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

27 minutes ago, Sword said:

I ask people in favour of Brexit this question: If Remain won that referendum narrowly and there are MPs pushing for Brexit. Would you call those MPs traitors? Probably not.

Before the referendum, we discussed on this forum what would happen if the result was to stay. A view was that a vote had produced a decision and that the question would be put to bed for a generation. I concur with that view because I was prepared to accept the result unlike the current protagonists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not the full story. We already have heaps of trade deals with other countries due to being in the EU. All those and more would have to be renegotiated from scratch. And why would any other nation give us - with a population of 66m - more favourable terms than the combined Single Market of the other 27?

Also, the ECJ would only be able to rule on trade deals and tariffs if we were in a customs union - all other regulations would be outside their jurisdiction. It IS a fair market place for those who are in it. No lobbyists have the power to deal with 27 or 28 separate heads of state.

Agreed. Winston Churchill said all MPs have three priorities in the following order:

1. National interest.                    2. Interests of constituents.                     3. Political Party.

I think it's extremely insulting to call MPs traitors  when they are trying their best to avoid what would harm the nation for who knows how many years ahead.

Sorry, but in my opinion MPs deserve every insult they get, when they don't do as they agreed to. I don't let them off anything. And as for them trying their best and having a conscience about how they are acting, that's the best laugh I've had all day. If they were trying their best they would be going for Brexit, not doing everything they can to thwart it, all the time trying to make out that they respect the vote. That latter is the most insulting comment they can make.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I ask people in favour of Brexit this question: If Remain won that referendum narrowly and there are MPs pushing for Brexit, would you call those MPs traitors? Probably not.

 

 

8 hours ago, Rob said:

Before the referendum, we discussed on this forum what would happen if the result was to stay. A view was that a vote had produced a decision and that the question would be put to bed for a generation. I concur with that view because I was prepared to accept the result unlike the current protagonists.

My question was of course rhetorical. 

But I will ask another question. If the customs union was passed last night and the government decide to adopt it. Do you think the UK would still be better off than remaining? There would be no famous "trade deals with other countries" and we lose our say in the EU. Hardly what the Leave group promised.

Most people did not envisaged we would be in our current situation when we voted nearly 3 years ago. It's it really undemocratic to ask the people if they really prefer the final leaving arrangments than staying? It is not stopping Brexit. It is to prevent us accepting a situation that the majority of the people do not want.

I will go out and enjoy the nice weather. Must resist talking Brexit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sword said:

But I will ask another question. If the customs union was passed last night and the government decide to adopt it. Do you think the UK would still be better off than remaining? There would be no famous "trade deals with other countries" and we lose our say in the EU. Hardly what the Leave group promised.

That's the remain strategy in a nutshell: make the "deal" as bad as possible, so that either parliament or the people reject it and we end up staying.

There is only one option that honours the result of the referendum and that is to leave on WTO terms but parliament has said it won't let that happen.  Democracy has been well and truly thrown under the bus.  Bring on the Brexit Party.

Edited by Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sword said:

 

My question was of course rhetorical. 

But I will ask another question. If the customs union was passed last night and the government decide to adopt it. Do you think the UK would still be better off than remaining? There would be no famous "trade deals with other countries" and we lose our say in the EU. Hardly what the Leave group promised.

Most people did not envisaged we would be in our current situation when we voted nearly 3 years ago. It's it really undemocratic to ask the people if they really prefer the final leaving arrangments than staying? It is not stopping Brexit. It is to prevent us accepting a situation that the majority of the people do not want.

I will go out and enjoy the nice weather. Must resist talking Brexit.

Firstly I will congratulate you on your weather - it's raining here, so I have all the time in the world.

Given our current politicians, I think that we would be on a hiding to nothing if they had decided to go for a customs union. They weren't capable of putting their foot down when required and playing hardball, nor do I think they have the ability or the desire to stand up to the EU and negotiate anything for our benefit. It's the price you pay for putting the future in the hands of a group who profoundly disagree with the instructions of the referendum. My personal view is that we either get out properly, or stay in with a voice in order to mitigate the backlash. A customs union will tie our hands and give us nothing. I therefore still think the preferred option is to leave with no deal whether they like it or not. IF we end up with another referendum (which would be a travesty and presumably would have a predetermined outcome in case we were stupid enough to vote the same way), then if they really want to have any chance of closure, it will be imperative that no deal, remain or half-way house are all on the ballot paper. But I doubt they would have that wisdom.

The EU has moved their institutions back to the mainland as is their right. They will certainly move to get as much of the financial sector moved to Paris or Frankfurt whether we stay or not. If the only options are a customs union or remaining, then it is also a case of accepting that we will continue to get a bad deal from Brussels, at which point we would be better in being the least bad option, but I wouldn't hold out any hope of them investing any EU funding or infrastructure in this country again. The old adage of keep your friends close and your enemies closer was never more appropriate. To fully extricate ourselves will probably require a new political party with both the desire and the balls to make it work.

This undercurrent of discontent is a 46 year project in the making. For all bar one of these years (1974), we have paid in more than we have taken out. In that time, we have lost much of the infrastructure which would give us the ability to stand on our own two feet. Any other country would expect some sort of return for paying in, but we haven't really gained anything of substance in that time. I don't have a problem being a net contributor on occasion, but it does have to be offset on others by actually receiving benefits. In any system there are winners and losers, it's just that 17.4 million see no benefit, whilst only 16.1 million thought they were better off.

Our problems are to some extent home grown because our politicians are too ideological, unlike the majority of the population who are generally middle of the road and value a good social policy but crucially recognise that it has to be paid for. Too many on both sides only see one half of the story. The Tories are called the 'nasty party' because they are perceived to be indifferent to social policy, whilst the Labour party is mainly concerned with taxing and spending money on benefits without expecting anything in return, living in cloud cuckoo land that you can turn on the spending tap at will without ever questioning whether wealth is being or can be generated. The system is broken, but given we all place a value on wealth and it pays for all consumption, you have to make it to spend it.

So the question is, where should our priorities lie? The EU won't come riding to our rescue because we are only ever net contributors to the system, and going forward will be seeking even more from us. That is why a customs union is not a good idea.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

It is to prevent us accepting a situation that the majority of the people do not want.

Oh, but the majority of voters do want it. It's the majority of remainers who don't want it, but they number less than those of us who voted to leave.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

The dictionary definition of 'traitor' is 'a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.' Given that MPs voted for the referendum, voted to trigger A50 and stood on a manifesto of leaving the EU, I regard the definition as entirely appropriate when applied to somebody like Dominic Grieve, since he IS betraying everything he and his party has stood on. As are many of his colleagues in the Tory party. As for the next election, I'm entirely in favour of deselection and/or voting them out, but that is too little too late when they have betrayed the country regarding Brexit.

1. MPs voted for an advisory referendum

2. I  still don't understand why so many voted to trigger A50 before there was even a plan in place 

3. MPs have to subscribe to their manifesto, but they're not consulted on what goes in it - and ask yourself, how many voters plumped for Tory or Labour because of the party stance on Brexit? A GE is not a referendum.

15 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

Sorry, but in my opinion MPs deserve every insult they get, when they don't do as they agreed to. I don't let them off anything. And as for them trying their best and having a conscience about how they are acting, that's the best laugh I've had all day. If they were trying their best they would be going for Brexit, not doing everything they can to thwart it, all the time trying to make out that they respect the vote. That latter is the most insulting comment they can make.

Most of them are, even Remainers. The question is one that no-one can answer, least of all the barroom attorneys so quick to put their two-pennorth in, viz HOW? The worst scenario is a hard Brexit, even the government says so. However the ERG are doing their damnedest to ensure that happens even though many of them claim it's not what they really want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Coinery said:

I’d argue that snapshot views are a dangerous thing. Does the leave position today correlate in any way with original campaign promises, I’d say not?

Many have gone to their graves on the back of misleading facts and snapshot views, the hangman is testimony to that. I’m just asking that the government and the pressure groups all stand back and take a deep calming breath that’s all. The average 60-70 year old will know nothing of the long-term effects of getting this wrong - but my son will, and he has no say.

But that's what a referendum is - and some huge issues can only be decided by referendum. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But that's what a referendum is - and some huge issues can only be decided by referendum. 

I supect that, if the result had gone the other way, Coinery would have a different opinion on snapshot views.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

1. MPs voted for an advisory referendum

2. I  still don't understand why so many voted to trigger A50 before there was even a plan in place 

3. MPs have to subscribe to their manifesto, but they're not consulted on what goes in it - and ask yourself, how many voters plumped for Tory or Labour because of the party stance on Brexit? A GE is not a referendum.

Most of them are, even Remainers. The question is one that no-one can answer, least of all the barroom attorneys so quick to put their two-pennorth in, viz HOW? The worst scenario is a hard Brexit, even the government says so. However the ERG are doing their damnedest to ensure that happens even though many of them claim it's not what they really want.

I agree with you on that one. It would have been sensible to wait a little longer as there was never any extreme urgency.

Another thing - partially lost in the mists of time - that I've never quite understood, is this: If you remember, back on 22nd January 2013, Cameron said that if the Tories won the next election, (which under the Fixed term parliaments Act would be in 2015, which it was) there would be a referendum before the end of 2017. Yet it was actually called surprisingly early in mid 2016. If usual form had followed, the actual referendum would have been delayed until virtually the last minute. Maybe October or November 2017.   

I've often wondered why that was. 

Share this post


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

I agree with you on that one. It would have been sensible to wait a little longer as there was never any extreme urgency.

Another thing - partially lost in the mists of time - that I've never quite understood, is this: If you remember, back on 22nd January 2013, Cameron said that if the Tories won the next election, (which under the Fixed term parliaments Act would be in 2015, which it was) there would be a referendum before the end of 2017. Yet it was actually called surprisingly early in mid 2016. If usual form had followed, the actual referendum would have been delayed until virtually the last minute. Maybe October or November 2017.   

I've often wondered why that was. 

They were shiting themselves over UKIP and nobody took it seriosly that leave would win. Basically the country was peed off over the government and voted to give them a good kicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55517416_2219092191741030_2339271744700809216_n.thumb.jpg.8da9fc86c5dfbd05350c5a2c77cc54f9.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

But that's what a referendum is - and some huge issues can only be decided by referendum. 

Hence the need for proper, informative, full and accurate campaigning, which both sides can agree was not the case.

 

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I agree with you on that one. It would have been sensible to wait a little longer as there was never any extreme urgency.

Another thing - partially lost in the mists of time - that I've never quite understood, is this: If you remember, back on 22nd January 2013, Cameron said that if the Tories won the next election, (which under the Fixed term parliaments Act would be in 2015, which it was) there would be a referendum before the end of 2017. Yet it was actually called surprisingly early in mid 2016. If usual form had followed, the actual referendum would have been delayed until virtually the last minute. Maybe October or November 2017.   

I've often wondered why that was. 

Yes, that is odd. Cameron didn't expect to win the 2015 GE outright, but having done so, and seen off the UKIP threat, there was no particular urgency. Indeed he apparently told the EU heads  - when asked why he had promised a referendum - that he didn't expect to win the GE and that the LibDems would block it. Perhaps - his majority being decisive but hardly massive - he was being threatened by the ERG that they would vote legislation down if he didn't deliver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gary D said:

They were shiting themselves over UKIP and nobody took it seriosly that leave would win. Basically the country was peed off over the government and voted to give them a good kicking.

They'd been re-elected the previous year with a working majority. There was no real need to hold the referendum so early. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

They'd been re-elected the previous year with a working majority. There was no real need to hold the referendum so early. 

But why put it off? Cameron was on a high, having just had a reasonable victory in the General Election. He , like most cosmopolitan south easterners,  had no concept of the dissatisfaction of the majority with the machinations of the EU and despite having just been shafted in his attempt to get concessions from the EU he had put a gloss on the outcome that he thought the population would swallow. There did not seem to be any advantage in delaying, and nor would there have been. The target of settling the EU issue within his party was understandably irresistible. And the chattering and political classes knew a remain victory was inevitable. What he, like many, did not realise is that national wealth and economic success is less important to the psyche of most of the population of the country than perceptions of housing and work competition from working class Eastern European immigration. Almost un-mentioned in the debate also were issues of national sovereignty, self determination and democracy  which in the absence of the concern for the international economic arguments are felt very strongly amongst rural and working class communities. I think that despite the parliamentary debacle very little has changed, the polls give a remain majority of exactly the same level as the day before the referendum (10% according to the net) and we know where that led us. Cameron did not have a crystal ball (or possibly any balls at all as it turned out) but his decision will have seemed entirely logical.

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But why put it off? Cameron was on a high, having just had a reasonable victory in the General Election. He , like most cosmopolitan south easterners,  had no concept of the dissatisfaction of the majority with the machinations of the EU and despite having just been shafted in his attempt to get concessions from the EU he had put a gloss on the outcome that he thought the population would swallow. There did not seem to be any advantage in delaying, and nor would there have been. The target of settling the EU issue within his party was understandably irresistible. And the chattering and political classes knew a remain victory was inevitable. What he, like many, did not realise is that national wealth and economic success is less important to the psyche of most of the population of the country than perceptions of housing and work competition from working class Eastern European immigration. Almost un-mentioned in the debate also were issues of national sovereignty, self determination and democracy  which in the absence of the concern for the international economic arguments are felt very strongly amongst rural and working class communities. I think that despite the parliamentary debacle very little has changed, the polls give a remain majority of exactly the same level as the day before the referendum (10% according to the net) and we know where that led us. Cameron did not have a crystal ball (or possibly any balls at all as it turned out) but his decision will have seemed entirely logical.

Jerry

Because in this country it's far more usual to leave things until the last possible minute. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

They'd been re-elected the previous year with a working majority. There was no real need to hold the referendum so early. 

Probably just arrogance and the possibility of defeat has hasn't seriously crossed his mind. Let's get this over and done with since I am going to win. May didn't thought she would never lose her majority either. There is one thing many politicians of all parties have in common: a large ego.

 

Edited by Sword

Share this post


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

But that's what a referendum is - and some huge issues can only be decided by referendum. 

I think it is really sporting that remainers here have not mentioned that the Leave Campaign was fined for over spending and no one really know how much or little effect this over spending had on the results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Nick said:

That's the remain strategy in a nutshell: make the "deal" as bad as possible, so that either parliament or the people reject it and we end up staying.

There is only one option that honours the result of the referendum and that is to leave on WTO terms but parliament has said it won't let that happen.  Democracy has been well and truly thrown under the bus.  Bring on the Brexit Party.

To be fair, May didn't deliberately tried to get a bad deal. She just couldn't get a good one. She wants to leave alright and tried to get her deal through 3 times, rejected a second referendum  (because Remain  might win), rejected revoking article 50 etc.

The referendum only asked if people wanted to Leave and not how we will leave. So leaving but staying in the customs union still honours that result. The government is not blind to anything else promised by the Leave group. Beware that you might not get the Brexit you want. 

 

Edited by Sword

Share this post


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

So leaving but staying in the customs union still honours that result.

Of course it doesn't.  You might remember, I think they mentioned it a few hundred thousand times or so, it was about taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders.  Staying in the Customs Union gives away control of our trade policy to the EU, so even tiny Malta will have more say over our trade policy than we will.

We will get the Brexit we want, just not with this government.

Share this post


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

I think it is really sporting that remainers here have not mentioned that the Leave Campaign was fined for over spending and no one really know how much or little effect this over spending had on the results. 

The reason why Remainers keep quiet about it, is because even with the "overspend", which was ratified by the Electoral Commission at the time, Remain spent 40% more than Leave and still lost.  And that's even before you count the £9m for the government's Remain leaflet.

Share this post


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

To be fair, May didn't deliberately tried to get a bad deal. She just couldn't get a good one. She wants to leave alright and tried to get her deal through 3 times, rejected a second referendum  (because Remain  might win), rejected revoking article 50 etc.

The referendum only asked if people wanted to Leave and not how we will leave. So leaving but staying in the customs union still honours that result. The government is not blind to anything else promised by the Leave group. Beware that you might not get the Brexit you want. 

 

I think you will find that both options highlighted along with several others were rejected by Parliament. not the Government unilaterally.

Share this post


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

1. MPs voted for an advisory referendum    Certainly, it was advisory. The promise that the result would be respected and implemented is where the treachery comes in. Given this and the antics of parliament, the cynical political games being played and the known fact that 75% of MPs oppose leaving, I am quite clear that the term 'traitors' is entirely appropriate. Thus far, I've seen no coherant argument against this statement by anybody. People don't like it, they think it's inflammatory, it's disrespectful, but not one seems to be able to object to the simple logic behind it. 

2. I  still don't understand why so many voted to trigger A50 before there was even a plan in place 

3. MPs have to subscribe to their manifesto, but they're not consulted on what goes in it - and ask yourself, how many voters plumped for Tory or Labour because of the party stance on Brexit? A GE is not a referendum.

Most of them are, even Remainers. The question is one that no-one can answer, least of all the barroom attorneys so quick to put their two-pennorth in, viz HOW? The worst scenario is a hard Brexit, even the government says so. However the ERG are doing their damnedest to ensure that happens even though many of them claim it's not what they really want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Sword said:

To be fair, May didn't deliberately tried to get a bad deal. She just couldn't get a good one. She wants to leave alright and tried to get her deal through 3 times, rejected a second referendum  (because Remain  might win), rejected revoking article 50 etc.

The referendum only asked if people wanted to Leave and not how we will leave. So leaving but staying in the customs union still honours that result. The government is not blind to anything else promised by the Leave group. Beware that you might not get the Brexit you want. 

 

Sorry, but how do you know May didn't try to get a bad deal? After all one of her own inner circle commented recently that she was always in damage limitation mode, so the logic of that would be to make the deal so poor that we don't leave. Its a perfectly sound ploy to achieve what she really wants, without it being obvious that she has engineered it that way.

Also, exactly how does staying in a customs union, the worst of all worlds, honour the result, when it was made crystal clear by just about everyone that leaving meant leaving the single market and customs union? 'Honouring the result' is the last thing that this will do. Its spitting on the votes of all those who voted to leave.

Edited by DaveG38
  • 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

×