Another new Brexit thread

[Chris in London]

So if no ''sovereignty'' was given up ..... whats all the fuss about? And why did the Labour Government hold a referendum 3 years after?

No sovereignty was given up. Don’t forget, the only limit on what Parliament can do is what Parliament chooses not to do. That was the law in 1972, it is the law now, it has been the law at all times in between.

The ‘fuss’ was about whether the U.K. should perfectly legally withdraw from an entity it had perfectly legally acceded to, not because a referendum was a constitutional requirement but because it was a manifesto commitment.

 

[Len Rum]

One thing the Tories cannot afford at the moment is any criticism of deal gaining traction or cutting through.
Government spin is working at the moment and they have their friends in the media doing their bidding.
Nigel Farage is the one person who could have caused major problems for them because this deal falls well short of his expectations particularly on his pet topic of fishing and he was very vocal on all of this as recent as last week and then all of a sudden the war was over. Somehow he has been persuaded to keep quiet.
Then we have the ERG. And they represent the next challenge for the Tory spin doctors to neutralise. Any major rebellion by them could cut through to the public consciousness and so I suspect they will be bought off by assurances that in time the UK will fall foul of the LPF rules, take the hit on tariffs and move forward into the world as Buccaneering Britain.
Interesting week ahead.

 

[Vic]

So if no ''sovereignty'' was given up ..... whats all the fuss about? And why did the Labour Government hold a referendum 3 years after?

A primer - after 20 minutes googling -

The UK had already applied to join the EEC in 1969. Both parties in the 1970 GE had stuff to say about negotiations. The Conservative Manifesto said:

"If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.

Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.

A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent."

And, in wikipedia - you don't have to rely on Daily Mail propaganda and lies -
"The question of sovereignty was discussed at the time in an official Foreign and Commonwealth Office document. It listed among "Areas of policy in which parliamentary freedom to legislate will be affected by entry into the European Communities": Customs duties, Agriculture, Free movement of labour, services and capital, Transport, and Social Security for migrant workers. The document concluded (paragraph 26) that it was advisable to put the considerations of influence and power before those of formal sovereignty".

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

A primer - after 20 minutes googling -

The UK had already applied to join the EEC in 1969. Both parties in the 1970 GE had stuff to say about negotiations. The Conservative Manifesto said:

"If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.

Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.

A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent."

And, in wikipedia - you don't have to rely on Daily Mail propaganda and lies -
"The question of sovereignty was discussed at the time in an official Foreign and Commonwealth Office document. It listed among "Areas of policy in which parliamentary freedom to legislate will be affected by entry into the European Communities": Customs duties, Agriculture, Free movement of labour, services and capital, Transport, and Social Security for migrant workers. The document concluded (paragraph 26) that it was advisable to put the considerations of influence and power before those of formal sovereignty".

Lord Kilmuir, had specifically warned Mr Heath he had mislead the country when he had said that accession to the Treaty of Rome had no constitutional implications.Mr Heath, though, did nothing to address such warning.

Mr Nicholls wrote: "I put a copy of the Treaty of Rome in my Red Box. I had never read it before. Why would I? The Conservative Prime Minister of the day had assured the country that the Treaty of Rome was all about entering a trading block, but then I read the Treaty and saw the truth.
"The Common Market was not the last step in the march to a free trade block, but the first step towards a United States of Europe.
"Some two years or so later under the '30 years rule,' the Government revealed correspondence between Edward Heath, then President of the Board of Trade and then minister in charge of Britain's unsuccessful 1961 bid to join the Common Market, and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, in which he had specifically warned Heath that, doubtless unintentionally, he had mislead the country when he had said that accession to the Treaty of Rome had no constitutional implications.
"Warming to this theme, Lord Kilmuir continued 'I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics it will not be easy to persuade Parliament, or the British public, to accept them.
"'I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them.'

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Fucking hell, have a day off lads.

:-)

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

View attachment 7145

@mat if that is actually you, you have yet again gone up in my favourite poster ranks (regardless of any difference of opinion).......... ;-)

 

[Vic]

Lord Kilmuir, had specifically warned Mr Heath he had mislead the country when he had said that accession to the Treaty of Rome had no constitutional implications.Mr Heath, though, did nothing to address such warning.

Mr Nicholls wrote: "I put a copy of the Treaty of Rome in my Red Box. I had never read it before. Why would I? The Conservative Prime Minister of the day had assured the country that the Treaty of Rome was all about entering a trading block, but then I read the Treaty and saw the truth.
"The Common Market was not the last step in the march to a free trade block, but the first step towards a United States of Europe.
"Some two years or so later under the '30 years rule,' the Government revealed correspondence between Edward Heath, then President of the Board of Trade and then minister in charge of Britain's unsuccessful 1961 bid to join the Common Market, and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, in which he had specifically warned Heath that, doubtless unintentionally, he had mislead the country when he had said that accession to the Treaty of Rome had no constitutional implications.
"Warming to this theme, Lord Kilmuir continued 'I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics it will not be easy to persuade Parliament, or the British public, to accept them.
"'I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of the objections to them.'

Good grief. A minister of the crown not reading important stuff? Quoting stuff from 11 years before parliament voted on it in fulfilment of a manifesto commitment.

This is truly desperate.

(Half time with dodgy streams....)

 

[journolud]

:-)

Don’t usually see you on here, on holiday? Some might say...

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Don’t usually see you on here, on holiday? Some might say...

Brexit thread is one of my guilty pleasures...........

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It will still be the EU. It will always be the EU. Anytime we can’t ‘do something‘ it will be the fault of the deal with the EU and there will be demands we ‘break free’ of the EU. Election campaigns will be fought on our relationship with the EU, should we be closer, more distant and so on.

It will eventually drive us mad.

Lol, it looks like it's already driving you mad, we have secured what we wanted, trying to throw in perceived problems based on convoluted assumptions about LPF etc; is just assuaging the pain. We're out, and out with access that every remainer said was impossible, the only possible gripe is the
fishing transition, but even that ends well.
This is a brilliant end to a long and tortured process, and if folk want to continue believing the EU is still our overlord, I've no problem with that,
they can continue to do and say so, although the responses may be thin on the ground. A successful Brexit has been a achieved, at last.

 

[peter.evans]

Lol, it looks like it's already driving you mad, we have secured what we wanted, trying to throw in perceived problems based on convoluted assumptions about LPF etc; is just assuaging the pain. We're out, and out with access that every remainer said was impossible, the only possible gripe is the
fishing transition, but even that ends well.
This is a brilliant end to a long and tortured process, and if folk want to continue believing the EU is still our overlord, I've no problem with that,
they can continue to do and say so, although the responses may be thin on the ground. A successful Brexit has been a achieved, at last.

Why is it a brilliant end ? We are going to be worse off as a result. We are effectively still in the EU, just claiming we are not in name only, which suits me.Saving around 10bn in fees but costing us many times that figure.For what? No sovereignty was given up by joining or has been reclaimed by leaving.It is a complete myth ! There are no benefits as anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows.

 

[Len Rum]

Lol, it looks like it's already driving you mad, we have secured what we wanted, trying to throw in perceived problems based on convoluted assumptions about LPF etc; is just assuaging the pain. We're out, and out with access that every remainer said was impossible, the only possible gripe is the
fishing transition, but even that ends well.
This is a brilliant end to a long and tortured process, and if folk want to continue believing the EU is still our overlord, I've no problem with that,
they can continue to do and say so, although the responses may be thin on the ground. A successful Brexit has been a achieved, at last.

'with access every remainer said was impossible' is the flaw in your argument.
The access is limited and subject to to lots of restrictions, checks and additional costs and delays to businesses.
This was entirely predicted by remainers.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

There are still years of negotiation left, not least on services. Though I assume our ‘viable walkaway’ option of no deal is now out of the game so don’t know what cards we have left. It will also be a battleground of every election, with the sides promising a different relationship with the eu.
I can’t see it being settled, ever really.

The viable walkaway, is very much in the game, if either side dislikes any aspects, they can indeed just walk away. I wouldn't be holding my breath though.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Why is it a brilliant end ? We are going to be worse off as a result. We are effectively still in the EU, just claiming we are not in name only, which suits me.Saving around 10bn in fees but costing us many times that figure.For what? No sovereignty was given up by joining or has been reclaimed by leaving.It is a complete myth ! There are no benefits as anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows.

It's obviously not a brilliant end for committed remainers, but hey-ho.
We are not going to be worse off, we are going to be far better off.
See how your point is subjective?
We are not 'Effectively' in the EU, have you been asleep the last few days?
What is costing us more than the £10m billion, some more Mystic Meg forecasting yet again? Not gone too well that, so far, has it?
EU law, took precedence over UK law, but you obviously know that, as you
have more than an ounce of intelligence.

'with access every remainer said was impossible' is the flaw in your argument.
The access is limited and subject to to lots of restrictions, checks and additional costs and delays to businesses.
This was entirely predicted by remainers.

When all these restrictions, additional costs and delays are causing such a dreadful and debilitating affect on trade, the idea of rejoining may get a bit of support.
Bet it doesn't though.

 

[Saddleworth2]

It's obviously not a brilliant end for committed remainers, but hey-ho.
We are not going to be worse off, we are going to be far better off.
See how your point is subjective?
We are not 'Effectively' in the EU, have you been asleep the last few days?
What is costing us more than the £10m billion, some more Mystic Meg forecasting yet again? Not gone too well that, so far, has it?
EU law, took precedence over UK law, but you obviously know that, as you
have more than an ounce of intelligence.

When all these restrictions, additional costs and delays are causing such a dreadful and debilitating affect on trade, the idea of rejoining may get a bit of support.
Bet it doesn't though.

The UK financial plan for the next 5 years (the one produced by the Treasury) indicates we will be worse off as does every prediction from every credible source. That isn't really subjective its just fact mate.
I do agree with you though that the chances of a political party supporting rejoin is very slim (other than the SNP obviously).
As I have said a couple of times. Given where we are, this deal looks the best possible outcome for everyone. 1) Its not no deal. 2) It delivers the mandate that Johnson was given at the last election so must overall please those that voted him in. 3) NI gets to stay in the SM.

The thing that still concerns me most is seeing how the new custom protocols work. It will not be a good look if we have continued significant friction at the border.

 

[jaseirai]

The UK financial plan for the next 5 years (the one produced by the Treasury) indicates we will be worse off as does every prediction from every credible source. That isn't really subjective its just fact mate.
I do agree with you though that the chances of a political party supporting rejoin is very slim (other than the SNP obviously).
As I have said a couple of times. Given where we are, this deal looks the best possible outcome for everyone. 1) Its not no deal. 2) It delivers the mandate that Johnson was given at the last election so must overall please those that voted him in. 3) NI gets to stay in the SM.

The thing that still concerns me most is seeing how the new custom protocols work. It will not be a good look if we have continued significant friction at the border.

https://cebr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WELT-2021-final-23.12.pdf

"By 2035, UK GDP in dollars is forecast to be
23% more than that of France, its long-standing rival and neighbour"

 

[west didsblue]

Lol, it looks like it's already driving you mad, we have secured what we wanted, trying to throw in perceived problems based on convoluted assumptions about LPF etc; is just assuaging the pain. We're out, and out with access that every remainer said was impossible, the only possible gripe is the
fishing transition, but even that ends well.
This is a brilliant end to a long and tortured process, and if folk want to continue believing the EU is still our overlord, I've no problem with that,
they can continue to do and say so, although the responses may be thin on the ground. A successful Brexit has been a achieved, at last.

Would that be the LPF that the leavers said we were getting away from? The one that we need to stick to in order to keep our tariff free quota free trading arrangement albeit with added non-tariff barriers? Not much convoluted about that. We will continue to apply EU rules and regulations. Great victory.

 

[Vic]

The viable walkaway, is very much in the game, if either side dislikes any aspects, they can indeed just walk away. I wouldn't be holding my breath though.

If it was viable we'd have done it. And even if we did it, it would not have been viable (at least not as normally used, where benefits outweigh costs).

 

[Saddleworth2]

https://cebr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WELT-2021-final-23.12.pdf

"By 2035, UK GDP in dollars is forecast to be
23% more than that of France, its long-standing rival and neighbour"

Interesting, and I have no view of their credibility. Couple of things though, is our GDP not more than France right now - their league tables say it is?
I find it quite interesting comparing their UK growth projections over the next five years with those of the Treasury (they are much greater than the Tr.).
Anyway, you prove your point, for every economic forecast that says X, there is one that says Y.
Lets hope that they are right and the many benefit rather than the few.

 

[jaseirai]

Interesting, and I have no view of their credibility. Couple of things though, is our GDP not more than France right now - their league tables say it is?
I find it quite interesting comparing their UK growth projections over the next five years with those of the Treasury (they are much greater than the Tr.).
Anyway, you prove your point, for every economic forecast that says X, there is one that says Y.
Lets hope that they are right and the many benefit rather than the few.

The UK and France have had similar sized economies for many years. Whilst all forecasts should be treated with scepticism, The Treasury have been particularly useless.