Are you generally in favour of lowering food standards?
Do you think that we should allow imports of hormone injected beef, gm crops, and chlorine washed chicken?
Do you think that JRM should be undermining the Government, and putting the future of the country in jeopardy, in pursuing his own aims?
Do you think that US companies should be allowed access to the NHS?
Do you now appreciate that the NHS is experiencing problems with drug shortages?
Do you now understand that stopping Freedom of Movement means the loss of the right to live and work in EU member countries?
No.
Maybe.
What's best for the country is subjective.
If you seriously think that will happen , you should prob join the conspiracy theory thread
Yes , but that is in the main due to panic stockpiling .
That depends entirely on what we negotiate with the EU post brexit. If we joined the EEA, or substantially replicated EEU arrangements (as Switzerland does) then relatively little would change.
What do you think JRMs motives were?
I found this a really strange response.
On the one hand you clearly confirm that you are not in favour of lowering food standards.
In the next breath you say that we should maybe import chlorine washed chickens, hormone injected beef, and gm crops.
This position is difficult to understand as these items are banned by the EU, and seen by the overwhelming majority as a lowering of food standards.
I fail to see how this could possibly make sense to anyone.
Moving on I would argue that whats best for the country is not crashing out of the EU.
Any one who is not a Mars inhabitant or a member of the ERG, knows this.
You know this. So how could you say in this context, that what is best for the country is subjective?
Rather than a conspiracy theory much of the press has been reporting for some time, on the likely conditions applicable to a US trade deal.
The two most widely publicised conditions are access to the NHS for US companies, and our importation of agricultural products.
The US representatives, including Trump have spoken many times on us having to abandon our unjustified food standards.
This was made abundantly clear in a number of video responses I posted in reply to an earlier post that you made. It would appear that you ignored them.
This language would seem to confirm that we will indeed be lowering our food standards, should this deal take place.
The US and their America first policy, are unlikely to be keen on respecting our views.
You first denied that there was any problem with the supply of drugs.
You subsequently rowed back into an admission that there was, due to the weight of evidence.
Yet you wish to dilute your admission with the claim that this is due to panic stockpiling.
I am certain that those that are suffering pain, or worse, will gain no satisfaction from knowing why they cant get the drugs they need, which may be lifesaving.
They wont care why they cant get them, they just need access to them.
You seemed to be putting forward that, as you knew the reason for the shortages that it somehow mattered less.
Who do you blame for this stockpiling?
The drug companies have been instructed by the government to do so.
Unless GPs have suddenly started writing out multiple prescriptions at the same time, patients will be unable to stockpile.
Some of the drugs involved have an extremely limited shelf life, and are unable to be stockpiled.
So who is stockpiling, and how does it make a difference?
A more plausible theory is that due to the weakness in the pound, which leave voters maintain has nothing to do with the Brexit vote, despite the fact that it fell immediately after, and hasn't recovered since, means that it is more profitable to sell the drugs in Europe, and that is what is happening.
You last point completely ignores the fact that Freedom of Movement was one of the more contentious issues in the referendum, and any continuation will go down like a lead balloon with the majority of leave voters.
You cant have it both ways either our youngsters will lose the right to live, work and be educated in Europe, or in the words of a typical leave voter, it will be a further betrayal of those that voted to leave. How many leave voters were there, I have forgotten?
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
Great post! I commend Brexit-the uncivil war to be watched again
Earlier on the thread I commented that as a 61 year old, my opinion is our economy will not recover in my lifetime and my 4 children are appalled at the overall statistical impact the older population's votes had in securing the exit vote
Please, please not Chris 'Ive given away £33m of public money' Grayling....
He's 3rd or 4th in the queue- behind JR Mogg, Babyface Gove and Boorish Boris as someone you would like to meet one to one and have a personal debate
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
I have posted earlier about the referendum campaign. I believe that if Dominic Cummings was on the remain side the result would have been reversed. He was the key to the campaign. They found 3 million voters that had never voted before, and felt left behind. One billion targeted Facebook ads inspired them to vote. The leave campaign was that of the 21st century, while the remain campaign was stuck in the 19th century. I don't know if you watched Brexit The Uncivil War, but there was a Eureka moment when he added the word "back" to the slogan that they were using which was "Take Control." It made such a difference as the taking back control got people thinking that the EU had robbed this control from us and we wanted it back. The programme was a real eye opener, and well worth a watch. I think that the proof that the campaign worked so well, is seen in the many interviews with members of the general public on the tv. So many leave voters are able to quote the rhetoric parrot fashion, yet they seem in many cases unable to iterate what it actually means to them. For instance I have asked a number of people who have moaned on this thread about the EU making our laws, which would be the first few they would repeal on leaving, and they cant answer or just disappear.
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
Great post! I commend Brexit-the uncivil war to be watched again
Earlier on the thread I commented that as a 61 year old, my opinion is our economy will not recover in my lifetime and my 4 children are appalled at the overall statistical impact the older population's votes had in securing the exit vote
Please, please not Chris 'Ive given away £33m of public money' Grayling....
He's 3rd or 4th in the queue- behind JR Mogg, Babyface Gove and Boorish Boris as someone you would like to meet one to one and have a personal debate
Yes, I watched that and you had to admire the team behind the Leave campaign they did a superb job. Shame the Remain campaign did't headhunt a couple of the main players! The slogan 'Taking Back Control' is just genius.
I don't understand why a lot of the older generation with their life experience don't want to make our country a more prosperous and safer place for the younger generation. I took my young children to both marches just to show them I tried. Interestingly I saw an article yesterday that said among older voters those that were actually involved in WW2 were more likely to vote Remain. Speak volumes as to how they see the EU.
If I had to list the Tory MPs I have problems with I'd be here all day but that's a strong top 4!
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
I have posted earlier about the referendum campaign. I believe that if Dominic Cummings was on the remain side the result would have been reversed. He was the key to the campaign. They found 3 million voters that had never voted before, and felt left behind. One billion targeted Facebook ads inspired them to vote. The leave campaign was that of the 21st century, while the remain campaign was stuck in the 19th century. I don't know if you watched Brexit The Uncivil War, but there was a Eureka moment when he added the word "back" to the slogan that they were using which was "Take Control." It made such a difference as the taking back control got people thinking that the EU had robbed this control from us and we wanted it back. The programme was a real eye opener, and well worth a watch. I think that the proof that the campaign worked so well, is seen in the many interviews with members of the general public on the tv. So many leave voters are able to quote the rhetoric parrot fashion, yet they seem in many cases unable to iterate what it actually means to them. For instance I have asked a number of people who have moaned on this thread about the EU making our laws, which would be the first few they would repeal on leaving, and they cant answer or just disappear.
Couldn't agree more. I'm sure a lot of people believe that actually saying the words 'Leave Means Leave' trumps all facts as if they have played their joker. It' bizarre.
On the EUs laws I recall listening to James O'Brien on LBC and he pinned this guy down what laws he didn't like and all the guy said was that he didn't like 2 pin plugs. James told him he's allowed to have his preferred 3 pin plugs under EU laws and the guy agreed and the call ended.
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
I have posted earlier about the referendum campaign. I believe that if Dominic Cummings was on the remain side the result would have been reversed. He was the key to the campaign. They found 3 million voters that had never voted before, and felt left behind. One billion targeted Facebook ads inspired them to vote. The leave campaign was that of the 21st century, while the remain campaign was stuck in the 19th century. I don't know if you watched Brexit The Uncivil War, but there was a Eureka moment when he added the word "back" to the slogan that they were using which was "Take Control." It made such a difference as the taking back control got people thinking that the EU had robbed this control from us and we wanted it back. The programme was a real eye opener, and well worth a watch. I think that the proof that the campaign worked so well, is seen in the many interviews with members of the general public on the tv. So many leave voters are able to quote the rhetoric parrot fashion, yet they seem in many cases unable to iterate what it actually means to them. For instance I have asked a number of people who have moaned on this thread about the EU making our laws, which would be the first few they would repeal on leaving, and they cant answer or just disappear.
Couldn't agree more. I'm sure a lot of people believe that actually saying the words 'Leave Means Leave' trumps all facts as if they have played their joker. It' bizarre.
On the EUs laws I recall listening to James O'Brien on LBC and he pinned this guy down what laws he didn't like and all the guy said was that he didn't like 2 pin plugs. James told him he's allowed to have his preferred 3 pin plugs under EU laws and the guy agreed and the call ended.
I was watching "This Week" the other week and they included some interviews with the public over metrication.
One guy claimed that he didn't fight in the war for this, he fought for feet and inches.
A woman claimed she would loose out because there were less miles in a litre of petrol.
Both people were deadly serious about these claims.
These interviews obviously date back to the 70s, but Brexit is proof that nothing has changed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Theresa May has made 'active choices' to stop Brexit The senior backbench Tory MP says the prime minister "deserves to be held to account" foacob Rees-Mogg has told Sky News that Theresa May has made "active choices" to stop Brexit - decisions she "deserves to be held to account for".
The chairman of the European Research Group of eurosceptic Conservative MPs hit out at the prime minister's decision to sit down for talks with Jeremy Corbyn to break the Brexit deadlock.
He said the move "risks giving a degree of credibility" to the Labour leader and "undermining the general thrust of the Conservative argument that he is a Marxist who would be dangerous to this nation's interests".
It has sparked fury within the party, but Mrs May has claimed she had "no choice" but to reach out to Mr Corbyn because of the refusal of Conservative and DUP MPs to back her deal failing to deliver Brexit on time.Mr Rees-Mogg took issue with this, telling Sky News that the PM had no one to blame but herself.
He told Sophy Ridge On Sunday: "The prime minister could have taken us out on 29 March. It was the prime minister who asked for an extension, it was the prime minister who changed the date by prerogative power from 29 March to 12 April."
"This all rests with her and upon her shoulders. Mrs May has made active choices to stop us leaving and she deserves to be held to account for that.
"People ought to know the truth of the position, rather than trying to blame everybody else, blaming recalcitrant MPs and other Conservatives.
"If the prime minister had done what she said in the first place and had stuck to the law, as set out in two acts, we would have left the European Union by now."
Britain was due to leave the EU on 29 March, but Mrs May asked Brussels for a delay to Brexit after her deal was defeated three times by MPs.
The new deadline is 12 April, although the PM now wants to push it back to 30 June.
The Leave campaign in my opinion was very well run. Great slogans (albeit mostly lies and with no substance behind any of it). Well targeted advertising (using dodgy money), preying on people's fears and prejudices. As a result Leave won by many voters making an emotional rather than logical decision. Since then it's been downhill as voters had been sold a fantasy. Brexit, in any form, is undeliverable without making us worse off. This has to be one of the worse decision this country has ever made in my opinion. It was far too complex a decision for the average voter. I mean my knowledge of the workings of the EU and the potential impacts of leaving has increased ten fold in the last couple of years and I'm just scratching the surface. My job is in chemical distribution so I know about importing and exporting worldwide and if we leave with No Deal the sh*t really will hit the fan for the supply chain. I just count my lucky stars that Chris Grayling is in control if it all goes sour!
I have posted earlier about the referendum campaign. I believe that if Dominic Cummings was on the remain side the result would have been reversed. He was the key to the campaign. They found 3 million voters that had never voted before, and felt left behind. One billion targeted Facebook ads inspired them to vote. The leave campaign was that of the 21st century, while the remain campaign was stuck in the 19th century. I don't know if you watched Brexit The Uncivil War, but there was a Eureka moment when he added the word "back" to the slogan that they were using which was "Take Control." It made such a difference as the taking back control got people thinking that the EU had robbed this control from us and we wanted it back. The programme was a real eye opener, and well worth a watch. I think that the proof that the campaign worked so well, is seen in the many interviews with members of the general public on the tv. So many leave voters are able to quote the rhetoric parrot fashion, yet they seem in many cases unable to iterate what it actually means to them. For instance I have asked a number of people who have moaned on this thread about the EU making our laws, which would be the first few they would repeal on leaving, and they cant answer or just disappear.
Couldn't agree more. I'm sure a lot of people believe that actually saying the words 'Leave Means Leave' trumps all facts as if they have played their joker. It' bizarre.
On the EUs laws I recall listening to James O'Brien on LBC and he pinned this guy down what laws he didn't like and all the guy said was that he didn't like 2 pin plugs. James told him he's allowed to have his preferred 3 pin plugs under EU laws and the guy agreed and the call ended.
I was watching "This Week" the other week and they included some interviews with the public over metrication.
One guy claimed that he didn't fight in the war for this, he fought for feet and inches.
A woman claimed she would loose out because there were less miles in a litre of petrol.
Both people were deadly serious about these claims.
These interviews obviously date back to the 70s, but Brexit is proof that nothing has changed.
That's what it comes down to to me. The electorate were expected to make a decision on a very complex situation with barely any information given up front. All a lot of people had to go on were years of the EU being demonised unjustifiably by the influential media in this country. The same media turning a blind eye to the real culprit for our country's problem which is Tory policy. No wonder people made the wrong decision. Studies of the potential impact of a Brexit should have been done in advance and the findings presented to the public to make an informed decision on just like any normal project.
Remainers, please stop treating everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old
Since the referendum, I’ve been shocked to witness Remainers, around my and other people’s dinner tables, tacitly clubbing together in their scorn of their fellow countrymen and women who don’t agree with them. “Oh my God,” said one. “All those ignorant, uneducated people have ruined the future.”
Whose future? What do they know of the lives of ordinary people, whose lives are ruined right now by the EU? By the regulations, the loss of our legislature, the overcrowded NHS etc?
As a Europhile with postgraduate qualifications, I nearly voted Remain. Then, just before the referendum, I listened to the broadcasts, the sneering arrogance of Remainers, their ignorance of vast tracts of our country, their presumptions and judgements, all projected from immensely privileged lives.
So I voted Leave, for the forgotten backbone of our country, for southern Italy and Greece, for our legislature, worn away day by day, by unelected EU politicians.
Despite the mockery, disbelief and downright nastiness I have endured as a result, I am glad of it, even though I have concerns.
“We morons,” commented a builder, who voted Leave, “would fight for our country if we were invaded. That lot wouldn’t.”
Silently, most of the country would agree with him. Their dislike of a certain type of Remainer is palpable. So, Remainers – please don’t – just don’t – treat everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old. Remember the French revolution and beware.
Democracy-hating Remainers are the true extremists
Interesting article , starting with a telling yougov poll ...i know how much store certain people put in polls
Last month, a YouGov poll revealed the nationwide intolerance of Remainers. While just nine per cent of Leave voters would mind if a close relative married a “strong Remainer”, a staggering 37 per cent of Remainers would object if a family member married a “strong Leaver”. In Parliament, it is not just lawyers who are battling against democratic outcomes. Medical clinicians turned MPs have also become obsessive and intolerant because, we must understand, they are “good and caring people who know best”. This attitude may yet survive in the doctor’s surgery, despite the internet which has empowered patients, but it does not necessarily follow in the legislature.
Their amendments to Parliamentary motions and demands for a second referendum because the foolish electorate “didn’t really understand what they were voting for” are gaining momentum. Though they may portray their crusade for a so-called “People’s Vote” as a positive movement for democracy, based on optimistic, grassroots activism - at its heart lies a deep and pessimistic insecurity.
A number of organisations with warm, fluffy-sounding names are affiliated with the campaign. The official People’s Vote website boasts the involvement of, among others: Open Britain, Healthier In, Our Future Our Choice and For Our Future’s Sake. From a distance, their protest marches have appeared vibrant and colourful, with people of all ages and backgrounds taking part.
The reality, however, is far less cute. Open Britain, the main group behind the People’s Vote, is simply a rebrand of the Stronger In campaign, notorious for its failed Project Fear activism during the referendum.
A closer look at the second referendum protests also reveals a considerably less smiley and polite atmosphere than is claimed. Photographs from marches show signs bearing messages such as “BrexS**t”, “Boris you w****r” and of course the ubiquitous “b****cks to Brexit” stickers, which can be found plastered over any flat surface within 500 yards of an anti-Brexit protest, and even in the precincts of the House of Commons.
Dig deeper, and the hardcore Remainer narrative becomes even more cynical and spiteful - perhaps best exemplified by their morbid fascination with death.
Generally, the older you are, the more likely you are to have voted Leave. Remainers therefore argue that since the referendum, potentially millions of Leave voters have died, thus necessitating a re-run.
In a recent article, prominent Remainer Polly Toynbee argued that "enough old leavers will have died and enough young Remainers will have come on to the electoral register to turn the dial on what the country thinks about Brexit.” The true 'will of the people', she argues, “looks considerably more questionable if it turns out to be the will of dead people".
Not only is this a disrespectful, hateful argument, it is also completely bogus. The same could also be said of support for the Conservative Party. But in fact, as people grow older (and wiser), their attitudes change too.
Perhaps it’s because I am a sunny optimist that I was an entrepreneur before I became an MP - and perhaps I envisage a brighter future for our nation after Brexit for the same reason.
And on the topic of clinicians, I just wish that some of my sunny optimism were contagious.
Andrea Leadsom: no-deal Brexit next week would not be so grim
A no-deal Brexit at the end of next week would be “not nearly as grim” as many believe, one of Theresa May’s senior ministers has said, as both the government and Labour indicated that cross-party talks to resolve the situation remained deadlocked.
Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, said preparations would mitigate many adverse effects of no deal. She also said the idea of a departure extension long enough to require the UK to hold European elections was “utterly unacceptable”.
There is currently very little sign that May will travel to next week’s emergency European council summit with the coherent plan the EU says will be necessary to grant the UK a further delay to Brexit, which is currently scheduled to happen on Friday.
At the end of last week Labour said the talks called by May with Jeremy Corbyn and his team had achieved very little as the prime minister seemed unwilling to compromise on any of her Brexit red lines, notably on Labour’s key demand for a post-Brexit customs union with the EU.
The shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, who was among the Labour delegation, said on Sunday that while the mood of the talks had been “quite a positive and hopeful one”, little was achieved.
“The sad thing is at the moment we haven’t seen, overall, any real changes to the deal, but we’re hopeful that will change in coming days and we are willing to continue the talks as we know the government are,” she told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show. “But we are currently waiting for the government to come back to us now to state whether they are prepared to move on any of their red lines.”
Speaking later on the same show, Leadsom indicated that it was up to Labour to accept the customs “arrangement” already in May’s three-times-rejected deal, and that she and other Brexiter members of May’s ministerial team could not accept a full customs union.
“There are various different types of arrangements, and those discussions are still ongoing,” Leadsom said, calling May’s existing customs plan “an excellent proposal”.
Asked whether May could agree to a full customs union, Leadsom indicated not. “My expectation – and I’m not party to the discussions – is that the prime minister will only seek to agree those things that still constitute Brexit.”
She also refused to confirm she could stay in the government if a new customs plan was agreed, saying: “It depends on what that means.”
There has been speculation that MPs could force a vote to revoke article 50 entirely if the EU refuses another Brexit delay this week and a no-deal departure looms on Friday. Leadsom said she would never agree to this, and that no deal would be manageable. It’s not nearly as grim as many would advocate,” she said. “The civil service have done an amazing job of ensuring that we minimise the problems. I’m not an advocate for no deal, but it would not be nearly as bad as many like to think it would be.”
Under May’s compromise plan, announced in a Downing Street statement on Wednesday, if Labour and the government cannot agree a consensus then MPs could be asked to vote on various options, with the choice seen as binding.
But Long-Bailey said Labour had heard nothing about how this could happen: “We haven’t had any discussions really as to what a next stage would be, and the government hasn’t confirmed whether they want to adopt that approach or look at more flexible approaches.”
She refused to rule out Labour backing a revocation of article 50, saying the party wanted to stop no deal “in any situation”. Asked about possible revocation, she added: “We’ll keep all options in play.
Amid the impasse, the timetable ahead of Friday’s Brexit deadline is compressing greatly, with time seemingly too short to allow a process of government-sanctioned indicative votes by MPs before May goes to Brussels on Wednesday afternoon.
May could instead travel compelled by parliament to seek a longer extension to article 50 than the new 22 June date she has sought, and which the EU has previously refused.
A backbench bill led by the Labour MP Yvette Cooper mandating May to avoid a no-deal departure is expected to finish its progress through the Lords on Monday and then get royal assent the same day.
Before the EU potentially agrees a longer delay to Brexit it must weight up the possibility of a future, post-May government being an obstructive member of the bloc.
The Conservative backbench Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg on Sunday reiterated his proposal for the UK to seek to veto EU budgets and other disruptions if it stayed.
“I don’t think the EU, in its jargon, has behaved towards us with sincere cooperation,” he told Sky News’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday. “We are no longer obliged to follow sincere cooperation in return.”
He said: “When the multi-annual financial framework comes forward, if we are still in, this is our one-in-seven-year opportunity to veto the budget and to be really very difficult, and I hope that any British prime minister would take that opportunity.”
Spare us more Project Fear By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JANUARY 13, 2019
The more the false fears are dismissed by the people responsible for organising our trade, the shriller and more desperate the Project Fear voices become. The port of Calais assures us of speedy passage for trucks after exit, so the hard core Remainers renew threats of food shortages! European pharmaceutical companies confirm they want to carry on supplying drugs, so some go on about the need to stockpile as if we are entering some undeclared economic war. Airlines carry on selling tickets for post March whilst Project Fear is still pumping out the idea the UK will suddenly be cut off from the continent. We currently import plenty of items including perishable food from outside the EU under WTO rules without delays and problems. Over the last year I have mainly bought home grown food, but have also enjoyed good fruit and veg that the UK could not grow from African and Latin American countries. I have not needed EU product. I like to buy domestic produce with lowest food miles where possible. After that I prefer to buy food from developing countries. As an advocate of more trade as one of the ways of helping countries out of low incomes, I like to do my little bit with my own domestic budget. The Project Fear blizzard on much of the media prevents us having a sensible discussion about how to use all the extra money and new freedoms once we lave. There are also some government Ministers who cannot bring themselves to tell us how they will spend the money and use the new freedoms, as if they are desperate not to. They should exude sensible confidence in our future as an independent country, and should be setting out exactly what we can do in April assuming we just leave. Setting out the advantages should be part of contingency planning for the Withdrawal Agreement being voted down.
The Chancellor needs to prepare a March budget to spend the money saved and boost the economy. The Business Secretary needs to stop encouraging fears and explain how Just in time systems will work just fine once we leave.Why doesn’t he sort out the damage done to the car industry by EU and UK regulation and by high vehicle Exicse Duty. Why won’t he publish with the Trade Secretary a tariff schedule for March 30 that is lower than the EU one, with no tariffs on any imported components? We want a better manufacturing policy after years of EU rules and subsidies helping export factories from the UK.
Mrs May has suggested that post-Brexit this money for the NHS would come, at least in part, from money previously sent to the EU.
There is no guaranteed extra money—or ‘Brexit dividend’—as a result of the UK ceasing its contributions to the EU budget after leaving. The UK currently pays around £13 billion to £14 billion into the EU budget every year.
We get some money back in the form of EU spending on the UK. The government has already indicated that, until at least 2022, it will continue to spend some money on the areas where the EU currently gives us funding. So after factoring that in, when we stop paying into the EU budget in 2021, we’d likely have a “net” sum of around £9 billion to £10 billion left over each year.
However, other costs (for example, parts of the Brexit ‘divorce’ bill) and economic effects associated with leaving are expected to more than offset that saving.
Any extra funding given to the NHS or any other part of public spending would then need to come from increased taxes, increased borrowing, or reducing spending on something else.
We’ve written more about this here.
We need facts more than ever. Right now, it’s difficult to know what or who to trust. Misinformation is spreading. Politics and the media are being pushed to the limit by advancements in technology and uncertainty about the future. We need facts more than ever. This is where you come in. Your donation is vital for our small, independent team to keep going, at the time when it’s needed most. With your help, we can keep factchecking and demanding better from our politicians and public figures.We can give more people the tools to decide for themselves what to believe. We can intervene more effectively where false claims cause most harm. Become a donor today and stand up for better public debate, on all sides, across the UK. By Claire Milne
17 reasons why we should love Brexit Imagine all we can do once we’ve left the EU
‘But what are you going to do with the powers?’ the minister asked, while I negotiated devolution of powers to London when Boris was mayor. The government wouldn’t grant powers unless we explained how we would use them.
And that is what is missing in the Brexit non-debate. We are ‘taking back control’ — but we haven’t really thought what we will do with that control once we have it. It is true there has been discussion of trade deals, transforming the Common Agricultural Policy and the colour of our passports. But if that was all we could do, even most Brexiteers wouldn’t have considered it worth it.
So, what could we do once we Brexit? Well actually, given how extensive EU law is, an awful lot. Some will depend on the deal we have with the EU. Some are things we could do but wouldn’t want to do. But there are also lots of popular things the government could do. In 1997, Tony Blair campaigned to scrap VAT on domestic gas and electricity. But because of the EU, he had to settle for 5 per cent. Once we leave the EU, the government could do what Blair couldn’t. Fuel poverty campaigners, take note.
Tories and Labour have wanted to scrap the hated ‘tampon tax’ — VAT on tampons. But what is impossible inside the EU becomes possible outside. Women campaigners, take note. In fact, the government could scrap the hideously complex VAT system — a job creation scheme for accountants we had to bring in when we joined the EU — altogether, and go back to the simple purchase tax we had before.
In the 1990s, there were endless protests along the coast against exporting live lambs and calves for slaughter in Europe. The government wanted to ban the exports, but couldn’t because of EU rules. Animal welfare groups, take note. In 2012, Nicola Sturgeon passed a law to impose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland, but it has not come in because the ECJ complained. She could control Scottish fisheries to revitalise Scottish fishing ports.
The last Labour government fought to have control of EU regional development funding to the UK. I was in charge of these EU funds in London, and the system is a money-go-round nonsense. Come Brexit, the government will be able to design funding to fit the country’s priorities. Northern Powerhouse fund anyone?
The UK could also be brought closer together by introducing variable Air Passenger Duty — such as scrapping it on flights from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or halving it from Scotland to England. Impossible in the EU, but possible outside.
There was a huge national moan when duty free for passengers travelling to Europe was abolished, because it conflicted with EU single market rules. Come Brexit, the government could bring back duty free for trips to France, Spain and Italy.
As head of the British Bankers’ Association, I promoted competition in banking, arguing that challenger banks should have a level playing field with large banks on prudential regulation. The government was supportive, but the barrier was the EU. It was a constant frustration to the UK’s global financial institutions that the EU would apply its rules to their operations all over the world, making them less competitive internationally. Come Brexit, it seems likely the government would be able to ensure that a UK bank or insurance company working in the US or Asia can compete with US or Asian banks on a level playing field.
Byzantine EU rules can make procurement by public authorities a tortuous quagmire. The former minister Francis Maude fought a valiant battle for major reform. But Brexit means the government can set up a more effective procurement regime, helping improve public services.
David Cameron focused his brutalising EU renegotiation on being allowed to stop paying UK child benefit payments to children who don’t live in the UK. Once we leave, the government could do it in the time it takes to write the press release. The government will also be allowed to ensure that EU citizens living in the UK follow the same rules as British citizens on bringing in spouses. The government will have the freedom to set language rules for EU doctors, and to deport EU criminals.
There are lots of things the government opposed at the time, but which we will end up keeping. It lost a battle to stop passengers getting compensation if aeroplane delays are caused by technical problems. I doubt that will change. But I can see market stalls beiing allowed to sell apples just in lbs and oz. Metric martyrs could claim a late victory.
The government has made clear it doesn’t want to scrap the EU’s employment laws. No British government — Labour or Conservative — supported the EU’s working time directive, but it is clearly here to stay. However, there are some aspects that might be tweaked. When the ECJ ruled that doctors sleeping in hospitals but being on call had to count it as full working time, it caused staff shortages in the NHS. With staff shortages again afflicting the NHS, there might be an agreement to change it.
Then there are things a future government might want to do, but which at the moment it can’t. It is clear, for example, that the wholesale nationalisation of the train system is an infringement of the EU’s Fourth Railway Package, which requires governments to open up train services to the markets. If Corbyn were to become PM, Brexit would enable him to deliver on his pledge.
Leaving the EU reopens whole areas of policymaking off limits for decades. Whether you are a rail nationaliser, a women’s warrior, a fuel poverty campaigner, NHS manager, animal rights activist, a public procurer, a commuter between Belfast and London, or someone who used to enjoy duty free on trips to Costa del Sol — there could be something in Brexit for you. We have decided to take back control. We should start discussing all the things we could do with it.
At the point of joining the EU framework in 1974, UK Purchase tax was 25% and reduced to 15% and renamed as VAT...admittedly changed(complicated) and adjusted up and down over time
Comments
Maybe.
What's best for the country is subjective.
If you seriously think that will happen , you should prob join the conspiracy theory thread
Yes , but that is in the main due to panic stockpiling .
That depends entirely on what we negotiate with the EU post brexit. If we joined the EEA, or substantially replicated EEU arrangements (as Switzerland does) then relatively little would change.
What do you think JRMs motives were?
I found this a really strange response.
On the one hand you clearly confirm that you are not in favour of lowering food standards.
In the next breath you say that we should maybe import chlorine washed chickens, hormone injected beef, and gm crops.
This position is difficult to understand as these items are banned by the EU, and seen by the overwhelming majority as a lowering of food standards.
I fail to see how this could possibly make sense to anyone.
Moving on I would argue that whats best for the country is not crashing out of the EU.
Any one who is not a Mars inhabitant or a member of the ERG, knows this.
You know this. So how could you say in this context, that what is best for the country is subjective?
Rather than a conspiracy theory much of the press has been reporting for some time, on the likely conditions applicable to a US trade deal.
The two most widely publicised conditions are access to the NHS for US companies, and our importation of agricultural products.
The US representatives, including Trump have spoken many times on us having to abandon our unjustified food standards.
This was made abundantly clear in a number of video responses I posted in reply to an earlier post that you made. It would appear that you ignored them.
This language would seem to confirm that we will indeed be lowering our food standards, should this deal take place.
The US and their America first policy, are unlikely to be keen on respecting our views.
You first denied that there was any problem with the supply of drugs.
You subsequently rowed back into an admission that there was, due to the weight of evidence.
Yet you wish to dilute your admission with the claim that this is due to panic stockpiling.
I am certain that those that are suffering pain, or worse, will gain no satisfaction from knowing why they cant get the drugs they need, which may be lifesaving.
They wont care why they cant get them, they just need access to them.
You seemed to be putting forward that, as you knew the reason for the shortages that it somehow mattered less.
Who do you blame for this stockpiling?
The drug companies have been instructed by the government to do so.
Unless GPs have suddenly started writing out multiple prescriptions at the same time, patients will be unable to stockpile.
Some of the drugs involved have an extremely limited shelf life, and are unable to be stockpiled.
So who is stockpiling, and how does it make a difference?
A more plausible theory is that due to the weakness in the pound, which leave voters maintain has nothing to do with the Brexit vote, despite the fact that it fell immediately after, and hasn't recovered since, means that it is more profitable to sell the drugs in Europe, and that is what is happening.
You last point completely ignores the fact that Freedom of Movement was one of the more contentious issues in the referendum, and any continuation will go down like a lead balloon with the majority of leave voters.
You cant have it both ways either our youngsters will lose the right to live, work and be educated in Europe, or in the words of a typical leave voter, it will be a further betrayal of those that voted to leave. How many leave voters were there, I have forgotten?
Great post! I commend Brexit-the uncivil war to be watched again
Earlier on the thread I commented that as a 61 year old, my opinion is our economy will not recover in my lifetime and my 4 children are appalled at the overall statistical impact the older population's votes had in securing the exit vote
Please, please not Chris 'Ive given away £33m of public money' Grayling....
He's 3rd or 4th in the queue- behind JR Mogg, Babyface Gove and Boorish Boris as someone you would like to meet one to one and have a personal debate
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/chris-grayling-nigel-farage-march-leave
I believe that if Dominic Cummings was on the remain side the result would have been reversed.
He was the key to the campaign.
They found 3 million voters that had never voted before, and felt left behind.
One billion targeted Facebook ads inspired them to vote.
The leave campaign was that of the 21st century, while the remain campaign was stuck in the 19th century.
I don't know if you watched Brexit The Uncivil War, but there was a Eureka moment when he added the word "back" to the slogan that they were using which was "Take Control."
It made such a difference as the taking back control got people thinking that the EU had robbed this control from us and we wanted it back.
The programme was a real eye opener, and well worth a watch.
I think that the proof that the campaign worked so well, is seen in the many interviews with members of the general public on the tv.
So many leave voters are able to quote the rhetoric parrot fashion, yet they seem in many cases unable to iterate what it actually means to them.
For instance I have asked a number of people who have moaned on this thread about the EU making our laws, which would be the first few they would repeal on leaving, and they cant answer or just disappear.
I don't understand why a lot of the older generation with their life experience don't want to make our country a more prosperous and safer place for the younger generation. I took my young children to both marches just to show them I tried. Interestingly I saw an article yesterday that said among older voters those that were actually involved in WW2 were more likely to vote Remain. Speak volumes as to how they see the EU.
If I had to list the Tory MPs I have problems with I'd be here all day but that's a strong top 4!
On the EUs laws I recall listening to James O'Brien on LBC and he pinned this guy down what laws he didn't like and all the guy said was that he didn't like 2 pin plugs. James told him he's allowed to have his preferred 3 pin plugs under EU laws and the guy agreed and the call ended.
One guy claimed that he didn't fight in the war for this, he fought for feet and inches.
A woman claimed she would loose out because there were less miles in a litre of petrol.
Both people were deadly serious about these claims.
These interviews obviously date back to the 70s, but Brexit is proof that nothing has changed.
The senior backbench Tory MP says the prime minister "deserves to be held to account" foacob Rees-Mogg has told Sky News that Theresa May has made "active choices" to stop Brexit - decisions she "deserves to be held to account for".
The chairman of the European Research Group of eurosceptic Conservative MPs hit out at the prime minister's decision to sit down for talks with Jeremy Corbyn to break the Brexit deadlock.
He said the move "risks giving a degree of credibility" to the Labour leader and "undermining the general thrust of the Conservative argument that he is a Marxist who would be dangerous to this nation's interests".
It has sparked fury within the party, but Mrs May has claimed she had "no choice" but to reach out to Mr Corbyn because of the refusal of Conservative and DUP MPs to back her deal failing to deliver Brexit on time.Mr Rees-Mogg took issue with this, telling Sky News that the PM had no one to blame but herself.
He told Sophy Ridge On Sunday: "The prime minister could have taken us out on 29 March. It was the prime minister who asked for an extension, it was the prime minister who changed the date by prerogative power from 29 March to 12 April."
"This all rests with her and upon her shoulders. Mrs May has made active choices to stop us leaving and she deserves to be held to account for that.
"People ought to know the truth of the position, rather than trying to blame everybody else, blaming recalcitrant MPs and other Conservatives.
"If the prime minister had done what she said in the first place and had stuck to the law, as set out in two acts, we would have left the European Union by now."
Britain was due to leave the EU on 29 March, but Mrs May asked Brussels for a delay to Brexit after her deal was defeated three times by MPs.
The new deadline is 12 April, although the PM now wants to push it back to 30 June.
https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-theresa-may-has-made-active-choices-to-stop-brexit-11686712
Studies of the potential impact of a Brexit should have been done in advance and the findings presented to the public to make an informed decision on just like any normal project.
Remainers, please stop treating everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old
Since the referendum, I’ve been shocked to witness Remainers, around my and other people’s dinner tables, tacitly clubbing together in their scorn of their fellow countrymen and women who don’t agree with them. “Oh my God,” said one. “All those ignorant, uneducated people have ruined the future.”
Whose future? What do they know of the lives of ordinary people, whose lives are ruined right now by the EU? By the regulations, the loss of our legislature, the overcrowded NHS etc?
As a Europhile with postgraduate qualifications, I nearly voted Remain. Then, just before the referendum, I listened to the broadcasts, the sneering arrogance of Remainers, their ignorance of vast tracts of our country, their presumptions and judgements, all projected from immensely privileged lives.
So I voted Leave, for the forgotten backbone of our country, for southern Italy and Greece, for our legislature, worn away day by day, by unelected EU politicians.
Despite the mockery, disbelief and downright nastiness I have endured as a result, I am glad of it, even though I have concerns.
“We morons,” commented a builder, who voted Leave, “would fight for our country if we were invaded. That lot wouldn’t.”
Silently, most of the country would agree with him. Their dislike of a certain type of Remainer is palpable. So, Remainers – please don’t – just don’t – treat everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old. Remember the French revolution and beware.
Jacqueline King
Castle Cary
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/brexit-remain-leave-treating-like-six-years-old-theresa-may-decision-a8602761.html
Interesting article , starting with a telling yougov poll ...i know how much store certain people put in polls
Last month, a YouGov poll revealed the nationwide intolerance of Remainers. While just nine per cent of Leave voters would mind if a close relative married a “strong Remainer”, a staggering 37 per cent of Remainers would object if a family member married a “strong Leaver”.
In Parliament, it is not just lawyers who are battling against democratic outcomes. Medical clinicians turned MPs have also become obsessive and intolerant because, we must understand, they are “good and caring people who know best”. This attitude may yet survive in the doctor’s surgery, despite the internet which has empowered patients, but it does not necessarily follow in the legislature.
Their amendments to Parliamentary motions and demands for a second referendum because the foolish electorate “didn’t really understand what they were voting for” are gaining momentum. Though they may portray their crusade for a so-called “People’s Vote” as a positive movement for democracy, based on optimistic, grassroots activism - at its heart lies a deep and pessimistic insecurity.
A number of organisations with warm, fluffy-sounding names are affiliated with the campaign. The official People’s Vote website boasts the involvement of, among others: Open Britain, Healthier In, Our Future Our Choice and For Our Future’s Sake. From a distance, their protest marches have appeared vibrant and colourful, with people of all ages and backgrounds taking part.
The reality, however, is far less cute.
Open Britain, the main group behind the People’s Vote, is simply a rebrand of the Stronger In campaign, notorious for its failed Project Fear activism during the referendum.
A closer look at the second referendum protests also reveals a considerably less smiley and polite atmosphere than is claimed. Photographs from marches show signs bearing messages such as “BrexS**t”, “Boris you w****r” and of course the ubiquitous “b****cks to Brexit” stickers, which can be found plastered over any flat surface within 500 yards of an anti-Brexit protest, and even in the precincts of the House of Commons.
Dig deeper, and the hardcore Remainer narrative becomes even more cynical and spiteful - perhaps best exemplified by their morbid fascination with death.
Generally, the older you are, the more likely you are to have voted Leave. Remainers therefore argue that since the referendum, potentially millions of Leave voters have died, thus necessitating a re-run.
In a recent article, prominent Remainer Polly Toynbee argued that "enough old leavers will have died and enough young Remainers will have come on to the electoral register to turn the dial on what the country thinks about Brexit.” The true 'will of the people', she argues, “looks considerably more questionable if it turns out to be the will of dead people".
Not only is this a disrespectful, hateful argument, it is also completely bogus. The same could also be said of support for the Conservative Party. But in fact, as people grow older (and wiser), their attitudes change too.
Perhaps it’s because I am a sunny optimist that I was an entrepreneur before I became an MP - and perhaps I envisage a brighter future for our nation after Brexit for the same reason.
And on the topic of clinicians, I just wish that some of my sunny optimism were contagious.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/15/democracy-hating-remainers-true-extremists/?icid=registration_eng_nba158433_personalised
A no-deal Brexit at the end of next week would be “not nearly as grim” as many believe, one of Theresa May’s senior ministers has said, as both the government and Labour indicated that cross-party talks to resolve the situation remained deadlocked.
Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, said preparations would mitigate many adverse effects of no deal. She also said the idea of a departure extension long enough to require the UK to hold European elections was “utterly unacceptable”.
There is currently very little sign that May will travel to next week’s emergency European council summit with the coherent plan the EU says will be necessary to grant the UK a further delay to Brexit, which is currently scheduled to happen on Friday.
At the end of last week Labour said the talks called by May with Jeremy Corbyn and his team had achieved very little as the prime minister seemed unwilling to compromise on any of her Brexit red lines, notably on Labour’s key demand for a post-Brexit customs union with the EU.
The shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, who was among the Labour delegation, said on Sunday that while the mood of the talks had been “quite a positive and hopeful one”, little was achieved.
“The sad thing is at the moment we haven’t seen, overall, any real changes to the deal, but we’re hopeful that will change in coming days and we are willing to continue the talks as we know the government are,” she told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show.
“But we are currently waiting for the government to come back to us now to state whether they are prepared to move on any of their red lines.”
Speaking later on the same show, Leadsom indicated that it was up to Labour to accept the customs “arrangement” already in May’s three-times-rejected deal, and that she and other Brexiter members of May’s ministerial team could not accept a full customs union.
“There are various different types of arrangements, and those discussions are still ongoing,” Leadsom said, calling May’s existing customs plan “an excellent proposal”.
Asked whether May could agree to a full customs union, Leadsom indicated not. “My expectation – and I’m not party to the discussions – is that the prime minister will only seek to agree those things that still constitute Brexit.”
She also refused to confirm she could stay in the government if a new customs plan was agreed, saying: “It depends on what that means.”
There has been speculation that MPs could force a vote to revoke article 50 entirely if the EU refuses another Brexit delay this week and a no-deal departure looms on Friday. Leadsom said she would never agree to this, and that no deal would be manageable.
It’s not nearly as grim as many would advocate,” she said. “The civil service have done an amazing job of ensuring that we minimise the problems. I’m not an advocate for no deal, but it would not be nearly as bad as many like to think it would be.”
Under May’s compromise plan, announced in a Downing Street statement on Wednesday, if Labour and the government cannot agree a consensus then MPs could be asked to vote on various options, with the choice seen as binding.
But Long-Bailey said Labour had heard nothing about how this could happen: “We haven’t had any discussions really as to what a next stage would be, and the government hasn’t confirmed whether they want to adopt that approach or look at more flexible approaches.”
She refused to rule out Labour backing a revocation of article 50, saying the party wanted to stop no deal “in any situation”. Asked about possible revocation, she added: “We’ll keep all options in play.
Amid the impasse, the timetable ahead of Friday’s Brexit deadline is compressing greatly, with time seemingly too short to allow a process of government-sanctioned indicative votes by MPs before May goes to Brussels on Wednesday afternoon.
May could instead travel compelled by parliament to seek a longer extension to article 50 than the new 22 June date she has sought, and which the EU has previously refused.
A backbench bill led by the Labour MP Yvette Cooper mandating May to avoid a no-deal departure is expected to finish its progress through the Lords on Monday and then get royal assent the same day.
Before the EU potentially agrees a longer delay to Brexit it must weight up the possibility of a future, post-May government being an obstructive member of the bloc.
The Conservative backbench Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg on Sunday reiterated his proposal for the UK to seek to veto EU budgets and other disruptions if it stayed.
“I don’t think the EU, in its jargon, has behaved towards us with sincere cooperation,” he told Sky News’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday. “We are no longer obliged to follow sincere cooperation in return.”
He said: “When the multi-annual financial framework comes forward, if we are still in, this is our one-in-seven-year opportunity to veto the budget and to be really very difficult, and I hope that any British prime minister would take that opportunity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/07/andrea-leadsom-no-deal-brexit-next-week-would-not-be-so-grim
Seems the lies are still being pedalled ...
By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JANUARY 13, 2019
The more the false fears are dismissed by the people responsible for organising our trade, the shriller and more desperate the Project Fear voices become. The port of Calais assures us of speedy passage for trucks after exit, so the hard core Remainers renew threats of food shortages!
European pharmaceutical companies confirm they want to carry on supplying drugs, so some go on about the need to stockpile as if we are entering some undeclared economic war. Airlines carry on selling tickets for post March whilst Project Fear is still pumping out the idea the UK will suddenly be cut off from the continent.
We currently import plenty of items including perishable food from outside the EU under WTO rules without delays and problems. Over the last year I have mainly bought home grown food, but have also enjoyed good fruit and veg that the UK could not grow from African and Latin American countries. I have not needed EU product.
I like to buy domestic produce with lowest food miles where possible. After that I prefer to buy food from developing countries. As an advocate of more trade as one of the ways of helping countries out of low incomes, I like to do my little bit with my own domestic budget.
The Project Fear blizzard on much of the media prevents us having a sensible discussion about how to use all the extra money and new freedoms once we lave. There are also some government Ministers who cannot bring themselves to tell us how they will spend the money and use the new freedoms, as if they are desperate not to. They should exude sensible confidence in our future as an independent country, and should be setting out exactly what we can do in April assuming we just leave. Setting out the advantages should be part of contingency planning for the Withdrawal Agreement being voted down.
The Chancellor needs to prepare a March budget to spend the money saved and boost the economy. The Business Secretary needs to stop encouraging fears and explain how Just in time systems will work just fine once we leave.Why doesn’t he sort out the damage done to the car industry by EU and UK regulation and by high vehicle Exicse Duty. Why won’t he publish with the Trade Secretary a tariff schedule for March 30 that is lower than the EU one, with no tariffs on any imported components? We want a better manufacturing policy after years of EU rules and subsidies helping export factories from the UK.
Will the money for the NHS come from Brexit?
Mrs May has suggested that post-Brexit this money for the NHS would come, at least in part, from money previously sent to the EU.
There is no guaranteed extra money—or ‘Brexit dividend’—as a result of the UK ceasing its contributions to the EU budget after leaving. The UK currently pays around £13 billion to £14 billion into the EU budget every year.
We get some money back in the form of EU spending on the UK. The government has already indicated that, until at least 2022, it will continue to spend some money on the areas where the EU currently gives us funding. So after factoring that in, when we stop paying into the EU budget in 2021, we’d likely have a “net” sum of around £9 billion to £10 billion left over each year.
However, other costs (for example, parts of the Brexit ‘divorce’ bill) and economic effects associated with leaving are expected to more than offset that saving.
Any extra funding given to the NHS or any other part of public spending would then need to come from increased taxes, increased borrowing, or reducing spending on something else.
We’ve written more about this here.
We need facts more than ever.
Right now, it’s difficult to know what or who to trust. Misinformation is spreading. Politics and the media are being pushed to the limit by advancements in technology and uncertainty about the future. We need facts more than ever.
This is where you come in. Your donation is vital for our small, independent team to keep going, at the time when it’s needed most. With your help, we can keep factchecking and demanding better from our politicians and public figures.We can give more people the tools to decide for themselves what to believe. We can intervene more effectively where false claims cause most harm.
Become a donor today and stand up for better public debate, on all sides, across the UK.
By Claire Milne
Imagine all we can do once we’ve left the EU
‘But what are you going to do with the powers?’ the minister asked, while I negotiated devolution of powers to London when Boris was mayor. The government wouldn’t grant powers unless we explained how we would use them.
And that is what is missing in the Brexit non-debate. We are ‘taking back control’ — but we haven’t really thought what we will do with that control once we have it. It is true there has been discussion of trade deals, transforming the Common Agricultural Policy and the colour of our passports. But if that was all we could do, even most Brexiteers wouldn’t have considered it worth it.
So, what could we do once we Brexit? Well actually, given how extensive EU law is, an awful lot. Some will depend on the deal we have with the EU. Some are things we could do but wouldn’t want to do. But there are also lots of popular things the government could do.
In 1997, Tony Blair campaigned to scrap VAT on domestic gas and electricity. But because of the EU, he had to settle for 5 per cent. Once we leave the EU, the government could do what Blair couldn’t. Fuel poverty campaigners, take note.
Tories and Labour have wanted to scrap the hated ‘tampon tax’ — VAT on tampons. But what is impossible inside the EU becomes possible outside. Women campaigners, take note. In fact, the government could scrap the hideously complex VAT system — a job creation scheme for accountants we had to bring in when we joined the EU — altogether, and go back to the simple purchase tax we had before.
In the 1990s, there were endless protests along the coast against exporting live lambs and calves for slaughter in Europe. The government wanted to ban the exports, but couldn’t because of EU rules. Animal welfare groups, take note. In 2012, Nicola Sturgeon passed a law to impose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland, but it has not come in because the ECJ complained. She could control Scottish fisheries to revitalise Scottish fishing ports.
The last Labour government fought to have control of EU regional development funding to the UK. I was in charge of these EU funds in London, and the system is a money-go-round nonsense. Come Brexit, the government will be able to design funding to fit the country’s priorities. Northern Powerhouse fund anyone?
The UK could also be brought closer together by introducing variable Air Passenger Duty — such as scrapping it on flights from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or halving it from Scotland to England. Impossible in the EU, but possible outside.
There was a huge national moan when duty free for passengers travelling to Europe was abolished, because it conflicted with EU single market rules. Come Brexit, the government could bring back duty free for trips to France, Spain and Italy.
As head of the British Bankers’ Association, I promoted competition in banking, arguing that challenger banks should have a level playing field with large banks on prudential regulation. The government was supportive, but the barrier was the EU. It was a constant frustration to the UK’s global financial institutions that the EU would apply its rules to their operations all over the world, making them less competitive internationally. Come Brexit, it seems likely the government would be able to ensure that a UK bank or insurance company working in the US or Asia can compete with US or Asian banks on a level playing field.
Byzantine EU rules can make procurement by public authorities a tortuous quagmire. The former minister Francis Maude fought a valiant battle for major reform. But Brexit means the government can set up a more effective procurement regime, helping improve public services.
David Cameron focused his brutalising EU renegotiation on being allowed to stop paying UK child benefit payments to children who don’t live in the UK. Once we leave, the government could do it in the time it takes to write the press release. The government will also be allowed to ensure that EU citizens living in the UK follow the same rules as British citizens on bringing in spouses. The government will have the freedom to set language rules for EU doctors, and to deport EU criminals.
There are lots of things the government opposed at the time, but which we will end up keeping. It lost a battle to stop passengers getting compensation if aeroplane delays are caused by technical problems. I doubt that will change. But I can see market stalls beiing allowed to sell apples just in lbs and oz. Metric martyrs could claim a late victory.
The government has made clear it doesn’t want to scrap the EU’s employment laws. No British government — Labour or Conservative — supported the EU’s working time directive, but it is clearly here to stay. However, there are some aspects that might be tweaked. When the ECJ ruled that doctors sleeping in hospitals but being on call had to count it as full working time, it caused staff shortages in the NHS. With staff shortages again afflicting the NHS, there might be an agreement to change it.
Then there are things a future government might want to do, but which at the moment it can’t. It is clear, for example, that the wholesale nationalisation of the train system is an infringement of the EU’s Fourth Railway Package, which requires governments to open up train services to the markets. If Corbyn were to become PM, Brexit would enable him to deliver on his pledge.
Leaving the EU reopens whole areas of policymaking off limits for decades. Whether you are a rail nationaliser, a women’s warrior, a fuel poverty campaigner, NHS manager, animal rights activist, a public procurer, a commuter between Belfast and London, or someone who used to enjoy duty free on trips to Costa del Sol — there could be something in Brexit for you. We have decided to take back control. We should start discussing all the things we could do with it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/17-reasons-why-we-should-love-brexit/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax
At the point of joining the EU framework in 1974, UK Purchase tax was 25% and reduced to 15% and renamed as VAT...admittedly changed(complicated) and adjusted up and down over time