name for a similar tax.

It was similar in that it was an expenditure tax which was included in the price of goods but in other respects it was quite different. In particular it was only charged at the point of manufacture, import or distribution, and was calculated on the wholesale price of the goods. Value added further down the chain was not taxed. It only applied to goods considered to be "luxury goods", and different rates applied dependind on the degree of luxuriousness.

VAT was invented by the EU, but many non-EU countries have adopted it. The UK would be free to abandon it after Brexit, but SFAIK there are no proposals to do so.

InTheShadows wrote: »

Clutching at straws

The UK is implementing the democratic will of its citizens and leaving in a few weeks.

Fantastic. Can't wait til they're gone. The UK now is like the obnoxious drunk at the party who just doesn't know when to leave.

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst we know there were false promises during the Referendum such as the £350M NHS rubbish and immigration issues I don’t believe (but open to correction) there were any “easiest deal in history” promises made in the campaign or indeed and specific promises around a deal. And even if there was were they official Referendum promises or just political rubbish spouted out for the media?

While I hate going over and over the "how should the Referendum have been run" debate (now ancient history :rolleyes: ) I can't let this pass as this was the fundamental flaw in the whole process. The Referendum was proposed by the government as a vote to change nothing, so it was in itself a promise to maintain all existing deals.

That went against every variation of common sense and good practice, leaving the door open for pro-Brexit supporters to make every vague promise they wanted (including, yes, the assertion that a post Brexit deal would be the easiest in history [see Led by Donkeys for multiple examples]) When the government belatedly started to counter these exaggerated claims with fact-based warnings, they were all dismissed as Project Fear by the now highly energised Leave campaign.

Your comparison with other referendums is inappropriate, because they ask for a vote on a single specific article of the constitution, e.g. in Ireland "allow abortion or not allow abortion", in Switzerland "align gun laws with those of the EU or not align". It is easy to subsequently debate and enact legislation on these specific points because it's unlikely to affect any other part of the country's socio-political landscape. Regardless of the decision, life goes on.

That was never going to be the case with the Brexit referendum: Britain's relationship with the EU had become so entwined over forty years that a vote to Leave would affect everyone in many different ways, whether they understood that or not. It was an idiotic choice to put to the people in a simplistic form, and it was an idiotic decision to frame the question "the wrong way round" - handing all the cards (most of them Jokers) to the other side. The ultimate irony is that, having voted to Leave, Britain made the same mistake again, handing all their cards to the EU - only this time they're all Aces.

Enzokk wrote: »

I see a couple of problems with this, the EU has been put in a tough position by Johnson by framing no-deal as their choice and fault and that they are refusing to negotiate. This seems to have worked as there will be ongoing meetings with the UK to get the same deal. So that has worked well for the UK.

Here on Planet Earth, is was Johnson who loudly announced that he would not talk to the EU until they dropped the backstop. These twice a week talks are a total climbdown.

Meanwhile the EU has been open to negotiation on the content of the Political Declaration all along. It is the WA which they will not negotiate. There is no sign, none, that they have changed that longstanding position.

None of this is or will work out well for the UK.

Rory Stewart now waking up to the fact that I have been saying - that the ERG will not support any WA ( this is exactly why Steve Baker would not take the Govt junior ministry..... interesting that the moggster is still in )

https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1167361989863202816

Shelga wrote: »

Legal request to stop prorogation has been denied:

Judge refuses to halt parliament suspension plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49521132

This was for the Scottish court to issue an interdict (injunction) pending the full case that was scheduled to take place on the 6th. The judge refused the interdict but brought the case forward to Tuesday

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that the Irish government talking about what would happen in a no-deal situation could ever have been spun into Ireland accepting a no-deal.

I think it is simpler than that. The Government know for a fact that No Deal is utterly, instantly disastrous for the UK and therefore can't last long even if the UK are bonkers enough to try it.

There is no point in pissing everyone off, North and South of the border, by talking about checks and infrastructure when No Deal can't last more then a week or two.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Your comparison with other referendums is inappropriate, because they ask for a vote on a single specific article of the constitution, e.g. in Ireland "allow abortion or not allow abortion", in Switzerland "align gun laws with those of the EU or not align". It is easy to subsequently debate and enact legislation on these specific points because it's unlikely to affect any other part of the country's socio-political landscape. Regardless of the decision, life goes on.

There is a further difference, in Ireland the nature of the abortion legislation to follow the referendum was clear. In Switzerland, the EU gun laws were clear that you were aligning with. In both cases fruther change was possible in the future, but the immediate implications of the the vote were clear.



The problem with Brexit is not only the widespread nature of the impact but the complete absence before the referendum of a plan for post Brexit arrangements. This lack of clariy was entirely deliberate, of course.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I think FF have a bit of a point here.

My one criticism of the government is that they should have been more upfront about the consequences if the UK refuses to honour it's no-hard-border guarantee by committing to the backstop, or something equally effective.

Letting people think that we could still avoid a hard border in that scenario played into the Brexiters' hands by giving them a basis for arguing that the backstop wasn't necessary/had a sinister purpose. And it discouraged business and people in Ireland from considering the prospect of a hard border, and how it might affect them, and what plans they might make to mitigate damage in that situation.

I don't think that the Irish government talking about what would happen in a no-deal situation could ever have been spun into Ireland accepting a no-deal. You can turn every talking about what would happen in no-deal into a diatribe against no-deal and a restatement of the need for the UK not to force it on us.

That's very naive. The Irish line is that the border is effectively unmanageable without an agreement, but if the Irish government laid out plans on how it was going to manage it without a deal it would fundamentally undermine their argument.

You can see bits of this where it's been leaked about how the border might be managed if the UK leaves without the WA - UK politicians have then turned around an said that the Irish have a plan and that the backstop is a trap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can only be changed by unanimous agreement of the UK and the other member states of the EU. In practice this means that the UK has to request an amendment, and the EU-27 have to agree unanimously to give it.

Well, no: unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.


There is nothing at all to stop the Council agreeing that they will offer, say, a 2 year take-it-or-leave-it fixed extension, and put it to the UK to accept or reject it. There is nothing there to say they must wait for the UK to request it first.

VinLieger wrote: »

they cannot come cap in hand to the EU asking to get the WA as it wont exist anymore.

They will come cap in hand looking for food and medicine.

Water John wrote: »

Well Johnson has stepped up the talks with the EU. It's really urgent to get a deal before Oct 31st, so they'll now meet, twice a week!!!

Merkel must have dropped the backstop.

Boris definitely wasn't going to negotiate while the backstop was on the table.............