Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

azda

So, Brexit....What's happening?

Recommended Posts

I hear some rumblings now and again, what's the story, does anyone in Govt have any clue what's happening or is everyone making it up as we go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only thought at the moment, is just where the hell do we go from here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that even if there is a no confidence vote, May would probably be able to win and cling on until December. Can't really see how the deal can get through parliament in December though. If the deal fails to get through parliament, then ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have planned 2 years ago for no deal; should not have agreed to no change on the Irish border (however desirable that might be); and definitely should not sign up to a transition period that can only be jointly terminated.

If we are in a permanent state of transition, then we will be paying 10 billion + into the EU coffers year on year for no say. They have no reason to terminate a steady flow of funds as it is a free lunch for them. They only agree to things that move that support the Great March Forward, and if you make the wrong choice in a vote you have to go back and repeat the process until their desired result is obtained, after which the issue is determined to be decided in perpetuity. Our contributions will help that process immensely as they would come with no strings attached - a free lunch for them with no exit for us. Why would they not support an indefinite transition period?

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems everything has been well thought out then, pretty much the norm for British politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, azda said:

It seems everything has been well thought out then, pretty much the norm for British politics

Yep, because nobody in politics is prepared to bite the bullet demanded by the public in the referendum.

Any contributions to a body over which you have no say is clearly a gross waste of public funds. The suggestion that the proposed agreement will safeguard jobs is just as deluded as the idea we can have anything we want. The EU can put pressure on national politicians to get firms to repatriate any jobs to shore up their domestic position as it would no longer be working against an EU member. The idea of us signing up to a perpetual transition period means we have no way of pursuing ANY strategy. This is a windfall of unprecedented scale for the EU - a competitor that pays you to tie its hands by agreeing a non-competition clause whilst getting nothing in return doesn't come along every day. 

For all those anxious to pooh-pooh Rees-Mogg's assertion that we would become a vassal state to the EU, I would suggest that a state which is not allowed to pursue it's own sovereign policies independent of the opposing party; where the latter is given additional rights to determine the movement of goods within former's sovereign territory, is quite categorically subservient to the master. We even pay for the privilege of being screwed, but that is much a case of as you were.

Everything the EU does is related to their own Great Leap Forward, where the ultimate aim is their European superstate. That any UK politician should willingly sign up to bankrolling that ambition in perpetuity without requiring something in return beggars belief. 100 years from now we will still be unable to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, because the question of the Irish border has not been agreed. The EU can let this one run for as long as they want to get a no-strings financial windfall.

Personally, I would prefer to have the flexibility to work myself out of a sticky position without legal restrictions, than be tied to the control of a foreign body that cares nothing for myself, this country or its people. Ultimately, charity begins at home.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rob said:

Yep, because nobody in politics is prepared to bite the bullet demanded by the public in the referendum.

Any contributions to a body over which you have no say is clearly a gross waste of public funds. The suggestion that the proposed agreement will safeguard jobs is just as deluded as the idea we can have anything we want. The EU can put pressure on national politicians to get firms to repatriate any jobs to shore up their domestic position as it would no longer be working against an EU member. The idea of us signing up to a perpetual transition period means we have no way of pursuing ANY strategy. This is a windfall of unprecedented scale for the EU - a competitor that pays you to tie its hands by agreeing a non-competition clause whilst getting nothing in return doesn't come along every day. 

For all those anxious to pooh-pooh Rees-Mogg's assertion that we would become a vassal state to the EU, I would suggest that a state which is not allowed to pursue it's own sovereign policies independent of the opposing party; where the latter is given additional rights to determine the movement of goods within former's sovereign territory, is quite categorically subservient to the master. We even pay for the privilege of being screwed, but that is much a case of as you were.

Everything the EU does is related to their own Great Leap Forward, where the ultimate aim is their European superstate. That any UK politician should willingly sign up to bankrolling that ambition in perpetuity without requiring something in return beggars belief. 100 years from now we will still be unable to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, because the question of the Irish border has not been agreed. The EU can let this one run for as long as they want to get a no-strings financial windfall.

Personally, I would prefer to have the flexibility to work myself out of a sticky position without legal restrictions, than be tied to the control of a foreign body that cares nothing for myself, this country or its people. Ultimately, charity begins at home.

Sounds like Westminster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the agreement would be workable if there was a time limit. It is the unlimited and irrevokable call by the EU on our financial resources whilst curtailing any ability to even discuss trade agreements that effectively says you will never be allowed to leave. That pisses people off.

Given that we are leaving the EUtopia (pardon the pun), surely in their view that should be sufficient punishment for having the temerity to vote leave. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob said:

Yep, because nobody in politics is prepared to bite the bullet demanded by the public in the referendum.

You mean the nearly 52% who actually voted for Brexit, which was 37% of the electorate. No doubt you will recall that the ballot simply asked "Do we stay" or "Do we leave"? Nothing about the single market. Nothing about the customs union (and most people had never heard of that on voting day). Nothing about the implications for Ireland.  Nothing about the impact on all the "just in time" goods required by some industries. Nothing about the impact on medical supplies. Etc etc etc.

I'm prepared to bet that many Leave voters didn't realise the implications of that decision.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm prepared to bet that many remain voters didn't realise just how costly this "free trade association of European Economic Countries" has actually become.

Churchill must surely be spiralling in his grave as this shambles continues.

 

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, unless we decide to just hand it over and apologise for being awkward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

You mean the nearly 52% who actually voted for Brexit, which was 37% of the electorate. No doubt you will recall that the ballot simply asked "Do we stay" or "Do we leave"? Nothing about the single market. Nothing about the customs union (and most people had never heard of that on voting day). Nothing about the implications for Ireland.  Nothing about the impact on all the "just in time" goods required by some industries. Nothing about the impact on medical supplies. Etc etc etc.

I'm prepared to bet that many Leave voters didn't realise the implications of that decision.

Considering the EU and the regulatory dictats that emanate from Brussels impact on everything that we do, consume and make, it was long accepted by all voters who stopped to think, that leaving would be disruptive. Sure there were some leavers who gave the minutiae little or no thought, but then that finger can be pointed at a significant number of any specific voting bloc on any occasion, including those who voted remain. If you recall, there was a considerable level of rational argument on this forum prior to the referendum with only the occasional jingoistic interruption, none of which came from regulars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the interesting question now is what happens if there is this so-called 'People's Vote.' As far as I can judge, all those pushing for one have overlooked one basic question. It is one that they level at the brexiteers over the first vote, and yet don't mention it for any second one. If the question on the ballot paper included the option to remain, the question is 'on what terms?' Everyone seems to think if we voted to remain everything would go back to normal, but would it? What price would the EU exact for this about turn? And has anybody on the remain side actually negotiated the terms of remaining? Of course they haven't, so to include this option on any ballot would be a false prospectus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" What price would the EU exact for this about turn?"

I am certain the EU will say they will take us back with open arms and they won't want anything in doing so. They might even offer a welcome back gift. Bit like the prodigal son story. But what would actually happen unofficially afterwards is another matter... This Brexit process has annoyed many of the EU countries after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sword said:

" What price would the EU exact for this about turn?"

I am certain the EU will say they will take us back with open arms and they won't want anything in doing so. They might even offer a welcome back gift. Bit like the prodigal son story. But what would actually happen unofficially afterwards is another matter... This Brexit process has annoyed many of the EU countries after all. 

Most Europeans view Brexit with incredulity because for the most part, the best developed northern countries do well from the EU. These tend to have a strong balance of payments, which is reinforced, and in the case of Germany exacerbated, by the strength of their economies relative to the basket of common currency zone countries who collective average performance determines the Euro exchange rate. Most of the others at the periphery don't understand our desire to leave because they receive handouts from the EU to develop their infrastructure etc. What the latter doesn't take on board is that they are also being impoverished at a personal level by the EU because it is personal savings that get ploughed into big ticket items such as a high-end BMW or Mercedes, which of course finds its way back to the Fatherland as part of the obscene 8% of GDP trade surplus. That extravagance should sound familiar to anyone driving this country's roads. The citizens of this and other countries struggling to pay their way appear to find solace in shopping therapy - which is the exact opposite to what is required.

 I think in many countries it is a case of thank God someone else tried it first. Even Germany has a significant amount of anti-EU sentiment and that isn't restricted to AfD, but as always, it is the struggling countries such as Italy or Greece who see the greatest protests. People of any country living in below average conditions question why they should be left out of any benefits they see being thrown to the rich in well off areas. Same in this country. The government is still at it. Not content with one Crossrail, they felt they had to have a second, not to mention HS2. Whilst the latter is proposed at an obscene price, they couldn't even find a billion pounds to upgrade the east-west corridor railways. That for an area that has historically produced 20% of GDP, but is viewed in parliament as something you wipe off the soles of your shoes - unless they need your endorsement in an election. Not the EU's fault here, but the lack of interest from either our own government or the EU does not go un-noticed. A while back I recall the EU asked us to select someone who would help rubber-stamp decisions made in Brussels, but that is about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17 November 2018 at 11:38 PM, Unwilling Numismatist said:

I'm prepared to bet that many remain voters didn't realise just how costly this "free trade association of European Economic Countries" has actually become.

There is a pie chart somewhere which shows just how much it actually does cost us. The payment to the EU is so small a sliver you can barely see it. The welfare arc (the largest portion) takes up about 1/5 of the circle. Fact.

Churchill must surely be spiralling in his grave as this shambles continues.

The European Union was something championed by Churchill and there are You Tube videos showing him making impassioned speeches about it. Fact.

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, unless we decide to just hand it over and apologise for being awkward.

And that's the whole problem. The 'Little England' 'island race' mentality. We never "handed our country over" and even a cursory listen to any Budget Day speech of the past 40 years will demonstrate that clearly. 

I don't agree with Rob's stance on Brexit, but at least he talks intelligently about it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sword said:

I think it is nice that there is very rarely any need for a moderator to intervene these days.  

Looking back, the worse instances of "emotional outbursts" occurred when people discussed the merits (or lack of) of slabbing companies. The demise of CGS has really calmed people down on both sides.  Politics used to get some people hot under the collar. However, even the Brexit process is not causing anyone to post savage insults on politicians. 

I suspect this might make a resurgence, but as for politicians being insulted for the sake of it, most people have better things to do.

It's a great shame they aren't working jointly and constructively for the public good, preferring to play party politics as this is where their true allegiance lies. Greasy poles and all that......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rob said:

I suspect this might make a resurgence, but as for politicians being insulted for the sake of it, most people have better things to do.

It's a great shame they aren't working jointly and constructively for the public good, preferring to play party politics as this is where their true allegiance lies. Greasy poles and all that......

The ONLY reason I voted for Brexit ( I work all over Europe, so leaving badly could screw me up)

was so that the morons at large in 'Government'  would screw up or be so blindingly self-serving that people would finally see them for what they are.

.

Churchill, Attlee, Thatcher -all were there when needed.

 

Who is it this time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody. All it needs is a politician with balls. Someone has to get us out cleanly without our leaving being at the EU's whim. They are never going to let us go when May has negotiated a free lunch for them in perpetuity. If it comes to another referendum (which would be an EU-esque travesty in itself), then a clean break, no-deal it has to be as the only viable option to get this country out of the mess it finds itself in.

Staying in the EU is no panacea because the common currency is not renogtiable, so the undervalued German component can pump out its wares to the detriment of the rest of the EU ad infinitum. Like it or not, the only mechanism to give this country any hope of having a balanced and viable economy is to be free of any interference from Brussels. It won't be easy, but does at least have a chance of success, as opposed to remaining in or being subservient to the EU, which would not.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 10:09 AM, Rob said:

Nobody. All it needs is a politician with balls. Someone has to get us out cleanly without our leaving being at the EU's whim. They are never going to let us go when May has negotiated a free lunch for them in perpetuity. If it comes to another referendum (which would be an EU-esque travesty in itself), then a clean break, no-deal it has to be as the only viable option to get this country out of the mess it finds itself in.

Staying in the EU is no panacea because the common currency is not renogtiable, so the undervalued German component can pump out its wares to the detriment of the rest of the EU ad infinitum. Like it or not, the only mechanism to give this country any hope of having a balanced and viable economy is to be free of any interference from Brussels. It won't be easy, but does at least have a chance of success, as opposed to remaining in or being subservient to the EU, which would not.

Although I do not live in the UK I have followed the Brexit debate with interest  and convinced that leaving is the best choice for the UK. However leaving under the terms May has been given beggars belief. Leaving and putting  the UK into a worse position than it is at the moment by having to accept all the EU rules without any input to the making of the rules, remaining in the customs union without any foreseeable end and virtue blackmail by France & Spain over fishing and Gibraltar. Why the border between the UK and  Ireland is any business of the EU beats me and should be left entirely to the two countries to work it out. Is the border between Poland and Ukraine any business of the EU? The answer is no it is a long established border as is the UK Ireland border.

Who ever thinks this is the "best" the UK can achieve has a very funny idea of best. At the moment a no deal exit seems to be the BEST option even though it may cause some disruption initially. The predictions of economic by the BOE seem to be based on miss information "Fake News" rather than fact after all the UK managed to exist as a successful country prior to signing the Treaty of Rome. The UK can trade with Europe under WTO rules and adjust the pound accordingly to maintain competitive pricing. The UK can also reduce company tax to counter companies who want to leave London for Frankfurt or Paris. In fact the UK company tax rates are less than both Germany or France s I think most will stay put given the prestige and worldwide reach that London has. Leaving an organization because you do not like it only to enter the same organization under worse conditions seems madness to me.

The leavers have spoken at the referendum. I know some people think it was close and many did not vote but that is normal for UK politics but if it were a general election a 52/48% win  would make any political party very happy. If there were to be another referendum what would this achieve as I think you would have to reapply for membership under much worse conditions  such as being forced to use the Euro,  joining the Schengen zone etc.

I know not everyone will agree with the above but IMO this is the situation as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ozjohn said:

The leavers have spoken at the referendum. I know some people think it was close and many did not vote but that is normal for UK politics but if it were a general election a 52/48% win  would make any political party very happy. If there were to be another referendum what would this achieve as I think you would have to reapply for membership under much worse conditions  such as being forced to use the Euro,  joining the Schengen zone etc.

1. 52:48 is far too close to apply to a permanent constitutional change - but Cameron was either too stupid, too party political, or too in thrall to the `Euroseptics to apply the normal requirements for referenda. They are NOT general Elections which only apply for a maximum 5 years.

2. An EU judge has ruled that Article 50 is reversible and will cancel Brexit, provided it's not done for flippant, temporary or 'advantage in trade talks' reasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

1. 52:48 is far too close to apply to a permanent constitutional change - but Cameron was either too stupid, too party political, or too in thrall to the `Euroseptics to apply the normal requirements for referenda. They are NOT general Elections which only apply for a maximum 5 years.

2. An EU judge has ruled that Article 50 is reversible and will cancel Brexit, provided it's not done for flippant, temporary or 'advantage in trade talks' reasons.

I didn't think we HAD a constitution, but I agree- 52:48 result was an instant problem.

Oh- as far as I remember, 'referendum' isn't neuter second declension, but a gerund, 'The asking'  which has no plural ending,

so 'referendums' is likely ( jury is still slightly out) to be the correct plural English form.  Long time ago. ( Latin and my learning of it.  Another gerund there,....( I think)....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin referenda would indicate that more than one issue was involved. Referendums seems to be the TV and MSM view, and no problem there.

For myself, I prefer plebiscite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×