Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
I stopped reading after the first line......'We will be able to kick out those who make our laws' ..................a dog whistle of majestic proportions
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I stopped reading after the first line......'We will be able to kick out those who make our laws' ..................a dog whistle of majestic proportions
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
for the Bennite breed as well as many othersI stopped reading after the first line......'We will be able to kick out those who make our laws' ..................a dog whistle of majestic proportions
wuff
Last edited:
Rascal
El Presidente
You've posted this 'promise' three times now and those are the only occasions I've ever heard of it! I suppose it's from stuff like this -
A summary
- We end the supremacy of EU law and the European Court. We will be able to kick out those who make our laws.
- Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. We will take back the power to negotiate our own trade deals.
- Third, we will have a new UK-EU trading relationship. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The heart of what we all want is the continuation of tariff-free trade with minimal bureaucracy. Countries as far away as Australia have Mutual Recognition agreements with the EU that deal with complex customs (and other ‘non-tariff barrier’) issues. We will do the same.
What about the so-called ‘Single Market’? The ‘Single Market’ is almost universally misunderstood and is nowhere defined in the EU Treaties. It was created in the 1980s by Jacques Delors in order to impose qualified majority voting in a vast range of areas beyond international trade such as the free movement of people, how we build schools or aircraft carriers, and thousands of things like the energy requirements of hoovers and the maximum size of containers in which two people sell olive oil to each other in the Shetland Islands (five litres). The Foreign Office and CBI like to claim that the Single Market was about ‘free trade’ but this is historical nonsense. Delors’ goal was explicitly political - as he said, 'we’re not here just to make a Single Market, that doesn’t interest me, but to make a political union.'
The Single Market causes big problems. For example, the Clinical Trials Directive has hampered the testing of vital cancer drugs for years causing unnecessary deaths. Single Market rules add complexity, time, and billions to government procurement programmes. Economists have tried and failed for twenty years to identify clear general gains from the Single Market. Even the Commission’s own, obviously optimistic, figures show that the supposed gains for the UK are smaller than reasonable estimates of the regulatory costs. Most businesses have said for over a decade that the Single Market does more harm than good but this debate has been distorted by a small number of large multinationals that lobby Brussels to use regulations to crush entrepreneurial competition. Big businesses are often the enemy of the public interest.
These problems will grow. The next EU Treaty is intended to harmonise another vast range of things including areas such as company law and ‘property rights’. Harmonising regulations is often good for countries like Greece but is often disastrous for Britain which wins more of the world’s investment in Europe than any other European country precisely because much of our legal system is not yet harmonised with Europe.
The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law.
Regulatory diversity is good in many ways. One of the great advantages of post-Renaissance Europe over China was regulatory diversity. This meant Europe experimented and reinforced success (which often meant copying Britain) while China stagnated. Hamilton’s competitive federalism between the different states in America brought similar gains. Now the EU’s 1950s bureaucratic centralism, reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights that gives the European Court greater power over EU members than the Supreme Court has over US states, increasingly mimics 16th century China in preventing experiments and crushing diversity.
- We spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools.
- We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
- We will regain our seat on international bodies where Brussels represents us, and use our greater international influence to push for greater international cooperation.
- We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way.
- We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European Court before the 2020 election.
- We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests.
- Given that all the big issues have already been solved over the years between the EU and countries around the world, and there is already a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to the Russian border, the new UK-EU Treaty should be ready within two years. In many areas we will continue existing arrangements at least for a while. Obviously the relationship will change and improve over time but a main goal for the first phase is to avoid unnecessary disruption. All the important elements of a new Treaty should be in place well before the next election.
Where may I ask is this from?
I also think that his post proves your point about Remainers being entrenched in their views. I smiled when I saw you being accused of stating the bleeding obvious - we have had 3 years of the repetition of Remainers stating the worst case scenarios as if they are a given fact and indeed should be accepted as being the bleeding obviousYou seem to use the word 'fuck' a lot when you run out of ideas.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Official Vote Leave Campaign site 2016 docsWhere may I ask is this from?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
BBC Report on fact check site verdict on free trade zone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36086987
Last edited:
Possibly, and I can see cause for complaint but that link is what I posted verbatim. I think the vague promise was clearly contingent on resolving the issues set out in the expanded explanation of the bullet point.
George, that is not a vague promise contingent on anything else. It is a statement of fact. It wasn't true of course.
Had it been a vague promise of something that might be achieved in a deal, then it would have been the deal that nearly all Remainers would have said "that'll do" - yet Leavers are now pretending (whining) that it is Remainers who have scuppered Brexit.
Simply, give us the deal that the official Leave campaign said already existed. Or admit that the problem has been Leavers wanting different sorts of Leave (especially of the cake and eat it variety).
For the record, Gove at least was even more of a bullshitter about this already-existing FTZ that we would not be leaving.
“There is a free-trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in our out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in the zone. The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine would remain part of this free-trade area – and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus – is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP.”
Come on guys, put up or shut up: one quote from someone before the referendum who advocated leaving with No Deal.
It's all dog whistles including a hint that as an independent country we'd ignore UN resolutions on refugees. And we could agree a way out other than Article 50. But "another path" still sounds like a deal.I stopped reading after the first line......'We will be able to kick out those who make our laws' ..................a dog whistle of majestic proportions
and of course our past disappointments when both Blair and Major secured electoral majorities on the back of a promise to hold a referendum - only to then renege on those commitmentsYour dissapointment is clear, but I suppose Remainers being upset about a promised deal is on a par with leavers being dissapointed with the lack of the promised emergency budget and house price collapse.
We Leavers are well experienced in handling disappointment - just as well, because I suspect that we will have a lot more to stomach/handle
Yeah fair point - at least something that we can all be united on -and I would suggest that Leavers have even more reason to be disappointed than Remainers with the post-ref 'progress'Not that disappointed with the ref result tbh,it was what it was.
More the aftermath.
Wow - was it Gove??The free trade zone from Iceland to Russia was Michael Gove who headed the Official Leave Campaign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36086987
It has been said so frequently by Vic that I had thought that it must be his and something which he has copyright over
Last edited:
Official Vote Leave Campaign site 2016 docs
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
BBC Report on fact check site verdict on free trade zone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36086987
I can't recall that anyone from the BBC or any other media asked Gove or anyone from Leave what they meant at the time, or since. Not even when Gove recently gave it as a reason why he couldn't support No Deal
Suggest away (yet again) but it's still the Leavers' fault.Yeah fair point - at least something that we can all be united on -and I would suggest that Leavers have even more reason to be disappointed than Remainers with the post-ref 'progress'
Last edited:
Even George found it in the official Leave manifesto.Wow - was it Gove??
It has been said so frequently by Vic that I had thought that it must be his and something which he has copyright over
I originally quoted it a lot as an example of the Leaver Lies that discredit the result. Now it's evidence that No One advocated No Deal.
Correct - this line of - 'there is no mandate for no-deal' is just another piece of Remainer positioning, IMO, same as hard or soft-BrexitThere was never any mandate for a deal or no Deal. The only mandate was for leave. The attempt to frame leave in terms of a deal is a post referendum construct - largely by those who found themselves upset and surprised with the narrow leave majority vote.
The clear mandate is to Leave
A no-deal outcome is simply the consequence of not being able to reach a deal that is satisfactory to both parties
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Another dip into history here - the 'No Deal' concept didn't seem to have been even created then and 'membership of a free trade zone from Iceland to Russia' meant membership of EEA for Gove at least. You can hardly blame anybody for failing to discuss something that didn't exist.Even George found it in the official Leave manifesto.
I originally quoted it a lot as an example of the Leaver Lies that discredit the result. Now it's evidence that No One advocated No Deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853
Correct - I wonder why Vic and others are continuing to peddle this argumentShow me a ballot paper from any election that has each party’s full manifesto stapled to it.
State of this shite. Jeez.
The mandate was clearly to Leave the EU - the resultant arrangements are simply the consequence of what can be agreed (or not)
There was certainly no part of the ballot paper that said,.....
Leave - unless a Remain dominated HoC and incompetent PM fuck around for 3 years - in which case bin it off
I can show you hundreds of Leave campaign references to a deal. Where is your one advocating No Deal?Correct - this line of - 'there is no mandate for no-deal' is just another piece of Remainer positioning, IMO, same as hard or soft-Brexit
The clear mandate is to Leave
A no-deal outcome is simply the consequence of not being able to reach a deal that is satisfactory to both parties
I think George is now on board with admitting there is No Mandate for No Deal. And I've fixed this for you.
"A no-deal outcome is simply the undemocratic consequence of not being able to reach a deal that is satisfactory to all Leavers."
Last edited:
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
No, I am most definitely not. The 'No Mandate for No Deal' complaint is clearly a later construction and never part of the debate at the time.I can show you hundreds of Leave campaign references to a deal. Where is your one advocating No Deal?
I think George is now on board with admitting there is No Mandate for No Deal. And I've fixed this for you.
"A no-deal outcome is simply the undemocratic consequence of not being able to reach a deal that is satisfactory to all Leavers."
See my previous post.
Good job it was only advisory then.Correct - I wonder why Vic and others are continuing to peddle this argument
The mandate was clearly to Leave the EU - the resultant arrangements are simply the consequence of what can be agreed (or not)
There was certainly no part of the ballot paper that said,.....
Leave - unless a Remain dominated HoC and incompetent PM fuck around for 3 years - in which case bin it off
"Never part of the debate" is exactly why there is no mandate for it! The vote was on the presumption of a Deal because that's what all the Leave groups wanted. It's No Deal that's the later construction - which is why it has no mandate. Anyway, it's MPs we're trying to say that to, I just practise the arguments on bluemoon.No, I am most definitely not. The 'No Mandate for No Deal' complaint is clearly a later construction and never part of the debate at the time.
Can you actually pin down that Gove / Leave meant the EEA?Another dip into history here - the 'No Deal' concept didn't seem to have been even created then and 'membership of a free trade zone from Iceland to Russia' meant membership of EEA for Gove at least. You can hardly blame anybody for failing to discuss something that didn't exist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853
- Status
- Not open for further replies.