quoted the above In case you didnt read it first time around ...I'm not here to answer your questions or anyone elses. Throughout my working life , I was the one who did the asking. not answering, that isn't going to change on an internet forum . Back to Brexit .
A rather silly comment.
What on earth has your working life got to do with a forum?
Are you trying to make yourself out to be a big shot?
You ask questions, you don't answer them.
Just to say that, will lead readers to question any credibility you might have had.
To cite time constraints as a reason for not answering questions, or backing up what you have posted, wouldn't seem valid, when you are able to defend a shopping argument all day long.
All this sounds just as plausible as the West Ham supporter.
In our main scenario, we project UK growth to remain modest at around 1.3% in 2018 and 1.6% in 2019. This reflects the drag on business investment from ongoing economic and political uncertainty relating to the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. But the higher government spending and short-term tax cuts announced in the Budget will provide some boost to growth in 2019.
The strong global economy, and the competitive value of the pound, have boosted UK exports and inbound tourism over the past two years. But the Eurozone economy has slowed recently and any escalation of international trade tensions could dampen global growth in 2019 and beyond.
Service sector growth should remain modest but positive in 2019, but manufacturing growth has slowed markedly. Construction sector output has also fallen back since early 2017 and looks set to remain relatively weak in the short term, given the uncertainty around Brexit.
London has grown faster than other UK regions for most of the past three decades, but recently there have been signs from both the labour and housing markets that London’s relative performance has been less strong. We therefore expect London to grow at only slightly above the UK average rate in 2018-19.
In our main scenario with a smooth Brexit, we assume that the Bank of England raises interest rates by a quarter of a percent to 1% in mid-2019. But the precise timing of this will be data-dependent and the pace of any subsequent rate increases are likely to remain gradual.
The document referred to is almost 50 years old, and merely one persons opinion.
The more recent comments are by one other person, who was an advisor to Nigel Farage.
A man who in my view cant lie straight in bed. If I was his advisor I would suggest he tells the truth a bit more.
The proof of the pudding for me is that during my whole life, I really cant think of anything that the EU are responsible for, that has affected my life in an adverse way.
They have been responsible for many things that have benefitted all of us.
During the Brexit negotiations they have behaved much better than our so called elected representatives.
Do you really think that you will benefit in any tangible way from taking back control, or more Sovereignty?
The EU have supplied around 7% of our Primary Legislation. That means to me, that we are pretty much in control.
Leaving will mean damage to our economy, which means jobs will be lost, and many people will be poorer.
I watched the documentary on tv the other night which is a 3 parter on how we ended up with Brexit, and the EU bent over backwards to help David Cameron, and gave him every thing he asked for, pre-referendum.
Just on immigration, which came up a lot in the referendum campaign. Under EU rules the UK has the right to send any EU citizen back to where they came from if they have no job 3 months after arriving. The fact that the Government never enforced this rule is their fault.
Taking back control of our borders, in a no deal scenario, means nothing gets checked. That is a UK Government plan, and hardly seems like taking back any control.
The absolute turmoil we are currently in, is clearly of our own making.
Leaving the EU may well turn out to be a massive disaster, and may lead to the break up of the UK
Mostly scaremongering remain BS
This is the post in question, including your considered response.
I would really be interested in which bits you claim are scaremongering.
Which bits are remain bs?
Having made the comment you should at least be able to back it up.
Not doing so, would surely point to the fact that you cant?
You could of course come up with your usual excuses.
Brexit: Theresa May responds to Jeremy Corbyn's letter
Theresa May has responded to Jeremy Corbyn's letter setting out his five demands for a Brexit deal.
The prime minister queried his call for the UK to stay in a customs union with the EU - but welcomed more talks with Labour on a Brexit agreement.
Mrs May wants the two parties to discuss how "alternative arrangements" to the Irish backstop - a commitment to avoid a hard border - could work.
She did not reject any of his conditions outright in her reply.
Labour asked for five changes to be made to the Brexit deal:
A "permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union" with the EU, with the same external tariff. It would give the UK a say on any future trade deals that the EU may strike. The UK to be closely aligned with the Single Market To stay in step with the EU on rights and protections for workers A promise to participate in EU agencies and funding programmes on the environment, education and industry regulation Agreements with the EU on security, such as access to the European Arrest Warrant database
Today's papers and news websites feature differing takes on the latest Brexit developments. The Times and the Daily Telegraph both suggest Theresa May's response to Jeremy Corbyn's letter - setting out his demands for a deal - has opened the door to a soft Brexit. The Telegraph says the prime minister "surprised" colleagues by not explicitly ruling out keeping the UK in a customs union, and the Times warns the move risks a cabinet split, involving an "exodus" of ministers. According to the FT, Mrs May's willingness to work with Labour could persuade some wavering MPs to back her Brexit deal, but Eurosceptic Conservatives will see it as a move to "bounce" them into supporting the agreement, for fear of a softer deal.
The Guardian believes Mrs May "has in effect ruled out" Labour's ideas for a compromise Brexit plan. The prime minister, it says, made a concession on environmental and workers' rights, but "stressed her objections" to keeping the UK in some form of customs union. With the headline, "I'm Jez Saying No", Metro agrees, claiming Mrs May "refused to change tack". And the website, Huffpost UK, says the prime minister rejected both Mr Corbyn's demand that the rights of British workers will automatically keep pace with those in the EU after Brexit, and his call for the UK to remain in a customs union.
You could start by listing the benefits that you think we will gain from Brexit and we can debate them.
List for benefits of BREXIT. We wont have to have meps, who can claim expenses(on top of their salary) at the taxpayers expense. More to follow.
Another view might be,
As we will be trading with the EU beyond Brexit, unless we as a country wish to commit suicide. Then we will be doing so, while having to implement EU regulations, and some laws, without having any say, or input.
The £4.6billion that we are currently spending just in case there is no deal, would have paid their salaries, and expenses, until long after I am dead and buried.
A quote by Frederic Bastiat in this article : " consider the unseen, and don’t destroy the jobs of the future in a misguided attempt to protect the jobs of today"
A quote by Frederic Bastiat in this article : " consider the unseen, and don’t destroy the jobs of the future in a misguided attempt to protect the jobs of today"
I am not clever enough to be able to argue about all the economic implications.
What I do know is that the Brexiteers have produced some economic arguments which are in some cases exaggerated, and others that are lies.
Brexit is all about choices.
When we leave we lose access to EU trade deals with around 70 countries.
The Brexiteers assured everyone that these deals would be rolled over and ready to go the minute after we leave. I think there is much acceptance that this will not happen.
The Japan negotiations have been in the press, and not only are they not prepared to roll the deal over, they are looking for bigger concessions than they gave to the EU. Should this be a surprise? I don't think so, as we are a much smaller market than the EU.
The WTO pitch doesn't stand up.
There are 164 countries in the WTO, this is 84% of the countries in the world.
We can and do, currently trade with these countries, using WTO tariffs.
The Brexiteers argue that we should do trade deals and remove the tariffs. The problem with this argument is that the tariffs in some cases protect businesses in this country. The was a programme on the other night about ceramics, and they suggested than the removal of tariffs would put them out of business. Agriculture in this country would be bankrupt if tariffs were removed.
It has also been suggested that if we removed tariffs across the board then there would be no reason for any country to do a trade deal with us.
So Brexit will result in the loss of at least some trade with the EU, the loss of the EU trade deals, which may result in us negotiating worse terms than we currently have through the EU, or maybe no deal at all. We could open ourselves up to the cheapest imports, costing jobs.
I have used the Germany example before, where we are both members of the EU, and they do 6 times as much business as we do with China. Why is this? Could we improve this?
We currently do around 12% of our trade with the USA, without a free trade deal. How much more would we do with a trade deal. Do we really want to import chlorine washed chickens, hormone fed beef, gm crops, and give them access to our NHS?
How much more trade could we have been doing with these countries, without trade deals, if we just tried a bit harder?
The choices are a Customs Union, which solves the Irish border, but would disallow trade deals.
Full Single Market access, would lessen the loss of trade, but would commit us to Freedom of Movement.
The real problem is that to achieve the Brexit promised by our politicians during the referendum campaign is impossible.
Logically the closer we get to our current membership, the less real point there is in leaving.
quoted the above In case you didnt read it first time around ...I'm not here to answer your questions or anyone elses. Throughout my working life , I was the one who did the asking. not answering, that isn't going to change on an internet forum . Back to Brexit .
A rather silly comment.
What on earth has your working life got to do with a forum?
Are you trying to make yourself out to be a big shot?
You ask questions, you don't answer them.
Just to say that, will lead readers to question any credibility you might have had.
To cite time constraints as a reason for not answering questions, or backing up what you have posted, wouldn't seem valid, when you are able to defend a shopping argument all day long.
All this sounds just as plausible as the West Ham supporter.
You ask for a reasonable debate and then , start throwing snidey little comments. Wonder if tomgoodu will ask you to behave like an Adult.
The peoples vote : one of the best articles I have read regarding the effects it would have >>>>
A “People’s Vote” – and the toxic space the far-right are waiting to exploit It’s why the alarm bells started ringing in my head when at anti-Brexit strategy meetings campaigners kept reminding themselves not to call it a second referendum and instead call it a ratification vote and more recently a People’s Vote. If the argument is that a vote against any deal automatically means we revert to remaining in the EU, then this is disingenuous to stay the least. Surely the rejection of the deal means the government should go away and construct a better deal; not a reversal of the whole thing without a clear and unambiguous vote on doing so – a second referendum? There can be no democratic sleight of hand; only a clear and unambiguous vote to reverse Brexit.
So we have to get the democratic process right, but we also have to dig deep into the causes of Brexit. Some showed interest for a while and visited Leave-voting communities, but it soon waned. A few stuck at it: Caroline Lucas did, and Anthony Barnett made an early and strong intervention with The Lure of Greatness. If there is a second referendum, I fear that a pro-EU view might win simply because a large swathe of people just won’t bother voting a second time, because they are resigned to the fact that the ‘elite’ will always win and will keep coming back until they do. They will give up on democracy. And who could blame them?
Just as I hate the thought of the social and economic damage Brexit could bring, I can’t bear to think what a second vote would do to the hearts and hopes of the people who voted for Brexit, who for once trusted the system, who had a democratic outlet for once in their life – only to find that they didn’t. Politics and democracy has already failed them, closed their industries, marginalised and humiliated them – and then offered them a huge scream button to hit in the shape of the referendum, which they duly pressed. Could they now have even that last bit of power taken away?
A second vote could turn them away from any residual belief in democracy. It will confirm to them the suspicion they have always had: that the elite, the establishment, London always win – and they never do. They will feel more marginalised and humiliated than ever. Of course, Remainers may argue that Brexit will make these Leave-voters’ lives immeasurably worse, but that is a long conversation we need to have.
Many Leave-voters were from affluent homes in the South, but talk to Labour MPs in the North and they know this is the toxic space the far-right are waiting to exploit. Banks, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Robinson don’t want a messy soft Brexit compromise. They want either want a no-deal Brexit or for Brexit to be stopped, so that out of the sense of betrayal, resentment and rejection they can build a populist hard-right movement. It could well be the case that a ‘street first’ strategy would then really take hold, with immigrants and asylum seekers targeted, windows smashed and faces spat at, and a drift to heaven knows what form of politics. Britain will never have experienced such political poison.
The peoples vote : one of the best articles I have read regarding the effects it would have >>>>
A “People’s Vote” – and the toxic space the far-right are waiting to exploit It’s why the alarm bells started ringing in my head when at anti-Brexit strategy meetings campaigners kept reminding themselves not to call it a second referendum and instead call it a ratification vote and more recently a People’s Vote. If the argument is that a vote against any deal automatically means we revert to remaining in the EU, then this is disingenuous to stay the least. Surely the rejection of the deal means the government should go away and construct a better deal; not a reversal of the whole thing without a clear and unambiguous vote on doing so – a second referendum? There can be no democratic sleight of hand; only a clear and unambiguous vote to reverse Brexit.
So we have to get the democratic process right, but we also have to dig deep into the causes of Brexit. Some showed interest for a while and visited Leave-voting communities, but it soon waned. A few stuck at it: Caroline Lucas did, and Anthony Barnett made an early and strong intervention with The Lure of Greatness. If there is a second referendum, I fear that a pro-EU view might win simply because a large swathe of people just won’t bother voting a second time, because they are resigned to the fact that the ‘elite’ will always win and will keep coming back until they do. They will give up on democracy. And who could blame them?
Just as I hate the thought of the social and economic damage Brexit could bring, I can’t bear to think what a second vote would do to the hearts and hopes of the people who voted for Brexit, who for once trusted the system, who had a democratic outlet for once in their life – only to find that they didn’t. Politics and democracy has already failed them, closed their industries, marginalised and humiliated them – and then offered them a huge scream button to hit in the shape of the referendum, which they duly pressed. Could they now have even that last bit of power taken away?
A second vote could turn them away from any residual belief in democracy. It will confirm to them the suspicion they have always had: that the elite, the establishment, London always win – and they never do. They will feel more marginalised and humiliated than ever. Of course, Remainers may argue that Brexit will make these Leave-voters’ lives immeasurably worse, but that is a long conversation we need to have.
Many Leave-voters were from affluent homes in the South, but talk to Labour MPs in the North and they know this is the toxic space the far-right are waiting to exploit. Banks, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Robinson don’t want a messy soft Brexit compromise. They want either want a no-deal Brexit or for Brexit to be stopped, so that out of the sense of betrayal, resentment and rejection they can build a populist hard-right movement. It could well be the case that a ‘street first’ strategy would then really take hold, with immigrants and asylum seekers targeted, windows smashed and faces spat at, and a drift to heaven knows what form of politics. Britain will never have experienced such political poison.
quoted the above In case you didnt read it first time around ...I'm not here to answer your questions or anyone elses. Throughout my working life , I was the one who did the asking. not answering, that isn't going to change on an internet forum . Back to Brexit .
A rather silly comment.
What on earth has your working life got to do with a forum?
Are you trying to make yourself out to be a big shot?
You ask questions, you don't answer them.
Just to say that, will lead readers to question any credibility you might have had.
To cite time constraints as a reason for not answering questions, or backing up what you have posted, wouldn't seem valid, when you are able to defend a shopping argument all day long.
All this sounds just as plausible as the West Ham supporter.
Abuse is frowned upon, you ask for reasonable debate, then you proceed to abuse people who oppose your views, sounds like facism to me
As I am in favour of continuing our EU membership, I would be in favour of anything that allowed that to happen.
There has been much criticism of the referendum campaign on both sides. There is no point in repeating it here.
I appreciate that a second referendum, would cause some resentment. Although I am not certain how serious this would be.
To justify a second referendum is fairly easy in my view. Without going into the nitty gritty, why couldnt we just say that we wanted to ensure that after uncovering the facts, that we just want to check on whether people have changed their minds. If they haven't, then we will leave anyway.
Why do contracts have cooling off periods?
Brexit has a number of flavours. Yet the referendum only allowed people to choose Brexit or not, no choice of a flavour.
Almost half those that voted wished to remain.
Of the other half many will not be happy with whatever we end up with.
Dominic Raab the ex Brexit Secretary, and prominent leave voter, said the other day that given a choice between what Theresa May is proposing, and remaining, he would choose to remain.
A softer Brexit will cause the hard line Brexiteers who support no deal, to be unhappy.
This means that whether we get a deal or not, the majority of voters will be unhappy at the outcome. Would that really be democracy?
I still see a referendum as a possible solution for the current impasse.
If you consider all possible outcomes, it might be the last resort.
We don't appear any closer to The Withdrawal Agreement getting passed.
I think a majority are in favour of stopping the no deal option, yet they missed an opportunity to take care of this the other day.
The EU are clearly not going to take out The Backstop.
They have said no to an extension to Article 50, unless it was to accommodate a referendum or General Election.
That brings us back to leaving on 29th March with no deal.
If they just allowed an extension anyway, what would this accomplish?
More discussion, more going around in circles, more time wasting, and perhaps an extension to the extension. Just like The Backstop to The Backstop.
If the solution was seen to be an Election, this would cause both the major parties a problem concerning what they would stand on, not necessarily be a solution and may cause us to be back at square one.
We are not stuck on which deal we want, we are stuck on how we get out.
One thing that people have in common when writing these articles, is that they all seem to point to the reasons why people voted to leave, yet I am unsure whether this has been established beyond doubt, and many people voted to leave for different reasons.
The leave campaign will change political campaigning forever. They were able to identify, and target 3 million people who had never voted, and had been forgotten about. I am not sure whether these people will take more of an interest in politics in the future, or perhaps go back to not voting. Is it really possible to predict the future for them , or how disappointed they may be.
Many politicians describe Brexit, as an act of self harm, so should we go through with it in the name of democracy?
I am clear that another referendum is not ideal, and will cause some disappointment, but may turn out to be the only solution.
Any deal or no deal will leave a majority unhappy.
As I am in favour of continuing our EU membership, I would be in favour of anything that allowed that to happen.
There has been much criticism of the referendum campaign on both sides. There is no point in repeating it here.
I appreciate that a second referendum, would cause some resentment. Although I am not certain how serious this would be.
To justify a second referendum is fairly easy in my view. Without going into the nitty gritty, why couldnt we just say that we wanted to ensure that after uncovering the facts, that we just want to check on whether people have changed their minds. If they haven't, then we will leave anyway.
Why do contracts have cooling off periods?
Brexit has a number of flavours. Yet the referendum only allowed people to choose Brexit or not, no choice of a flavour.
Almost half those that voted wished to remain.
Of the other half many will not be happy with whatever we end up with.
Dominic Raab the ex Brexit Secretary, and prominent leave voter, said the other day that given a choice between what Theresa May is proposing, and remaining, he would choose to remain.
A softer Brexit will cause the hard line Brexiteers who support no deal, to be unhappy.
This means that whether we get a deal or not, the majority of voters will be unhappy at the outcome. Would that really be democracy?
I still see a referendum as a possible solution for the current impasse.
If you consider all possible outcomes, it might be the last resort.
We don't appear any closer to The Withdrawal Agreement getting passed.
I think a majority are in favour of stopping the no deal option, yet they missed an opportunity to take care of this the other day.
The EU are clearly not going to take out The Backstop.
They have said no to an extension to Article 50, unless it was to accommodate a referendum or General Election.
That brings us back to leaving on 29th March with no deal.
If they just allowed an extension anyway, what would this accomplish?
More discussion, more going around in circles, more time wasting, and perhaps an extension to the extension. Just like The Backstop to The Backstop.
If the solution was seen to be an Election, this would cause both the major parties a problem concerning what they would stand on, not necessarily be a solution and may cause us to be back at square one.
We are not stuck on which deal we want, we are stuck on how we get out.
One thing that people have in common when writing these articles, is that they all seem to point to the reasons why people voted to leave, yet I am unsure whether this has been established beyond doubt, and many people voted to leave for different reasons.
The leave campaign will change political campaigning forever. They were able to identify, and target 3 million people who had never voted, and had been forgotten about. I am not sure whether these people will take more of an interest in politics in the future, or perhaps go back to not voting. Is it really possible to predict the future for them , or how disappointed they may be.
Many politicians describe Brexit, as an act of self harm, so should we go through with it in the name of democracy?
I am clear that another referendum is not ideal, and will cause some disappointment, but may turn out to be the only solution.
Any deal or no deal will leave a majority unhappy.
Proves a point, no matter what happens you want to stay part of the eu, heres an idea jump on a ferry and move to France.
Comments
Back to Brexit .
A rather silly comment.
What on earth has your working life got to do with a forum?
Are you trying to make yourself out to be a big shot?
You ask questions, you don't answer them.
Just to say that, will lead readers to question any credibility you might have had.
To cite time constraints as a reason for not answering questions, or backing up what you have posted, wouldn't seem valid, when you are able to defend a shopping argument all day long.
All this sounds just as plausible as the West Ham supporter.
The strong global economy, and the competitive value of the pound, have boosted UK exports and inbound tourism over the past two years. But the Eurozone economy has slowed recently and any escalation of international trade tensions could dampen global growth in 2019 and beyond.
Service sector growth should remain modest but positive in 2019, but manufacturing growth has slowed markedly. Construction sector output has also fallen back since early 2017 and looks set to remain relatively weak in the short term, given the uncertainty around Brexit.
London has grown faster than other UK regions for most of the past three decades, but recently there have been signs from both the labour and housing markets that London’s relative performance has been less strong. We therefore expect London to grow at only slightly above the UK average rate in 2018-19.
In our main scenario with a smooth Brexit, we assume that the Bank of England raises interest rates by a quarter of a percent to 1% in mid-2019. But the precise timing of this will be data-dependent and the pace of any subsequent rate increases are likely to remain gradual.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html
The document referred to is almost 50 years old, and merely one persons opinion.
The more recent comments are by one other person, who was an advisor to Nigel Farage.
A man who in my view cant lie straight in bed. If I was his advisor I would suggest he tells the truth a bit more.
The proof of the pudding for me is that during my whole life, I really cant think of anything that the EU are responsible for, that has affected my life in an adverse way.
They have been responsible for many things that have benefitted all of us.
During the Brexit negotiations they have behaved much better than our so called elected representatives.
Do you really think that you will benefit in any tangible way from taking back control, or more Sovereignty?
The EU have supplied around 7% of our Primary Legislation. That means to me, that we are pretty much in control.
Leaving will mean damage to our economy, which means jobs will be lost, and many people will be poorer.
I watched the documentary on tv the other night which is a 3 parter on how we ended up with Brexit, and the EU bent over backwards to help David Cameron, and gave him every thing he asked for, pre-referendum.
Just on immigration, which came up a lot in the referendum campaign. Under EU rules the UK has the right to send any EU citizen back to where they came from if they have no job 3 months after arriving. The fact that the Government never enforced this rule is their fault.
Taking back control of our borders, in a no deal scenario, means nothing gets checked. That is a UK Government plan, and hardly seems like taking back any control.
The absolute turmoil we are currently in, is clearly of our own making.
Leaving the EU may well turn out to be a massive disaster, and may lead to the break up of the UK
Mostly scaremongering remain BS
This is the post in question, including your considered response.
I would really be interested in which bits you claim are scaremongering.
Which bits are remain bs?
Having made the comment you should at least be able to back it up.
Not doing so, would surely point to the fact that you cant?
You could of course come up with your usual excuses.
This would mean a complete lack of credibility.
Theresa May has responded to Jeremy Corbyn's letter setting out his five demands for a Brexit deal.
The prime minister queried his call for the UK to stay in a customs union with the EU - but welcomed more talks with Labour on a Brexit agreement.
Mrs May wants the two parties to discuss how "alternative arrangements" to the Irish backstop - a commitment to avoid a hard border - could work.
She did not reject any of his conditions outright in her reply.
Labour asked for five changes to be made to the Brexit deal:
A "permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union" with the EU, with the same external tariff. It would give the UK a say on any future trade deals that the EU may strike.
The UK to be closely aligned with the Single Market
To stay in step with the EU on rights and protections for workers
A promise to participate in EU agencies and funding programmes on the environment, education and industry regulation
Agreements with the EU on security, such as access to the European Arrest Warrant database
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233
The Times and the Daily Telegraph both suggest Theresa May's response to Jeremy Corbyn's letter - setting out his demands for a deal - has opened the door to a soft Brexit.
The Telegraph says the prime minister "surprised" colleagues by not explicitly ruling out keeping the UK in a customs union, and the Times warns the move risks a cabinet split, involving an "exodus" of ministers.
According to the FT, Mrs May's willingness to work with Labour could persuade some wavering MPs to back her Brexit deal, but Eurosceptic Conservatives will see it as a move to "bounce" them into supporting the agreement, for fear of a softer deal.
The Guardian believes Mrs May "has in effect ruled out" Labour's ideas for a compromise Brexit plan.
The prime minister, it says, made a concession on environmental and workers' rights, but "stressed her objections" to keeping the UK in some form of customs union.
With the headline, "I'm Jez Saying No", Metro agrees, claiming Mrs May "refused to change tack".
And the website, Huffpost UK, says the prime minister rejected both Mr Corbyn's demand that the rights of British workers will automatically keep pace with those in the EU after Brexit, and his call for the UK to remain in a customs union.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47193519
As we will be trading with the EU beyond Brexit, unless we as a country wish to commit suicide. Then we will be doing so, while having to implement EU regulations, and some laws, without having any say, or input.
The £4.6billion that we are currently spending just in case there is no deal, would have paid their salaries, and expenses, until long after I am dead and buried.
A quote by Frederic Bastiat in this article : " consider the unseen, and don’t destroy the jobs of the future in a misguided attempt to protect the jobs of today"
What I do know is that the Brexiteers have produced some economic arguments which are in some cases exaggerated, and others that are lies.
Brexit is all about choices.
When we leave we lose access to EU trade deals with around 70 countries.
The Brexiteers assured everyone that these deals would be rolled over and ready to go the minute after we leave. I think there is much acceptance that this will not happen.
The Japan negotiations have been in the press, and not only are they not prepared to roll the deal over, they are looking for bigger concessions than they gave to the EU. Should this be a surprise?
I don't think so, as we are a much smaller market than the EU.
The WTO pitch doesn't stand up.
There are 164 countries in the WTO, this is 84% of the countries in the world.
We can and do, currently trade with these countries, using WTO tariffs.
The Brexiteers argue that we should do trade deals and remove the tariffs. The problem with this argument is that the tariffs in some cases protect businesses in this country. The was a programme on the other night about ceramics, and they suggested than the removal of tariffs would put them out of business. Agriculture in this country would be bankrupt if tariffs were removed.
It has also been suggested that if we removed tariffs across the board then there would be no reason for any country to do a trade deal with us.
So Brexit will result in the loss of at least some trade with the EU, the loss of the EU trade deals, which may result in us negotiating worse terms than we currently have through the EU, or maybe no deal at all. We could open ourselves up to the cheapest imports, costing jobs.
I have used the Germany example before, where we are both members of the EU, and they do 6 times as much business as we do with China. Why is this? Could we improve this?
We currently do around 12% of our trade with the USA, without a free trade deal. How much more would we do with a trade deal. Do we really want to import chlorine washed chickens, hormone fed beef, gm crops, and give them access to our NHS?
How much more trade could we have been doing with these countries, without trade deals, if we just tried a bit harder?
The choices are a Customs Union, which solves the Irish border, but would disallow trade deals.
Full Single Market access, would lessen the loss of trade, but would commit us to Freedom of Movement.
The real problem is that to achieve the Brexit promised by our politicians during the referendum campaign is impossible.
Logically the closer we get to our current membership, the less real point there is in leaving.
A rather silly comment.
What on earth has your working life got to do with a forum?
Are you trying to make yourself out to be a big shot?
You ask questions, you don't answer them.
Just to say that, will lead readers to question any credibility you might have had.
To cite time constraints as a reason for not answering questions, or backing up what you have posted, wouldn't seem valid, when you are able to defend a shopping argument all day long.
All this sounds just as plausible as the West Ham supporter.
You ask for a reasonable debate and then , start throwing snidey little comments.
Wonder if tomgoodu will ask you to behave like an Adult.
A “People’s Vote” – and the toxic space the far-right are waiting to exploit
It’s why the alarm bells started ringing in my head when at anti-Brexit strategy meetings campaigners kept reminding themselves not to call it a second referendum and instead call it a ratification vote and more recently a People’s Vote. If the argument is that a vote against any deal automatically means we revert to remaining in the EU, then this is disingenuous to stay the least. Surely the rejection of the deal means the government should go away and construct a better deal; not a reversal of the whole thing without a clear and unambiguous vote on doing so – a second referendum? There can be no democratic sleight of hand; only a clear and unambiguous vote to reverse Brexit.
So we have to get the democratic process right, but we also have to dig deep into the causes of Brexit. Some showed interest for a while and visited Leave-voting communities, but it soon waned. A few stuck at it: Caroline Lucas did, and Anthony Barnett made an early and strong intervention with The Lure of Greatness.
If there is a second referendum, I fear that a pro-EU view might win simply because a large swathe of people just won’t bother voting a second time, because they are resigned to the fact that the ‘elite’ will always win and will keep coming back until they do. They will give up on democracy. And who could blame them?
Just as I hate the thought of the social and economic damage Brexit could bring, I can’t bear to think what a second vote would do to the hearts and hopes of the people who voted for Brexit, who for once trusted the system, who had a democratic outlet for once in their life – only to find that they didn’t. Politics and democracy has already failed them, closed their industries, marginalised and humiliated them – and then offered them a huge scream button to hit in the shape of the referendum, which they duly pressed. Could they now have even that last bit of power taken away?
A second vote could turn them away from any residual belief in democracy. It will confirm to them the suspicion they have always had: that the elite, the establishment, London always win – and they never do. They will feel more marginalised and humiliated than ever. Of course, Remainers may argue that Brexit will make these Leave-voters’ lives immeasurably worse, but that is a long conversation we need to have.
Many Leave-voters were from affluent homes in the South, but talk to Labour MPs in the North and they know this is the toxic space the far-right are waiting to exploit. Banks, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Robinson don’t want a messy soft Brexit compromise. They want either want a no-deal Brexit or for Brexit to be stopped, so that out of the sense of betrayal, resentment and rejection they can build a populist hard-right movement. It could well be the case that a ‘street first’ strategy would then really take hold, with immigrants and asylum seekers targeted, windows smashed and faces spat at, and a drift to heaven knows what form of politics. Britain will never have experienced such political poison.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/neal-lawson/people-s-vote-on-brexit-be-careful-what-you-wish-for
A rather silly comment.
What on earth has your working life got to do with a forum?
Are you trying to make yourself out to be a big shot?
You ask questions, you don't answer them.
Just to say that, will lead readers to question any credibility you might have had.
To cite time constraints as a reason for not answering questions, or backing up what you have posted, wouldn't seem valid, when you are able to defend a shopping argument all day long.
All this sounds just as plausible as the West Ham supporter.
Abuse is frowned upon, you ask for reasonable debate, then you proceed to abuse people who oppose your views, sounds like facism to me
As I am in favour of continuing our EU membership, I would be in favour of anything that allowed that to happen.
There has been much criticism of the referendum campaign on both sides. There is no point in repeating it here.
I appreciate that a second referendum, would cause some resentment. Although I am not certain how serious this would be.
To justify a second referendum is fairly easy in my view. Without going into the nitty gritty, why couldnt we just say that we wanted to ensure that after uncovering the facts, that we just want to check on whether people have changed their minds. If they haven't, then we will leave anyway.
Why do contracts have cooling off periods?
Brexit has a number of flavours. Yet the referendum only allowed people to choose Brexit or not, no choice of a flavour.
Almost half those that voted wished to remain.
Of the other half many will not be happy with whatever we end up with.
Dominic Raab the ex Brexit Secretary, and prominent leave voter, said the other day that given a choice between what Theresa May is proposing, and remaining, he would choose to remain.
A softer Brexit will cause the hard line Brexiteers who support no deal, to be unhappy.
This means that whether we get a deal or not, the majority of voters will be unhappy at the outcome. Would that really be democracy?
I still see a referendum as a possible solution for the current impasse.
If you consider all possible outcomes, it might be the last resort.
We don't appear any closer to The Withdrawal Agreement getting passed.
I think a majority are in favour of stopping the no deal option, yet they missed an opportunity to take care of this the other day.
The EU are clearly not going to take out The Backstop.
They have said no to an extension to Article 50, unless it was to accommodate a referendum or General Election.
That brings us back to leaving on 29th March with no deal.
If they just allowed an extension anyway, what would this accomplish?
More discussion, more going around in circles, more time wasting, and perhaps an extension to the extension. Just like The Backstop to The Backstop.
If the solution was seen to be an Election, this would cause both the major parties a problem concerning what they would stand on, not necessarily be a solution and may cause us to be back at square one.
We are not stuck on which deal we want, we are stuck on how we get out.
One thing that people have in common when writing these articles, is that they all seem to point to the reasons why people voted to leave, yet I am unsure whether this has been established beyond doubt, and many people voted to leave for different reasons.
The leave campaign will change political campaigning forever. They were able to identify, and target 3 million people who had never voted, and had been forgotten about. I am not sure whether these people will take more of an interest in politics in the future, or perhaps go back to not voting. Is it really possible to predict the future for them , or how disappointed they may be.
Many politicians describe Brexit, as an act of self harm, so should we go through with it in the name of democracy?
I am clear that another referendum is not ideal, and will cause some disappointment, but may turn out to be the only solution.
Any deal or no deal will leave a majority unhappy.
You have yet to make a single constructive contribution to this debate today, you are simply trying to derail the thread, post after post.
My very strong advice to you would be to stop right now.