Another new Brexit thread

[blueinsa]

So how has that particular poster been doing his level best to overturn Brexit? By posting stuff on Bluemoon?

The only ones that can if they wanted to are MPs, hence my original observation.

Maybe the own it quips can stop then if remain voters posting on Bluemoon have no influence all of a sudden?

 

[Hesperus]

If we went out on wto it WILL be a disaster but has anyone said how long this disaster will last?

No one knows is the honest answer but given we’ll need to negotiate new trade deals, with the EU In particular and it took Canada 7 years to agree a deal with the EU. It wouldn’t be wrong to assume the hit to our GDP could be prolonged.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

I've always said a couple of things:

1. That what made me come down on the side of Remain was that I did not believe the pain of getting out, was worth it for the possible upsides which might or might not materialise.

2. They if we were to leave, then a right wing Tory government with yes, Singapore like policies, would be the only way we could end up benefitting. And that leaving under anything like a socialist Labour government, would be an absolute fucking disaster with Labour implementing a pretty much PERFECT set of policies if fucking up our economy was your prime objective: Increase corporation tax, increase employment protections and limit flexibility, interfere with company structures and pay, make strikes more likely, worry investors about punitive measures down the line, etc. In short, discouraging investment in the UK, rather than encouraging it.

My concern was that although Labour would very likely not win a forthcoming GE, nevertheless they have dragged the political centre of gravity to the left, and that there was little prospect of the sort of Tory government needed to deregulate and reduce taxes to the extent necessary.

So I could see no prospect of the gains being realised and yet cast iron certainty of the pain of leaving.

You're aware a right wing government has dragged us into this mess, lied to the people repeatedly, to parliament and the Queen?

On top of that we've had nearly a decade of austerity, the near destruction of the NHS and they've also tanked the pound through brexit.

Yet you think a right wing government is the solution? I'll have some of what you're smoking chippy

 

[Metal Biker]

A no-deal would have turned it into an issue aswell, realisticly speaking?

May did have a WA to present to parliament..

But yeah, there is probably room beyond those red lines.

I don't support no deal, I support leaving with trade arrangements in place. UK accepting the Four Freedoms (which don't impact on any of us by keeping them) are a requirement of trading with the EU. Canada and Japan reached an agreement. It's possible, but not under May's red lines.

My only concern with the WA was how the people of NI would react to it beign implemented, and as it turns out they're pretty much "meh" about the whole thing.

 

[Metal Biker]

I do get what you're saying, but would you want to leave on May's deal then rejoin? I honestly don't think it's stretching the principles of democracy to say this is what we've come up with, shall we pull the trigger? I know the problem with that is that it's been such a shitshow, no MP is gonna want to put their name to a deal, or put their hands up and say, "look, we've royally fucked this up and this is the best we can do". But it's not undemocratic, and it's not as bad as the no deal scenario (IMO)

I'd want to leave on EFTA terms (preferably) but would accept the WA, reach a Canada style agreement with the EU that kept trade open, and continue to campaign for staying out of the politically motivated EU, but if the vote was to rejoin, i'd accept it. I'd hate it, but i'd accept it and wait around for another campaign to suggest us leaving the EU.

Flexibility of membership of the EU is (meant) to be it's byword and it's most dominant example of democracy. No-one is forced to remain a member for life. Trust me, if THAT stipulation was ever agreed upon by the EU you can be damn well assured i'd be campaigning to sever ALL ties, political and economic, with the EU.

It's only in your opinion that it's a gun being placed to ours heads and a "trigger" being pulled. For many of us we see opportunities to connect with the wider world, outside an isolated bloc that deals with the rest of the world from it's stance and is unforgiving in it's demands. Everyone must agree to EU demands in order to trade with the EU, there's very little give-and-take in my eyes. It is absolutely undemocratic to ask the electorate for it's opinion, disregard the answer as being "are you surrre...?" The main argument from remainers has been "the public has changed it's mind" and therefore it must be honoured and a referendum held. Well we already DID change our minds, in 2016, about membership and we haven't left.

Leave and then campaign to rejoin; no issues from me. Remain via referendum without having left first; absolutely unacceptible. If you're all so certain "remain" would win, why wouldn't "rejoin"?

 

[bluejon]

Handing over 47% of your earnings and paying 20% tax on everything you spend could not possibly be regarded as "low tax". Let alone Corbyn's proposed 70% (or is it 75%) plus NI.

And "lightly regulated"? Good grief, I'd hate to think what you imagine "highly regulated" looks like.

EDIT: Here are the highest rates of tax by region:

EU average 38%
Europe average 32%
Global average 31%
Latin America average 32%
North America average 35%
Oceania average 33%
OECD average 42%
South America average 32%

The UK is 45% (47%) inc NI. The US is 37% and that's on sole incomes above about £450,000 a year. And most of their states pay single figure (or zero) sales tax, not 20% VAT.

Those figures aren't taking into account the large sums of money that people in other countries have to pay for their healthcare though. Yes, the US tax their citizens less than us, but the amount they lose in private healthcare is huge.

 

[Metal Biker]

No one knows is the honest answer but given we’ll need to negotiate new trade deals, with the EU In particular and it took Canada 7 years to agree a deal with the EU. It wouldn’t be wrong to assume the hit to our GDP could be prolonged.

It was 28 nations agreeing with one partner, though with two small regions disagreeing with certain aspects that made the extensive delays. One to one trade negotiations makes the negotiations much easier. On average trade deals take 2-3 years to conclude.

 

[BlueAnorak]

If we went out on wto it WILL be a disaster but has anyone said how long this disaster will last?

No, but Boris's government has actually spent money on planning for it that May/Hammond never did. I await the release of some form of Risk Mitiigation report that explains what the government will do to minimise risk from occurring and what it will do if risks materialise.
Judging by the contents of Yellowhammer then all risks will be minimised and dealt with if they occur in a straightforward manner. So much so that changing over from CU/SM to WTO will cause minimal disruption. It will however cost money.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

It was 28 nations agreeing with one partner, though with two small regions disagreeing with certain aspects that made the extensive delays. One to one trade negotiations makes the negotiations much easier. On average trade deals take 2-3 years to conclude.

In a no deal scenario we would be in exactly the same state as Canada.

 

[Metal Biker]

In a no deal scenario we would be in exactly the same state as Canada.

Why are you mentioning no deal to me?

I'm talking about the UK making trade deals with others whilst still trading with the EU. I was pointing out how the reason trade deals with the EU take so long is that it's 28/27 nations negotiating with one other, and all it takes is one member to have a disagreement for the talks to stall. Not very efficient.

I also wouldn't mind being in the exact state as Canada in relation to the EU. Trading, but not a member.

 

[BobKowalski]

Handing over 47% of your earnings and paying 20% tax on everything you spend could not possibly be regarded as "low tax". Let alone Corbyn's proposed 70% (or is it 75%) plus NI.

And "lightly regulated"? Good grief, I'd hate to think what you imagine "highly regulated" looks like.

EDIT: Here are the highest rates of tax by region:

EU average 38%
Europe average 32%
Global average 31%
Latin America average 32%
North America average 35%
Oceania average 33%
OECD average 42%
South America average 32%

The UK is 45% (47%) inc NI. The US is 37% and that's on sole incomes above about £450,000 a year. And most of their states pay single figure (or zero) sales tax, not 20% VAT.

Ah the EU average with countries like Estonia in the mix. French, German etc tax rates are 40% plus. US have federal and state taxes.

We pay taxes. That’s life. For businesses though we are a low tax, lightly regulated economy. It’s easier to set up a business here than in most European countries. Businesses don’t have to pay VAT until they hit a turnover of £85k. We have a business friendly environment which is a good thing. The US is more tightly regulated than us when it comes to business not to mention the barriers to selling services or even goods between US States.

So yes as a highly developed European economy we are low tax, lightly regulated economy. And given the current court case in Germany where the City of London allegedly facilitated the theft of billions from European coffers I don’t think us crying over burdensome regulations will get much sympathy in Berlin or Paris.

 

[Ban-jani]

The main way to leave, the WA, was rejected by the vast majority of MP's. Both had different reasons for doing so, but they still rejected the leave proposal agreed with the EU, only to offer no alternative or agreement on how we should leave, and are STILL proclaiming we should remain on the back of that decision. So it's not "completely disingenuous" at all. Tone it down with the hyperbole, please.

They have offered alternatives and have voted for them but the whole house, who represent the public, cannot agree on which is the best one. No alternative found a majority.

I would argue that’s probably how the public feel too, if you took remain out of the equation and just did different flavours of leaving.

If I was an MP, I’d probably have voted for CM 2.0 (Nick Boles), Ken Clarke’s proposal and possibly even May’s. Following that I’m keen to see if Labour get in, what their deal would look like.

It’s so complex, as are the views in the house and I just don’t think saying they’ve rejected Brexit or refused to implement it is fair nor accurate.

 

[BobKowalski]

No, but Boris's government has actually spent money on planning for it that May/Hammond never did. I await the release of some form of Risk Mitiigation report that explains what the government will do to minimise risk from occurring and what it will do if risks materialise.
Judging by the contents of Yellowhammer then all risks will be minimised and dealt with if they occur in a straightforward manner. So much s that changing over from CU/SM to WTO will cause minimal disruption.

The Govt can only minimise the risk it controls. It cannot minimise risk it does not control.

 

[Metal Biker]

They have offered alternatives and have voted for them but the whole house, who represent the public, cannot agree on which is the best one. No alternative found a majority.

I would argue that’s probably how the public feel too, if you took remain out of the equation and just did different flavours of leaving.

If I was an MP, I’d probably have voted for CM 2.0 (Nick Boles), Ken Clarke’s proposal and possibly even May’s. Following that I’m keen to see if Labour get in, what their deal would look like.

It’s so complex, as are the views in the house and I just don’t think saying they’ve rejected Brexit or refused to implement it is fair nor accurate.

Which is precisely the point being raised. They can't agree, because many of them don't agree that leaving is a good idea. So they won't agree.

For some of them it's remain at all costs. They will never agree to any deal that sees us leave the EU.

 

[west didsblue]

Which is precisely the point being raised. They can't agree, because many of them don't agree that leaving is a good idea. So they won't agree.

For some of them it's remain at all costs. They will never agree to any deal that sees us leave the EU.

The indicative votes in March that were the closest to securing a Parliamentary majority were a couple of flavours of staying within the CU and/or Single Market. The government should have taken note of that and changed direction to negotiate a deal similar to those, which eventually probably would have achieved a Parliamentary majority. Instead the government went the other way and tried to subvert Parliament to achieve an outcome that only the most extreme Brexiters wanted, then tried to blame the majority when they failed.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The Govt can only minimise the risk it controls. It cannot minimise risk it does not control.

You can not mitigate a direct implication of your action, that makes no sense. Like saying i'm going to punch myself hard in the balls but not punch in a way that will hurt - the two statements are contradictory. Leaving the EU/CU will mean a boat load of checks required at ports, they will be a legal obligation and they can't be mitigated. If your policy is to leave the EU/CU then the implication is you are advocating we should have a boat load of checks required at ports

 

[Ban-jani]

Which is precisely the point being raised. They can't agree, because many of them don't agree that leaving is a good idea. So they won't agree.

For some of them it's remain at all costs. They will never agree to any deal that sees us leave the EU.

That’s not what I was saying. Most of them think remain is the best option but many are willing to back leaving and now wish to follow it through.

The issue is the ERG are completely different to Clarke and Boles, obviously the latter left but these are in the same party and are polarised about what leaving should look like.

The people/person to blame are the those that called the referendum and specified what would be on the ballot and how it would or wouldn’t(!) be implemented.

 

[joe123]

I'd want to leave on EFTA terms (preferably) but would accept the WA, reach a Canada style agreement with the EU that kept trade open, and continue to campaign for staying out of the politically motivated EU, but if the vote was to rejoin, i'd accept it. I'd hate it, but i'd accept it and wait around for another campaign to suggest us leaving the EU.

Flexibility of membership of the EU is (meant) to be it's byword and it's most dominant example of democracy. No-one is forced to remain a member for life. Trust me, if THAT stipulation was ever agreed upon by the EU you can be damn well assured i'd be campaigning to sever ALL ties, political and economic, with the EU.

It's only in your opinion that it's a gun being placed to ours heads and a "trigger" being pulled. For many of us we see opportunities to connect with the wider world, outside an isolated bloc that deals with the rest of the world from it's stance and is unforgiving in it's demands. Everyone must agree to EU demands in order to trade with the EU, there's very little give-and-take in my eyes. It is absolutely undemocratic to ask the electorate for it's opinion, disregard the answer as being "are you surrre...?" The main argument from remainers has been "the public has changed it's mind" and therefore it must be honoured and a referendum held. Well we already DID change our minds, in 2016, about membership and we haven't left.

Leave and then campaign to rejoin; no issues from me. Remain via referendum without having left first; absolutely unacceptible. If you're all so certain "remain" would win, why wouldn't "rejoin"?

I'm simply saying it's not unreasonable to say the way we respect the original referendum result is to leave with deal. is that okay with you Mr and Mrs Public? If it is, then so be it.

 

[BobKowalski]

Damn these EU State Aid rules that prevent us from assisting Thomas Cook...

‘Germany agrees to back Thomas Cook’s Condor with bridge loan’
https://on.ft.com/2kS3Xv5

 

[BobKowalski]

Also Wrightbus - makers of the ‘Boris Bus’ - in NI has gone into administration. Bad news for NI in these uncertain times.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...00-jobs-now-hang-in-the-balance-38533187.html