Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joey66 said:
I don't post on here anymore after being called a Kopite four times ... reported it = nothing much done ... the way things are going imo Brexit will never happen.....just a haunch ?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say nothing was done Joe, there was quite a bit of shrugging of shoulders going on. That's gotta count for something. I won't hear that we're layabouts. (ps, hope you feel better soon)
 
JammyP said:
I think Corbyn voted against because he wants a general election, which he imagines he can win. And he runs scared of upsetting the 36 per cent of Labour voters who voted to leave. And he thinks the EU is a bad thing.
If we follow the referendum vote then May's deal looks like as much middle ground as there is going. But she will be out of office without the DUP and ERG. So she hopes everyone else will bottle it at the last minute- or the country drives off the no deal cliff to save the effing Tories.
i think we should have another referendum, now we are older and wiser, to confirm what deal (or no deal) parliament proposes, with remain as an option.
Click to expand...
I have my own views on why Corbyn wants to leave the EC which is probably best left unsaid in here as I may fall foul of the mods. Let's just say I'm not convinced where his allegiances lielol.

As regards a new vote, how would you feel if 2 years ago we voted to remain, and now you were being asked to take part in another referendum askng the same question? Would it bother you or would you be quite happy to have your vote potentially overturned.

Also what questions would you ask in the new referendum?

Assuming the result was reversed, which is a distinct possibility seeing as the original one was so close, would you agree that a precedent had been set and so the ground is automatically set for a further referendum within another short timescale, whichever side loses.

Personally, I don't believe that having a second referendum will settle this once and for all. I think we have already become a country obsessed with Brexit and can only see this getting even worse in the future. Just the uncertainty alone will effect investment in the UK and could be as bad as actually leaving with a no deal.

Mr Cameron has a lot to answer for.
 
drives me mad, all these older fellas screaming for brexit based on nationalism/sovereignty inspired by how their fathers liberated Europe, and all they're doing is handing the keys to the continent to Putin.
 
Barnfred 55 said:
By opposition, I'm referring to the rest of the 500 MPs who voted to invoke article 50. If, in fact, they are remainers, then why did they vote to invoke article 50. They should have voted against it.

As regards freedom of movement, I refer back to my previous post. Any single market applied to NI will have to apply to the rest of the UK to be workable. I'm assuming that would involve freedom of movement as the EC have said all along that we couldn't have a single market without it.

Even so, the vast majority of concerns I have heard from remain supporters understandably refers to job losses were we to leave without a deal. Surely being in a single market largely negates those concerns.

I understand why the hard Brexiteers haven't voted for the May deal, and I also understand why the DUP didn't want NI to be treated as a special case. But I still don't understand why the remaining MPs who voted to invoke article 50 didn't support what is, in effect, as soft a Brexit as they are likely to get.

Unless, of course, their real aim is to reverse the referendum outcome and stay in the EC.
Click to expand...

They voted for Article 50 on some misplaced notion of 'the will of the people.' 114 patriots opposed it based on the idea that Parliament is sovereign and should act in the best interests of its people. It could well be the case that those voting for article 50 foreseen a softer Brexit or no Brexit at all. Also, don't forget that Labour employed a three-line whip making it very difficult for their MPs to vote against it - 47 bravely defied the whip (16 frontbenchers).

You can, of course, apply large parts of the single market, EU VAT and customs union to NI and not the rest of the UK. That's the whole point of the backstop. You just shift customs and border checks away from the Irish border and to the Irish sea border. It would mean that people and goods from NI in the UK (and vice versa) would be subject to the same controls as if they were coming from ROI. This would not mean that the UK as a whole would be in the single market or customs union. Items going to NI would have to comply with EU standards, but then so would any export to the EU. In trade, NI would be treated as being in the EU, otherwise, it will be governed the same.

In terms of travel to the UK, most ferries already recommend passports, and generally speaking, NI people use their passports when flying to the UK, so there'll be little disruption in terms of freedom of movement. As it stands, I show no ID when travelling to the ROI (which I do frequently) while I do have to show ID when flying or taking the boat to England. The backstop will be no different other than that I could be required to use my passport as ID.

UK nationalists are the ones that chiefly have an issue with this, even though for Ireland as a whole it makes as much sense as any hard Brexit solution can.

Remainers who voted for Article 50 will have been dismayed at May's deal as, while it will avert no-deal, it was still an exercise in economic self-harm. May got the best deal based on her red lines, not the best possible deal. Those red lines would not have been shared by remainers in parliament. It is quite possible for the government to come up with a deal that will get support from a majority of the remainers who voted for article 50. Clue: it looks pretty much like our current deal.

Labour also used the whip to oppose May's deal, just as they used it to invoke Article 50. Now we're in a position where the government has been beaten into a corner. Compromise or no deal are the options now. We've also had a general election since the Article 50 act of parliament - there is new blood in the commons.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Has there been any mention from OldBlue, Pete and the gang about the DCMS report into foreign interference in recent elections? I wouldn't want to have missed their scathing attack on our SOVEREIGNTY!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Which was largely accepted yesterday by the Court regarding illegality.

From the case yesterday the Government QC James Eadie:

'The true position is that the PM is well aware of the notorious facts...well publishised facts...of the Electoral Commission findings, fact of an appeal, police investigations, Information Commissioners Office, DCMS committees. All properly done...& it it perfectly obvious that the PM has decided to carry on'.

Absolutely bonkers.

Also: if parliament is sovereign, i.e they are the representatives of the electorate and ultimately exercise the supreme right of authority, why is the PM can decide without judicial or parliamentary consideration to proceed with political policy?

I'd be interested to know how that fits with the narrative of 'taking back control'?
 
Ron Swanson said:
They voted for Article 50 on some misplaced notion of 'the will of the people.' 114 patriots opposed it based on the idea that Parliament is sovereign and should act in the best interests of its people. It could well be the case that those voting for article 50 foreseen a softer Brexit or no Brexit at all. Also, don't forget that Labour employed a three-line whip making it very difficult for their MPs to vote against it - 47 bravely defied the whip (16 frontbenchers).

You can, of course, apply large parts of the single market, EU VAT and customs union to NI and not the rest of the UK. That's the whole point of the backstop. You just shift customs and border checks away from the Irish border and to the Irish sea border. It would mean that people and goods from NI in the UK (and vice versa) would be subject to the same controls as if they were coming from ROI. This would not mean that the UK as a whole would be in the single market or customs union. Items going to NI would have to comply with EU standards, but then so would any export to the EU. In trade, NI would be treated as being in the EU, otherwise, it will be governed the same.

In terms of travel to the UK, most ferries already recommend passports, and generally speaking, NI people use their passports when flying to the UK, so there'll be little disruption in terms of freedom of movement. As it stands, I show no ID when travelling to the ROI (which I do frequently) while I do have to show ID when flying or taking the boat to England. The backstop will be no different other than that I could be required to use my passport as ID.

UK nationalists are the ones that chiefly have an issue with this, even though for Ireland as a whole it makes as much sense as any hard Brexit solution can.

Remainers who voted for Article 50 will have been dismayed at May's deal as, while it will avert no-deal, it was still an exercise in economic self-harm. May got the best deal based on her red lines, not the best possible deal. Those red lines would not have been shared by remainers in parliament. It is quite possible for the government to come up with a deal that will get support from a majority of the remainers who voted for article 50. Clue: it looks pretty much like our current deal.

Labour also used the whip to oppose May's deal, just as they used it to invoke Article 50. Now we're in a position where the government has been beaten into a corner. Compromise or no deal are the options now. We've also had a general election since the Article 50 act of parliament - there is new blood in the commons.
Click to expand...
Apparently this is theory but not fact!
 
Barnfred 55 said:
I'm sorry but in what world will NI being in a single market work whilst it is still part of the UK? It won't. UK Companies will simply be opening offices in NI to trade with Europe. Scotland, and probably London too, will be banging on the door demanding the same.

Any single market arrangement that is applied to NI will also HAVE to apply to the UK as otherwise it would be unworkable from all sides. Unless NI left the UK of course.
Click to expand...

This is hopefully what businesses will do. The rest of the UK can certainly demand the same, and I'd be happy for them to do so. Easy way: cancel brexit. If Scotland want the same deal, they'd be faced with erecting a hard border with customs and passport checks. That would go down well...
 
Barnfred 55 said:
I must confess I didn't know about the highlighted bit. How would this work in practice?. Would countries be able to stop people entering if they didn't fit into one of the brackets. And surely somebody looking to come here would simply have to say they are actively seeking work. So what's the point?

As regards movement of people, I fully accept that we desperately need migrant workers in the UK. We have a skill shortage in many areas and also a lot of Brits are reluctant to do the "dirty" low paid jobs that migrants are prepared to. But having a completely open door policy isn't workable as you need both the jobs and the infrastructure to sustain it. As it is, the net influx from Europe means that we have huge restrictions on migration from the rest of the world. I would prefer a structured controlled system whereby we bring in people specifically to meet the demand in skillset and jobs availability.

As regards the single market/customs union, this is not something that was particularly high on my agenda for change. Yes there are opportunities being missed as regards trade deals with other nations. Plus the rules are put together to benefit 28 nation states and by definition there will be elements in there that will be to the detriment of the UK. I'm not an expert so don't ask me to quote chapter and verse. By coming out of the customs union we would be able to adopt the laws that benefit us and drop those that don't. Obviously, for this to work, we need to negotiate favourable terms to continue trading with the EC. I've already said I don't support a no deal Brexit.
Click to expand...

I'd need examples of EU trade deals where the terms are detrimental to the UK before commenting. But one thing is for sure, by going it alone we do not have the clout to get what we want in trade deals. You think China and USA will give us everything we want in a deal? You don't think we'll have to make concessions that are detrimental? Food and pharma regulations immediately spring to mind.
 
Ron Swanson said:
I'd need examples of EU trade deals where the terms are detrimental to the UK before commenting. But one thing is for sure, by going it alone we do not have the clout to get what we want in trade deals. You think China and USA will give us everything we want in a deal? You don't think we'll have to make concessions that are detrimental? Food and pharma regulations immediately spring to mind.
Click to expand...
In simple terms wouldn't any trade deal make our exports cheaper and our imports too. So exports go up and consumer prices go down. HMRC would lose out on some customs duties but hopefully they would recoup that in increased taxation linked to economic growth.
 
Ron Swanson said:
They voted for Article 50 on some misplaced notion of 'the will of the people.' 114 patriots opposed it based on the idea that Parliament is sovereign and should act in the best interests of its people. It could well be the case that those voting for article 50 foreseen a softer Brexit or no Brexit at all. Also, don't forget that Labour employed a three-line whip making it very difficult for their MPs to vote against it - 47 bravely defied the whip (16 frontbenchers).
Click to expand...
lol

Nice try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top