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

Sorry to intrude on books again. I think Blakeyboy is correct the UK does not have a constitution. Basically 50% +1 of the votes cast is a win  for a referendum  therefore 52/48% is a convincing win.  In Australia we had a postal plebicite on same sex marriage which was carried by a similar amount. As it happens I did not agree with it but I have to accept that it was the will of the people as was the Brexit referendum result. If 30% of the electors could not be bothered to vote  (as what happens at UK general elections) you only have your selves to blame. Having said that in Australia we had a formal referendum (50% + 1 of the votes plus a majority of States under our constitution} on getting rid of the monarchy which was not carried. Now the republicans are agitating for another referendum as they did not like the previous result. They like the Brexit referendum should accept the result and make  sure the will of the people is carried out. If people do not understand this it's called  Democracy .

Edited by ozjohn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5 December 2018 at 12:28 AM, blakeyboy said:

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)....)

And there was I, a Latin scholar and a pedant, thinking I was being clever!!

It's a common misconception that we don't have a constitution, but we have many bits and pieces of one, starting with the Magna Carta, going down through the ages to the Bill and Claim of Rights, and so on. What those judges (dubbed 'The Enemies Of The People' by that "august organ" the Mail, qua The Nazis in the 1930s) ruled on in early 2017, was that Parliament had a constitutional right to have a say throughout the Brexit process.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Magna Carta is viewed in the US as absolutely astonishing - something a lot of people over here don't realise.......

 

If were all pedantic in a serious way, normal life would stop.

 

 

Are 'carbon spots' really carbon?

!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 1:30 AM, bagerap said:

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.

In our case we could have a second referendum - as long as it's not called a "people's vote", which, by definition, is precisely what a referendum is anyway. So why state the blindingly obvious by changing the correct word into something else?

This modern day obsession for deliberately altering established and correct names/words/expressions, often to fit a dogma, or maybe to intentionally confuse others, is really beginning to irritate me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to be truly democratic there should be a people's vote on whether to have a second referendum.😈

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

In our case we could have a second referendum - as long as it's not called a "people's vote", which, by definition, is precisely what a referendum is anyway. So why state the blindingly obvious by changing the correct word into something else?

This modern day obsession for deliberately altering established and correct names/words/expressions, often to fit a dogma, or maybe to intentionally confuse others, is really beginning to irritate me.  

We could have an indefinite number of referendums. The important point is not whether we have one, but rather, what is the question. We had the one that asked if we wanted to stay in the EU and the answer was no. That's been asked. The next, if parliament can't get its act together should surely be do we accept or reject the terms we are offered, not do we want to reverse the original decision.

Share this post


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

We could have an indefinite number of referendums. The important point is not whether we have one, but rather, what is the question. We had the one that asked if we wanted to stay in the EU and the answer was no. That's been asked. The next, if parliament can't get its act together should surely be do we accept or reject the terms we are offered, not do we want to reverse the original decision.

We've already voted to leave, so a second referendum should ask the electorate to choose one of two options, a) Accept Mrs May's deal, or b) Leave outright on WTO terms. Obviously it wouldn't be that wording, but net effect the same.

Given that we don't have much time left to organise a referendum between now and 29th March, it might be advisable to seek a 6 month extension to article 50, in order to avoid short term difficulties which might later be reversed.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

We've already voted to leave, so a second referendum should ask the electorate to choose one of two options, a) Accept Mrs May's deal, or b) Leave outright on WTO terms. Obviously it wouldn't be that wording, but net effect the same.

Absolutely - a referendum should be a binary question, i.e. either option A or option B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

We've already voted to leave, so a second referendum should ask the electorate to choose one of two options, a) Accept Mrs May's deal, or b) Leave outright on WTO terms. Obviously it wouldn't be that wording, but net effect the same.

 

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

Absolutely - a referendum should be a binary question, i.e. either option A or option B

The problem there is that if both binary choices leave us worse off than we are now - and that's the case - it;s not unreasonable to include an option where we abandon the idea altogether.

In any case, a new referendum should be properly legislated : EITHER it should be "advisory" (as the 2015 Act stated) OR it should require a clear majority, e.g. at least 55% for one choice, or that over 50% of the electorate - not just those who voted - should indicate a particular preference. And anyone who lies during the campaign - ON EITHER SIDE - should be held liable to criminal prosecution. 

Also, bear in mind that we now know much more than we did in June 2016, such as the customs union, 'just in time' manufacture, the need for perishables to pass quickly between neighbouring countries, the impact on medicines, the nature of WTO trade and how we will be treated, other options such as Norway (championed by Farage before the referendum) and EFTA and the EEA, and most important of all the role of the Irish border. People who voted again would be much better informed. Of course, genuine Europhobes won't change their minds, but others may well do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clean break you have a chance to make your own future. Accept May/EUs terms more of the same with no input to the rules that govern    the EU  a  pretty poor result or abandon Brexit where you will ignore the will of the people. The Tory government will probably fall and you will end up with a Labor government led by that maniac Colbyn. Some choice  Not to say we do not have our own problems here in Australia with the likely return  to a Labor government lead by Shorten an ex Trade Union official who has been involved in various controversial actions during his time with the Australian Workers Union such as ghost members, selling out his members and non disclosure of election donations. In summary I think our problems pale into insignifance compared with yours.

Edited by ozjohn
More info

Share this post


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

A clean break you have a chance to make your own future. Accept May/EUs terms more of the same with no input to the rules that govern    the EU  a  pretty poor result or abandon Brexit where you will ignore the will of the people. The Tory government will probably fall and you will end up with a Labor government led by that maniac Colbyn. Some choice  Not to say we do not have our own problems here in Australia with the likely return  to a Labor government lead by Shorten an ex Trade Union official who has been involved in various controversial actions during his time with the Australian Workers Union such as ghost members, selling out his members and non disclosure of election donations. In summary I think our problems pale into insignifance compared with yours.

I'm not so sure about that. There are an awful lot of people who distrust/dislike Corbyn, among them traditional Labour voters. His loud mouthed supporters don't really help his cause as all they seem to do is shout infantile playground insults at people who disagree with Labour's policies. Not the way to win the hearts and minds of waverers.  

I think the next election, assuming it is held in the near future, will probably result in a hung parliament. It will then fall to the Lib Dems, the SNP and the DUP to decide which party to run with. I'm fairly certain the DUP will not side with Corbyn, a known IRA sympathiser. Lib Dems? - who knows. Probably Labour, as Vince Cable is no Nick Clegg. SNP probably Labour. 

I can see a lot of marginal seats currently held by the Conservatives, staying Conservative. The town that I now live in, for example, used to be solid Labour by a large majority up until 1983. Since then it has switched hands a couple of times. But the Conservative majority has increased slightly in recent elections, as the old working class mining communities die out, and are replaced by a wave of nouveau riche professionals, and upmarket new estates.  In the local elections this year, a council which had previously been majority Labour for as long as anyone could remember, was suddenly tied, with the one Green member holding the casting vote. No less than nine wards which are in what I would still call working class districts, went blue. Big surprise - although I'd imagine a lot of this was migrated votes which had previously gone to ukip.      

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


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

A clean break you have a chance to make your own future. Accept May/EUs terms more of the same with no input to the rules that govern    the EU  a  pretty poor result or abandon Brexit where you will ignore the will of the people. The Tory government will probably fall and you will end up with a Labor government led by that maniac Colbyn. Some choice  Not to say we do not have our own problems here in Australia with the likely return  to a Labor government lead by Shorten an ex Trade Union official who has been involved in various controversial actions during his time with the Australian Workers Union such as ghost members, selling out his members and non disclosure of election donations. In summary I think our problems pale into insignifance compared with yours.

1. How is it a good thing to make a future that's more likely than not to be worse than where we are now? There is no "clean break", why do you think there is so much chaos right now which will only get worse? I agree that May's deal is pretty piss poor - that's one thing that Brexiters and Remainers can agree on.

2. "Will of the people". I could write 2000 words on what's wrong with that, but it's bedtime.

3. Colbyn - you meant Corbyn? He's not even as far left as Benn, who was - let's not forget - in Government in the 60s. His main problem is that he's been a back bench rebel for so long, he doesn't really know how to lead a party. His core values are pretty sound and appeal to masses of young people pissed off with politicians in general. Corbyn would have made an ideal #2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost complete trust and faith in all parties and politics over this shambles. 

If it gets cancelled like it looks as if it's heading that way i think people are going to start voting for the underdogs or the populist candidates to piss Labour & the Tories off who have made a right balls up of this in my opinion. 

Looking around on Youtube there's people screaming for civil war and treason charges , lifelong Tory voters swearing they will never vote for them again and vice versus with Labour voters. This has done a massive amount of damage to faith and trust in politics and politicians. 

Share this post


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

I've lost complete trust and faith in all parties and politics over this shambles. 

If it gets cancelled like it looks as if it's heading that way i think people are going to start voting for the underdogs or the populist candidates to piss Labour & the Tories off who have made a right balls up of this in my opinion. 

Looking around on Youtube there's people screaming for civil war and treason charges , lifelong Tory voters swearing they will never vote for them again and vice versus with Labour voters. This has done a massive amount of damage to faith and trust in politics and politicians. 

How can you abandon something you have applied for. A referendum, That's what we are going to do, apply to leave, gets difficult, Let's forget it. What a pathetic lot the UK pollies are.

All the UK  needs to do now is bend down and let everyone one the 27 members of the EU have a good kick and then crawl off in shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My own thoughts are that this un-united front from UK politicians has only played out to the EU advantage. 
Our negotiating position has been continually undermined rather than all parties get together and approach withdrawal pragmatically in the Country's interest.
News reports and statements bear out that opposition parties going to the EU to discuss their visions only undermine the UK Governments Position.
You have Tony Blair and his cronies openingly lobbying other EU Countries ministers to oppose any UK suggestions
You have London Mayor Khan telling Barnier to start the paper work for reversal 6 months ago, 
 
This isn't about what is best for the UK anymore it is all about Party Politics, Labour will motion for a vote of no confidence in the Government if the first Bill fails hoping for a General Election, if that is blocked they will propose a Peoples Vote and the possibility of staying in the Union. 
But equally May has positioned herself similarly, either My Deal, General Election, Referendum or we stay in, take your pick
All designed to get Politicians to vote in favour of what they fear less.
 
The EU has become a monopoly, anything passing the members boarders is subject to tariffs, taxes or red tape to make the members equivalent goods and services look cheaper.

There are more Lobbyists than MEPs, and seeing that a failed Leader, politician in Neil Kinnock can go to the EU and return a few years later a multi millionaire, as did his wife and son, could be very attractive to some of the current Politicians in their later years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Chingford said:
 

This isn't about what is best for the UK anymore it is all about Party Politics

Newsflash: that's what it was always about. The only people pushing for a referendum were UKIP voters and genuine Euroseptics, who - judging from the 1975 referendum result - amount to somewhere less than 40% of the electorate. Cameron wanted all those UKIPpers back in the Tory fold - where the majority originally came from - so he promised them a referendum during the 2015 GE campaign as he desperately wanted to end Coalition government. Purely party political.

 

The EU has become a monopoly, anything passing the members boarders is subject to tariffs, taxes or red tape to make the members equivalent goods and services look cheaper.

I would replace the word monopoly (which applies to individual companies providing particular commodities or services), with the phrase 'single market', which is actually what it is; there is no free trade bloc anywhere in the world which operates without rules and tariffs to states that exist outside that bloc UNLESS - as in the case of the EU - particular trade deals have been negotiated with individual states, and then all 28 member states can trade freely with "third countries".

Share this post


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

How can you abandon something you have applied for. A referendum, That's what we are going to do, apply to leave, gets difficult, Let's forget it. What a pathetic lot the UK pollies are.

All the UK  needs to do now is bend down and let everyone one the 27 members of the EU have a good kick and then crawl off in shame.

Forgetting democracy for a moment, it wasn’t something “I” applied for, and neither did nearly every other man/woman you will pass on the street. 

If you make a charge on the battlefield and subsequently find obliteration faces you, the sensible thing is not to go blindly on when you could retreat and fight another day! You have to remember this vote got through on the back of a red bus and a number of glory worshipers seeking to take advantage by lies. If they weren’t lies, and they believed it was all true, it equally demonstrates the level of ignorance these political experts/leaders are capable of! 

It was the lies that won the votes, nothing else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Forgetting democracy for a moment, it wasn’t something “I” applied for, and neither did nearly every other man/woman you will pass on the street. 

If you make a charge on the battlefield and subsequently find obliteration faces you, the sensible thing is not to go blindly on when you could retreat and fight another day! You have to remember this vote got through on the back of a red bus and a number of glory worshipers seeking to take advantage by lies. If they weren’t lies, and they believed it was all true, it equally demonstrates the level of ignorance these political experts/leaders are capable of! 

It was the lies that won the votes, nothing else.

'I' didn't apply for the referendum either, but if you had asked me at any time in the past few decades 'did I want to leave the EU?' then the answer would have been yes every time. I didn't expect the opportunity to be given a say, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote to change the status quo given the chance.

It's difficult to equate the referendum result 40+ years ago with the situation today. Then we were joining a trading bloc. today the question is do we want to be part of something that will mutate in the not too distant future into a political union. The common currency will ensure that, as wealth is increasingly concentrated in the best performing economies, of which Germany stands head and shoulders above the rest to the detriment of the periphery which includes this country. The only solution to this polarisation is political union which would permit a central government to unilaterally redistribute wealth and wealth creation across the Union. It means that the constituent nations will no longer be in control of their own economic policies and indeed the end of the nation state. The member nations aren't going to vote for this voluntarily, but may end up in that situation as a last resort. To get out of this federalist situation requires us to leave.

Centralisation isn't peculiar to the EU, as every country has it's economic centre which attracts all the money with the parallel in this country being London which sucks investment out of the regions. The EU is simply following this trend but on a supra-national scale. There will be no appetite for a person representing Berlin to say we need to move x% of our industry to Thessaloniki or wherever because we are doing too well, and they are suffering.

As for the referendum, I think I would give the population more credit than some for their reasoning to leave. Neither side covered itself in glory, but a lot of people discussed the issue with rational discussion and without resorting to nationalistic/jingoistic rhetoric.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It's difficult to equate the referendum result 40+ years ago with the situation today. Then we were joining a trading bloc. today the question is do we want to be part of something that will mutate in the not too distant future into a political union. The common currency will ensure that, as wealth is increasingly concentrated in the best performing economies, of which Germany stands head and shoulders above the rest to the detriment of the periphery which includes this country. The only solution to this polarisation is political union which would permit a central government to unilaterally redistribute wealth and wealth creation across the Union. It means that the constituent nations will no longer be in control of their own economic policies and indeed the end of the nation state. The member nations aren't going to vote for this voluntarily, but may end up in that situation as a last resort. To get out of this federalist situation requires us to leave.

The problem there is that the UK is hardly on the 'periphery' economically - we are the second largest economy after Germany; $2.6 trillion as opposed to Germany's $3.6 trillion (2017). Compare that with the less than $50 billion of Slovenia, Latvia,  Malta, Estonia, Cyprus. Even Luxembourg, which admittedly is a tiny country, is barely more than $50 billion, and they're a founder member. The UK does better than France which is a bigger country, and don't forget we are smaller than Germany, 66m population compared to 83m. As for the common currency, we never joined that.

I think you're right that member states are not going to vote for full political union - there is absolutely no way that Germans, French, Italians, Baltics, Spanish, etc, would give up their status as independent states. Personally, I believe the EU would break up before that would happen, or would revert to 'single market' status, or retain the existing status quo.

At present there are checks and balances to ensure that EU economies don't go under. Greece had cripplingly severe austerity requirements imposed on them in order to stay afloat after 2008, but without the cash injection from the EU they would have gone bankrupt. And budget payments in are redistributed in the form of regional grants to the poorest areas. 

If the EU was so awful, then it's difficult to see why so many nations queue up to join. The only answer is because the single market is economically advantageous. Future trends will have to be faced by individual member states. Brexit - if it actually goes ahead - could be the biggest wake-up call the EU has ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A key point of the EU, which goes largely unrecognised, is its undemocratic nature. Your local MP is elected to serve the interests of their constituents. If enough of the electorate get on his back on a particular issue, it is likely that he/she will raise it in parliament and in some cases even propose a Private Members Bill to amend or introduce legislation.

Your MEP on the other hand is a rubber stamp. They can question and lobby the Commission and the Council of Ministers and up to a point, reject legislation. They cannot introduce legislation, their role is passive not active. Likewise The European Commission and the Council are appointed, not elected. You have gone through the charade of voting for a paper tiger.

Greece was financially raped by the EU, with the connivence of the Right Wing Govenor of the Bank of Greece, as a bloody warning to any other member of the Euro currency not to get out of hand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ireland, Spain, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal suffered under the Euro which was really about the EU exerting its authority. Now they are trying to shaft the UK. Pekris2 makes a point regarding the size of the UK economy .The second largest in the EU and the 5th. largest in the world. Why can't the UK  stand on its own two feet as many other economies do ? Your pollies are so weak and feeble and buckle under external pressure rather than representing the interests of the people who voted for them.

In our papers there were stories about shortages of food medications , even candy bars to quote some UK reports because of congestion at the channel ports. Fake News?  Misinformation abounds as pointed out by the Daily Telegraph the former boss of the ports pointed out that only a small amount of trade is conducted through these ports and the East Coast ports were much more important and carried much of the traffic.  In any case any responsible government would have put contingency plans in place in response to these issues rather than using this as an excuse to cave in to the EU.  Even Australia makes candy bars and would only be too glad to satisfy any shortage . As for meds when I look at the ones I am prescribed most of them come from India , not a EU member. WHAT about HP sauce which is made in Holland plenty here in Australia. I am sure EU based companies will want to continue their trade with one of their most important markets  as will the UK with  theirs. Most of this stuff is simply scaremongering picked up by our media without question.

Edited by ozjohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

At present there are checks and balances to ensure that EU economies don't go under. Greece had cripplingly severe austerity requirements imposed on them in order to stay afloat after 2008, but without the cash injection from the EU they would have gone bankrupt. And budget payments in are redistributed in the form of regional grants to the poorest areas. 

If the EU was so awful, then it's difficult to see why so many nations queue up to join. The only answer is because the single market is economically advantageous. Future trends will have to be faced by individual member states. Brexit - if it actually goes ahead - could be the biggest wake-up call the EU has ever had.

The budget redistribution payments are one cause of the economic malaise found in the peripheral states. It's all well and good saying we will distribute money to the poorer areas of the EU, but those payments come with strings attached. Economic investment in a deprived area is best invested in projects/industries/products that are currently imported into the recipient state. However, to compete with existing industries will fall foul of EU legislation forbidding state aid to the detriment of other EU enterprises. Hence, you are only allowed to invest handouts in something that doesn't provide lasting prosperity as a result of commercial competitiveness. That is why the handouts are returned to the economic powerhouses in the form of traded goods produced by the main countries of the bloc. It boils down to who makes your buckets and spades. Do you have an independent industrial policy that encourages industry here, or do you rely on a political body that doesn't particularly have any interest in your or any other nation's problems. A nation's prosperity ultimately depends on it having a positive balance of payments in order to fund the luxuries such as social care, health care, education etc. These are long term projects that require long term funding. Given the main source of funds is taxation receipts, it should be incumbent on any political party to ensure economic conditions maximise business profits, because without profitable businesses, the future of all the things people allegedly hold dear is very bleak.

Share this post


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

I think I would give the population more credit than some for their reasoning to leave. Neither side covered itself in glory...without resorting to nationalistic/jingoistic rhetoric.

Hmmmm???

Fortunately I can console myself that we are a diverse body of peoples walking this planet.

Also, just a small clarification from me, I wasn’t talking about ‘sides’ seeking glory, I was thinking more of individual ambition. 😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Greece had cripplingly severe austerity requirements imposed on them in order to stay afloat after 2008, but without the cash injection from the EU they would have gone bankrupt."

 

They did go bankrupt.

The EU injections went straight to BNP Paribas and DeutscheBank, lrenders of first resort to Greece. Greek pensions and Social Security were slashed. It is im,possible for Greece to ever vrepay the trumped up debts engineered by outside forces. Many economists in 2015 expected Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to declare Greece's debts as "odious" ¹, but for reasons that he has never disclosed he didn't do so.

 

 

¹ In international law, odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is a legal theory that says that the national debt incurred by a despotic regime should not be enforceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 1:00 PM, Peckris 2 said:

The problem there is that the UK is hardly on the 'periphery' economically - we are the second largest economy after Germany; $2.6 trillion as opposed to Germany's $3.6 trillion (2017). Compare that with the less than $50 billion of Slovenia, Latvia,  Malta, Estonia, Cyprus. Even Luxembourg, which admittedly is a tiny country, is barely more than $50 billion, and they're a founder member. The UK does better than France which is a bigger country, and don't forget we are smaller than Germany, 66m population compared to 83m. As for the common currency, we never joined that.

I think you're right that member states are not going to vote for full political union - there is absolutely no way that Germans, French, Italians, Baltics, Spanish, etc, would give up their status as independent states. Personally, I believe the EU would break up before that would happen, or would revert to 'single market' status, or retain the existing status quo.

At present there are checks and balances to ensure that EU economies don't go under. Greece had cripplingly severe austerity requirements imposed on them in order to stay afloat after 2008, but without the cash injection from the EU they would have gone bankrupt. And budget payments in are redistributed in the form of regional grants to the poorest areas. 

If the EU was so awful, then it's difficult to see why so many nations queue up to join. The only answer is because the single market is economically advantageous. Future trends will have to be faced by individual member states. Brexit - if it actually goes ahead - could be the biggest wake-up call the EU has ever had.

Might be something to do with the fact that they are net beneficiaries, rather than net contributors.  

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

×