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

Actually it's good that May is now meeting with Corbyn. No time for the arch brexiteers within conservative ranks who are criticising her for doing so, as they should have voted for her deal.

She's been left with no option as there is no agreement for any of the proposals so far. 

If we have a permanent customs union, then we know exactly which stubborn parties to blame. Their fault and theirs entirely, as we could have been leaving with a deal - not a perfect one, but an exit deal nonetheless. Blind unyielding idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TM's deal is leaving in name only. And anything requiring the customs union means your hands are tied. Leaving properly is the only way to be free to make your own policies, because staying tied to the single market is, as has been repeated time and again, having to accept all their rules with no say.

Share this post


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

TM's deal is leaving in name only. And anything requiring the customs union means your hands are tied. Leaving properly is the only way to be free to make your own policies, because staying tied to the single market is, as has been repeated time and again, having to accept all their rules with no say.

TM's deal means we would fully leave on 31.12.20 after a period of adjustment, assuming the backstop situation had been resolved. Sure, we could leave without a deal on 12th April, but the results would be unpleasant in the short term.

The way things are headed now, means the brexiteers actually end up with a far worse situation from their point of view than if they had accepted her deal. If we stay part of the customs union it will strongly inhibit our ability to form new trading partnerships with third party countries outside the EU.    

The majority of parliament were never going to accept a no deal exit - ergo: May's deal was the nearest thing to a perfect compromise, which her side, including the DUP, could have got through despite Labour, had certain elements not been so bloody minded. Their call though, and this is now a perfect demonstration of the law of unintended consequences as far as they are concerned.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the backstop is the elephant in the room. Until that is resolved, we are tied to the EU. I don't have any confidence that it would be resolved anytime soon, nor in 5 or even 10 years. It's an open-ended leave in name only, with Brussels holding all the power. This cannot be resolved by wishing the problem away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no way that a FTA is going to be agreed in under 18 months.  Therefore the backstop will apply and will continue to apply.

All TM's deal will achieve is to remove the advantages are both remaining and leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nick said:

There is absolutely no way that a FTA is going to be agreed in under 18 months.  Therefore the backstop will apply and will continue to apply.

All TM's deal will achieve is to remove the advantages are both remaining and leaving.

Perhaps not, but it would in due course. In any case the situation is extremely complex and full of uncertainty.

However, now that May is in bed with Corbyn, so to speak, we are obviously going to see Brexit watered down much further, in order to secure Labour backing and finally get something agreed.   

This was the day Brexit was lost - mark it in your diaries. 3rd April 2019. 

Share this post


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

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

The petition for revoking article 50 got over 6 million signatures. May could have used it as the reason to propose a second referendum. She didn't and posted the response that "This  government will not revoke article 50" days before the debates on 1st April. She did the same for the 2nd referendum petition and said "This government will not hold a second  referendum"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

TM's deal is leaving in name only. And anything requiring the customs union means your hands are tied. Leaving properly is the only way to be free to make your own policies, because staying tied to the single market is, as has been repeated time and again, having to accept all their rules with no say.

err the customs union and single market are two totally different animals. So now you are saying that Turkey is in the EU as they are a member of the customs union.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

The referendum options were a) remain in eu or b) leave the eu

It doesn't say anything about the customs union. With hindsight, if option b) was leave eu AND the customs union, then it would be one less thing to argue about.

It would be more straightforward if a Leave politician won the leadership contest and is prime minister. Then you can hold him to the promises made by the Leave campaign.

May was remain and didn't make the brexit promises before the referendum. Some of the promises like the infamous battle bus slogan are not deliverable anyway.  She spoke about her aspirations when she has got the job but has now failed. (But I do wonder what some Brexiteers would actually consider a good deal). She has now even said that the Uk can do well in the long run with no deal. But no deal has been refused by Parliament.

There is now a real danger of a half baked Brexit that no one wants. Only the population can overrule parliament. Get a second referendum. No deal vs staying vs whatever. Use the alternative vote system if there are more than 2 brexit options.

Talking about Brexit on a forum is like a bunch of Catholic priests debating with some Buddhist monks if the Sermon on the Mount has really taken place. Let's face it, it is unlikely that one side can convince the other.

 

Edited by Sword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly May was unopposed as all the Brexit in chiefs had run for cover as they knew the the stick had manure on both ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Johnson had a good chance until he was stabbed in the back by his friend Gove. 

Edited by Sword

Share this post


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

The petition for revoking article 50 got over 6 million signatures. May could have used it as the reason to propose a second referendum. She didn't and posted the response that "This  government will not revoke article 50" days before the debates on 1st April. She did the same for the 2nd referendum petition and said "This government will not hold a second  referendum"

There were eight options tabled a couple of weeks before the vote on 01st April. All were voted on by the House, a similar ballot to this week, and all failed to find support.

Share this post


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

err the customs union and single market are two totally different animals. So now you are saying that Turkey is in the EU as they are a member of the customs union.

Should have made it separate paragraphs. TM's deal only provides any use with a definite cut off for the backstop, otherwise we are tied in at the EU's mercy as has been endlessly discussed. That's the elephant.

As for a customs union, whilst it may provide more flexibility than being in the single market, it is still limiting because the removal of tariffs doesn't remove border checks, and and by definition doesn't solve the Irish border problem. To eliminate border checks requires us to be in the single market with all its contribution and regulatory issues. It would also limit our ability to do other trade deals. The choice is still stay in and do as you are told, or leave properly.

Share this post


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

It doesn't say anything about the customs union. With hindsight, if option b) was leave eu AND the customs union, then it would be one less thing to argue about.

Except that every single major figure (on both sides) made it perfectly clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Share this post


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

It doesn't say anything about the customs union.

 

 

The official government did. It was crystal clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Cooper - Letwin not leaving without a deal bill.

"Order....... The aye's to the right 315, the No's to the left 310, so the aye's have it, the aye's have it, unlock"

What a surprise. 

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


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

Except that every single major figure (on both sides) made it perfectly clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.

The thought that Leave would win AND a Remain politician would still be prime minister hardly crossed anyone's mind before the referendum. Quite naturally, most people expected a Leave prime minister if Leave wins. Remain were saying that's what Leave would do if they win. They meant that as a threat rather than their own policy if they lose the referendum but somehow win leadership. Remain never thought about what their policy would be in that situation. I know you will disagree and can of course understand your point of view.

May should not have taken the job and it should have gone to a Brexiteer. But then Boris was huge bookmakers' favourite until he got betrayed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 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.

No. The dispossessed working class northerners were about thumbing their noses at the Westminster elite, which is what many Leave votes were about. 

Sure, The Mail et al claimed we had lost sovereignty - we hadn't. Nor self-determination, as our policies on defence, welfare, education, housing, industrial stratgy, defence, broad taxation, prove clearly enough.

14 hours 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. 

It's probably something we will never know. What we do know is that Dominic Cummings came up with the slogan "Take back control", BoJo with "Independence Day", and the Leave campaign was sold the social networking targeted adverts app. Then there are the more shadowy figures of Cambridge Analytica, Steve Bannon, Arron Banks, etc. 

13 hours ago, Nick said:

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.

I think you'll find that though those things WERE mentioned often enough, the customs union wasn't. I watched most of the TV debate s and analysis and didn't  hear it once. And the stuff about "taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders" are soundbites that sound much more rooted in reality than they are.

8 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Actually it's good that May is now meeting with Corbyn. No time for the arch brexiteers within conservative ranks who are criticising her for doing so, as they should have voted for her deal.

She's been left with no option as there is no agreement for any of the proposals so far. 

If we have a permanent customs union, then we know exactly which stubborn parties to blame. Their fault and theirs entirely, as we could have been leaving with a deal - not a perfect one, but an exit deal nonetheless. Blind unyielding idiots.

May's deal actually does include the prospect of a permanent customs union, just not in so many words.

5 hours ago, Sword said:

The referendum options were a) remain in eu or b) leave the eu

It doesn't say anything about the customs union. With hindsight, if option b) was leave eu AND the customs union, then it would be one less thing to argue about.

It would be more straightforward if a Leave politician won the leadership contest and is prime minister. Then you can hold him to the promises made by the Leave campaign.

May was remain and didn't make the brexit promises before the referendum. Some of the promises like the infamous battle bus slogan are not deliverable anyway.  She spoke about her aspirations when she has got the job but has now failed. (But I do wonder what some Brexiteers would actually consider a good deal). She has now even said that the Uk can do well in the long run with no deal. But no deal has been refused by Parliament.

There is now a real danger of a half baked Brexit that no one wants. Only the population can overrule parliament. Get a second referendum. No deal vs staying vs whatever. Use the alternative vote system if there are more than 2 brexit options.

Talking about Brexit on a forum is like a bunch of Catholic priests debating with some Buddhist monks if the Sermon on the Mount has really taken place. Let's face it, it is unlikely that one side can convince the other.

 

Good points, well made. It doesn't matter how many times Brexiters repeat that "everyone knew what they were voting for", the clear and only answer is "Leave the EU" or "Remain in the EU". The implications of both have been made clearer in 2019 than at any other time.

4 hours ago, Nick said:

Except that every single major figure (on both sides) made it perfectly clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Not during the campaign they didn't. Yes, the Single Market was mentioned, but more often in the terms of "Who on earth wants the UK to leave the Single Market? It's the EU we plan to leave not the SM." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a long delay, and we have to field candidates for the European parliament, I can foresee a very low turnout. I know it's traditionally already low, but extraordinarily low this time.

Same as the next general election. 

 

Share this post


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

If there is a long delay, and we have to field candidates for the European parliament, I can foresee a very low turnout. I know it's traditionally already low, but extraordinarily low this time.

Same as the next general election. 

 

In some areas the turnout has been less than 20% in previous EU elections, but it would be the place for any protest voting either selecting an alternative to the main parties or not voting at all which I would say is the worst option as you cannot complain about a result that you haven't participated in. The EU already fear the UK representation comprising mostly Leave MEPs and this would thwart them going forward hence their initial stance of agreeing things before the EU elections and the UK not taking part.

A protest vote at a GE wouldn't be an option, you leave the door open to a Government or coalition you wouldn't want in charge for the next 5 years.

Share this post


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

No. The dispossessed working class northerners were about thumbing their noses at the Westminster elite, which is what many Leave votes were about. 

Sure, The Mail et al claimed we had lost sovereignty - we hadn't. Nor self-determination, as our policies on defence, welfare, education, housing, industrial stratgy, defence, broad taxation, prove clearly enough.

For over 30 years I worked and lived in what you might describe as a “dispossessed working class” community, albeit in the South Wales valleys, and a strongly labour voting constituency and leave voting . I drank in the local pubs and my best mates included a plasterer, postman and power station worker. Europe was a frequent topic of conversation , often heated, but generally in negative terms for many of the reasons outlined above. When it came to the referendum I never once heard the view expressed  that they would vote to “thumb their noses” etc, and I suspect they would be insulted to be told that was their motivation. You seem  to deny the “working classes” the ability to come to the same reasoned decisions with the same access to media as the rest of us, which ever way the individual verdict was. It seems a popular remainer conception that the outcome of the referendum was determined by a protest vote by the ignorant, despite the “working classes” having exactly the same average IQ as the rest of the population.

And in terms of sovereignty, I said “issues of national sovereignty “, I did not say lost sovereignty,  though we have undoubtedly become subservient to the European Court and to a significant extent to the European Parliament,  two of the main pillars that determine self determination.

Jerry

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The dispossessed working class northerners were about thumbing their noses at the Westminster elite

If anything, they (and I) were putting more of their faith in the Westminster elite rather than the European bureaucrats. How stupid is that ?

Share this post


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

For over 30 years I worked and lived in what you might describe as a “dispossessed working class” community, albeit in the South Wales valleys, and a strongly labour voting constituency and leave voting . I drank in the local pubs and my best mates included a plasterer, postman and power station worker. Europe was a frequent topic of conversation , often heated, but generally in negative terms for many of the reasons outlined above. When it came to the referendum I never once heard the view expressed  that they would vote to “thumb their noses” etc, and I suspect they would be insulted to be told that was their motivation. You seem  to deny the “working classes” the ability to come to the same reasoned decisions with the same access to media as the rest of us, which ever way the individual verdict was. It seems a popular remainer conception that the outcome of the referendum was determined by a protest vote by the ignorant, despite the “working classes” having exactly the same average IQ as the rest of the population.

And in terms of sovereignty, I said “issues of national sovereignty “, I did not say lost sovereignty,  though we have undoubtedly become subservient to the European Court and to a significant extent to the European Parliament,  two of the main pillars that determine self determination.

I actually said "dispossessed" not ignorant. But the Northern areas of neglect (former Lancashire mill towns, Yorkshire wool and coal, Northeast shipbuilding to name but three) were pretty fed up with Westminster deciding their fate ever since Maggie T oversaw the running down of our traditional industrial base. Many of them - outside the bigger cities - felt ignored, sidelined, even trodden down, by the comparative wealth of the South. Why wouldn't they protest? General Elections hadn't made much difference to them from 1979 on, so a referendum where the government of the day was "advising" them to vote Remain was a prime opportunity to make their voices heard.

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

If anything, they (and I) were putting more of their faith in the Westminster elite rather than the European bureaucrats. How stupid is that ?

I can't speak for you obviously, but yes, there is a definite contradiction between 'hating Westminster' and voting to hand London even more control over their lives. But I guess we'll have to put that one down to emotion, which has been the dominant factor on both sides - increasingly so since 2016. 

Share this post


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

I actually said "dispossessed" not ignorant.

Where has this come from, Chris? I actually quote you as saying ‘dispossessed ‘ in my first paragraph. Unless in quotes, the rest of the missive is in my words,  and without knowing you I would never accuse you of being one of those who consider leave voters being somehow less than intelligent and  rational. But I have heard it said by remainers that I know, who feel a leave vote is somehow less valid than a remain vote, by the nature of the people who voted that way. I of course would never make such a blanket accusation. Though I have of course noted that remain voters arguments overwhelmingly revolve around anxieties over national and personal wealth, ie economy and trade, and far less about the right of the majority to make decisions, for better or for worse, which is of course what happens at every general election.🤐

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jelida said:

Where has this come from, Chris? I actually quote you as saying ‘dispossessed ‘ in my first paragraph. Unless in quotes, the rest of the missive is in my words,  and without knowing you I would never accuse you of being one of those who consider leave voters being somehow less than intelligent and  rational. But I have heard it said by remainers that I know, who feel a leave vote is somehow less valid than a remain vote, by the nature of the people who voted that way. I of course would never make such a blanket accusation. Though I have of course noted that remain voters arguments overwhelmingly revolve around anxieties over national and personal wealth, ie economy and trade, and far less about the right of the majority to make decisions, for better or for worse, which is of course what happens at every general election.🤐

Jerry

It's a ludicrous accusation anyway, which, in line with much of the tripe spouted these days, makes zero logical sense.

I'd say it was an attempt by the hard left to paint all brexiters in a certain light - you know the same old tired score, white, middle aged/elderly and male, with extreme right wing views, racist and of low intelligence. A lazy caricature so idiotic as to be unworthy of even the Beano.   

  • Like 2

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

×