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

17 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

True but do not lose sight of the fact that a majority of the people voted to leave. Not a victory for democracy. 

That doesn't seem to matter, when the majority of MPs voted to remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elected polies  are supposed to support the wishes of the electorate not oppose them.. You had a referendum which was carried by a good majority (50% of the vote + 1 is a win) and the polies should respect the result not oppose it. If Tory do not deliver Brexit they will be booted out of office and Labor will form the next government. I'm not sure the Tories will survive and Labor will govern for a long time into the future. Maybe that's your wish but I think Corbyn will be a disaster for the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backstop and other stop of each country backstop also determine the boundaries of EU as a whole hard border for EU and to each member countries of EU or to those who will join EU it will draw a line of every border of each country and its importance value?. 

Share this post


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

The elected polies  are supposed to support the wishes of the electorate not oppose them.. You had a referendum which was carried by a good majority (50% of the vote + 1 is a win) and the polies should respect the result not oppose it.

Indeed, but that won't stop them.

1 hour ago, ozjohn said:

If Tory do not deliver Brexit they will be booted out of office and Labor will form the next government. I'm not sure the Tories will survive and Labor will govern for a long time into the future. Maybe that's your wish but I think Corbyn will be a disaster for the UK.

If Brexit is not delivered, both the Tories and Labour will suffer at the ballot box, but the Tories will be decimated and the net result will be a Labour government (possibly propped up by the SNP).  Maybe 5 years of Corbyn/Sturgeon is just the sort of reality check the country needs.

Mind you, the irony meter would go off the scale if the EU commission blocked a Corbyn government budget like it has done with Italy.

Edited by Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is currently being reported in BBC news:

"Mr Tusk said Mr Cameron thought a referendum would not happen because of the coalition government with the Lib Dems.

"[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum," Mr Tusk said.

"But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory."

Mr Tusk said he was "really amazed and even shocked" to learn from Mr Cameron that he decided to hold the referendum because of his own party."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46951942

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If as you say a coalition of Labor and SNP for the future don't tell me Scotland's independence would not be on the agenda which would invite another hard boarder to mainland UK.

Share this post


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

The elected polies  are supposed to support the wishes of the electorate not oppose them.. You had a referendum which was carried by a good majority (50% of the vote + 1 is a win) and the polies should respect the result not oppose it. If Tory do not deliver Brexit they will be booted out of office and Labor will form the next government. I'm not sure the Tories will survive and Labor will govern for a long time into the future. Maybe that's your wish but I think Corbyn will be a disaster for the UK.

To quote Winston Churchill (who may have been referencing Edmund Burke):

There are three duties of a politician: 1. to act in the national interest without prejudice or reference to any other factor ..... 2. to represent constituents, remembering that he/she is a representative not a delegate ..... 3. to act in the interests of political party.

ALWAYS in that order: nation, then constituents, then party. And to view  the EU as an organisation that is out to spitefully diminish the UK (when the truth is that they have bent over backwards, without bending their strict rules of membership) are the words of a hater spoken without any regard for facts, and with no sources to back up those angry words.

Share this post


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

If as you say a coalition of Labor and SNP for the future don't tell me Scotland's independence would not be on the agenda which would invite another hard boarder to mainland UK.

Sorry about the spelling border not boarders unless we have boarders on the border.

Share this post


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

To quote Winston Churchill (who may have been referencing Edmund Burke):

There are three duties of a politician: 1. to act in the national interest without prejudice or reference to any other factor ..... 2. to represent constituents, remembering that he/she is a representative not a delegate ..... 3. to act in the interests of political party.

ALWAYS in that order: nation, then constituents, then party. And to view  the EU as an organisation that is out to spitefully diminish the UK (when the truth is that they have bent over backwards, without bending their strict rules of membership) are the words of a hater spoken without any regard for facts, and with no sources to back up those angry words.

I find it strange that a leftie would quote Churchill a Lib  then a Tory when it suits. In any case this is only an opinion as the UK has no written constitution. I think Churchill was referring to the general running of the country and response to a crisis etc. . This is different Brexit was in response to a direct question asked of the people which was no doubt a surprise to the pollies that it attracted a majority of votes. Too bad they have let the cat out of the bag and it is their responsibility to comply.

Edited by ozjohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at the Daily Telegraph with Colbyn pushing for another referendum. What happens if you get the same result? Have a third referendum a forth until you get the result you want.A referendum is supposed to be a vehicle used infrequently to settle a matter of national importance  where 1.. the result should be implemented  and 2. the results are final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a second referendum. Has to be.

Parliament is paralysed as we hurtle manically towards the cliff edge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, you have had your referendum the people spoke. It's up to Parliament to implement it  That's the job they are paid for. Probably a reasonable chance another referendum will produce a similar result especially after the way the EU has treated the UK over Brexit or do you keep on having referendums until it produces the result Parliament wants?  I think I would be angry with the EU who have stymied every attempt to negotiate a separation  also with May for throwing away her majority with the  general election which seriously eroded any authority in negotiating with the EU who finally handed May a set of demands for the separation where May has been bludgeoned by the EU into accepting. GBP 36 B cost with out any guarantee of a trade deal or true separation from the EU. From here  a no deal looks a much better option. Maybe some disruption but WTO trading is not so bad and you can also adjust the value of the pound to compensate for increased tarrifs and reduce company tax to attract business to the UK. As for no meds ( in OZ most of these come from India now days), truck mayhem on the M20, travelling to Europe. Well I don't have any trouble on an Australian passport  and in any case if there were any reprisals from Europe it's a two edged sword which would hurt the EU just a hard perhaps harder as so many EU citizens live and work in the UK also the UK's unemployment is much less than most of the EU's 5% against France's 9% and much higher than elsewhere with perhaps the exception of Germany. That's why the UK attracts so many people from Europe  I'm sure these can be managed with a little planning in the event of a no deal. You have had  two years to prepare for this event which should have been put in place immediately after the referendum rather than waiting until the last moment further weakening your position. I guess in conclusion it's possible the May government was never serious in implementing the results of the referendum and kept on coming up with feeble excuses for doing nothing to prepare the UK for a no deal.

Edited by ozjohn

Share this post


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

There has to be a second referendum. Has to be.

Parliament is paralysed as we hurtle manically towards the cliff edge.

 

Translation: Parliament disagrees with people, people should think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

European Elections coming in May, could be several Politicians seeing their EU 'Cash Cow' disappearing over the horizon.

I don't think it matters how you voted this is supposed to be a Democracy and events recently, by all Parties, moving to take control and motioning wrecking bills to stop any progress being made, has shown this isn't the truth. Scotland are now gearing up for another Independence referendum,  it gives me the impression though the Politicians are saying, 'you got it wrong, lets try again', until they get what they want, voters opinions count for little unless you agree with the Politicians.

The majority of MPs are self serving and not for the People who put them in their positions.

Everyone seems to have forgotten the first year was spent negotiating with the EU on the divorce bill, at the time TM asked to secure the positions of people living in the EU and in the UK, the EU refused to move forward on any agreement until the divorce settlement was agreed.

If the motion to Block a No Deal passes through, we have effectively surrendered our strongest negotiating position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all in favour of a second referendum. But since the question of whether we leave or not is already settled, this should not be an option, in which case the question should simply be:

May's deal or no deal.Politicians won't go for it, but it is the only logical option.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I find it strange that a leftie would quote Churchill

You haven't the faintest idea of my politics, you simply draw an inference from your own.

This is different Brexit was in response to a direct question asked of the people which was no doubt a surprise to the pollies that it attracted a majority of votes. Too bad they have let the cat out of the bag and it is their responsibility to comply.

It now transpires that Cameron never expected to have to hold an actual referendum. He expected to be in Coalition again with the LibDems in 2015 and that they would veto or block it, but he won outright; certainly a surprise to THAT "polie". 

 

14 hours ago, ozjohn said:

A referendum is supposed to be a vehicle used infrequently to settle a matter of national importance  where 1.. the result should be implemented  and 2. the results are final.

As already mentioned in this topic, but no doubt you didn't read it or have forgotten - the Referendum Act of 2015 stated that it was 'advisory only'. This aspect was in a STATUTE, i.e. legally binding. The Executive unilaterally, and without the consent of Parliament, stated on the ballot that they would implement the result, but this was not legally binding. I've already told you this.

 

8 hours ago, ozjohn said:

another referendum will produce a similar result especially after the way the EU has treated the UK over Brexit

Which is how, precisely? Please quote me respectable sources for your claim.

or do you keep on having referendums until it produces the result Parliament wants?

We had one. Yes. 1975. The 2016 was a second referendum because the 'phobes never could accept the 1975 result.

From here  a no deal looks a much better option. Maybe some disruption but WTO trading is not so bad and you can also adjust the value of the pound to compensate for increased tarrifs and reduce company tax to attract business to the UK.

Says you, lecturing us from the other side of the world. What actually do you know about the history of the EU and UK? What would your reaction be if I started lecturing you about the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum or The Cairns Group?  

 

4 hours ago, Chingford said:

If the motion to Block a No Deal passes through, we have effectively surrendered our strongest negotiating position.

'No Deal' appears from most standpoints as the weakest position not the strongest. (I disregard most of what Ree-Smogg says, he doesn't live in the real world.)

 

4 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

I'm all in favour of a second referendum. But since the question of whether we leave or not is already settled, this should not be an option, in which case the question should simply be:

May's deal or no deal.Politicians won't go for it, but it is the only logical option.

This is the whole problem - it isn't, not really. The reason for the second vote is to assume that people now know much more about the implications of it all than they did in 2016. If the second vote was again Leave then, like all the other Remainers, I'd have to swallow it and accept it however  much I hated it.

 

Edited by Peckris 2

Share this post


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

If the motion to Block a No Deal passes through, we have effectively surrendered our strongest negotiating position.

'No Deal' appears from most standpoints as the weakest position not the strongest. (I disregard most of what Ree-Smogg says, he doesn't live in the real world.)

 

Eu do not want a No Deal scenario, it would be the worse outcome for them and have a profound impact on all the EU Members not just the UK, therefore I believe it is our strongest position and could therefore be traded to improve the deal if necessary not just given up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the whole problem - it isn't, not really. The reason for the second vote is to assume that people now know much more about the implications of it all than they did in 2016. If the second vote was again Leave then, like all the other Remainers, I'd have to swallow it and accept it however  much I hated it.

I'm sorry, but I have never bought this argument. When the referendum was called it had to ask a simple question i.e. in/out. There was no option for any shades of grey. It's true that people didn't know exactly what the terms of leaving would be, but it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to know this at that time. People cast their votes on the basis of what they did know, what the government told them and what their own experiences told them.

There was also no question raised at the time to suggest that the government would act on the result and would then check with the people whether the terms were OK via another referendum. They could have done so, but chose not to. Was it perfect? No, but could it have been any better? Probably not. Neither side was entirely truthful, but in the end it was a simple choice for us to make, and the result was perfectly legitimate. We should now be making the best of it, and politicians should be enacting the will of the people. There is no excuse not to, since they asked us for a steer on what they should do, and the referendum result was that steer. The fact they didn't like it is their problem not ours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 This is the whole problem - it isn't, not really. The reason for the second vote is to assume that people now know much more about the implications of it all than they did in 2016. If the second vote was again Leave then, like all the other Remainers, I'd have to swallow it and accept it however  much I hated it.

I'm sorry, but I have never bought this argument. When the referendum was called it had to ask a simple question i.e. in/out. There was no option for any shades of grey. It's true that people didn't know exactly what the terms of leaving would be, but it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to know this at that time. People cast their votes on the basis of what they did know, what the government told them and what their own experiences told them.

There was also no question raised at the time to suggest that the government would act on the result and would then check with the people whether the terms were OK via another referendum. They could have done so, but chose not to. Was it perfect? No, but could it have been any better? Probably not. Neither side was entirely truthful, but in the end it was a simple choice for us to make, and the result was perfectly legitimate. We should now be making the best of it, and politicians should be enacting the will of the people. There is no excuse not to, since they asked us for a steer on what they should do, and the referendum result was that steer. The fact they didn't like it is their problem not ours.

Well said compared with the noise and personal abuse that seems to come from some quarters. Typical leftie nonsense. Ignore the facts. Bring in every spurious argument that has no relevance to the subject in hand and then think they are champions of the people who are in truth well down in their list of priorities compared with their political agenda. Sometimes observing from a distance leads to clearer thinking something which seems to be lacking. I wish the good ship UK well but I fear it will end in tears.

Edited by ozjohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22 January 2019 at 4:49 PM, Chingford said:

Eu do not want a No Deal scenario, it would be the worse outcome for them and have a profound impact on all the EU Members not just the UK, therefore I believe it is our strongest position and could therefore be traded to improve the deal if necessary not just given up.

The problem is that No Deal would be bad for everyone. We're very close even to being thrown out of WTO trading, so that would be a total disaster, though even WTO would be the second worst economic outcome. But if what you're saying is that merely threatening No Deal would improve our negotiating position and force EU hands, then I do understand where you're coming from. The danger is that the EU could see through the ploy and call the UK bluff. 

 

On 22 January 2019 at 5:29 PM, DaveG38 said:

This is the whole problem - it isn't, not really. The reason for the second vote is to assume that people now know much more about the implications of it all than they did in 2016. If the second vote was again Leave then, like all the other Remainers, I'd have to swallow it and accept it however  much I hated it.

I'm sorry, but I have never bought this argument. When the referendum was called it had to ask a simple question i.e. in/out. There was no option for any shades of grey. It's true that people didn't know exactly what the terms of leaving would be, but it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to know this at that time. People cast their votes on the basis of what they did know, what the government told them and what their own experiences told them.

There was also no question raised at the time to suggest that the government would act on the result and would then check with the people whether the terms were OK via another referendum. They could have done so, but chose not to. Was it perfect? No, but could it have been any better? Probably not. Neither side was entirely truthful, but in the end it was a simple choice for us to make, and the result was perfectly legitimate. We should now be making the best of it, and politicians should be enacting the will of the people. There is no excuse not to, since they asked us for a steer on what they should do, and the referendum result was that steer. The fact they didn't like it is their problem not ours.

I understand what you're saying, but the implications of leaving SHOULD have been properly explained before the referendum, so that people knew the true basis of what they were voting for, rather than some of them being swayed by the rhetoric of Boris Johnson and the constant drip drip drip of Europhobia spread by the likes of The Sun, The Telegraph, and especially The Daily Mail and Daily Express. You could probably split Leave voters into three broad groups:

1. Constant Eurosceptics who would always have voted Leave, come what may

2. Those swayed by the rhetoric outlined above 

3. (Probably) a small minority who thought seriously about the question and voted accordingly.

I don't know for certain, but statistics seem to suggest that 1. is the biggest group, 2. are the floating voters who probably swayed the result towards Leave, and 3. may not have made much of a difference.

Yes, there are now dangers enshrined in all forms of action from now on, including crashing out with No Deal, to a second referendum, or May's deal. Probably the least harm would be Remaining as our membership didn't actively harm the UK, and we got far more back from membership of the single market than it cost us, as I hope the attached graph shows (the cost, that is, not the benefit):

2140077142_piechartgovernmentspending.jpeg.c0ffde6a29a129061a6f9063deaf4abd.jpeg

(Bear in mind that most of that chart is expenditure wholly under UK Government control, not the EU's).

 

 

Share this post


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

The problem is that No Deal would be bad for everyone. We're very close even to being thrown out of WTO trading, so that would be a total disaster, though even WTO would be the second worst economic outcome. But if what you're saying is that merely threatening No Deal would improve our negotiating position and force EU hands, then I do understand where you're coming from. The danger is that the EU could see through the ploy and call the UK bluff. 

 

I understand what you're saying, but the implications of leaving SHOULD have been properly explained before the referendum, so that people knew the true basis of what they were voting for, rather than some of them being swayed by the rhetoric of Boris Johnson and the constant drip drip drip of Europhobia spread by the likes of The Sun, The Telegraph, and especially The Daily Mail and Daily Express. You could probably split Leave voters into three broad groups:

1. Constant Eurosceptics who would always have voted Leave, come what may

2. Those swayed by the rhetoric outlined above 

3. (Probably) a small minority who thought seriously about the question and voted accordingly.

I don't know for certain, but statistics seem to suggest that 1. is the biggest group, 2. are the floating voters who probably swayed the result towards Leave, and 3. may not have made much of a difference.

Yes, there are now dangers enshrined in all forms of action from now on, including crashing out with No Deal, to a second referendum, or May's deal. Probably the least harm would be Remaining as our membership didn't actively harm the UK, and we got far more back from membership of the single market than it cost us, as I hope the attached graph shows (the cost, that is, not the benefit):

2140077142_piechartgovernmentspending.jpeg.c0ffde6a29a129061a6f9063deaf4abd.jpeg

(Bear in mind that most of that chart is expenditure wholly under UK Government control, not the EU's).

 

 

The arguments for BOTH leaving should have been fully discussed not just one as you suggest.  The electorate is a lot smarter than people give them credit for. A typical leftie ploy to brand your opponents as stupid if they do not agree with its agenda . The rest of your post is mostly irrelevant clap trap. The only thing it shows of relevance is the UK contribution to the EU budget and given the size of the UK economy is still a substantial amount of money. No figures just the normal miss information  supplied by the left which is intended to mislead. Fake news perhaps. The best way to mislead is by waffle, belittling your political opponents and finally graphs and pie charts with no scales. The normal tactics of the left

Edited by ozjohn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Brexit debate, I think it is inappropriate to talk about the views of the "left" or views of the "right". The fact is that the country was deeply split in the referendum and one can hardly say that Remain was the view of the "Left" or Leave was the view of the "Right". Just because the Cameron government campaigned for "Remain" did not make them a "Leftie" government for example. 

The pie chart showing the contribution of Income Tax and NICs to various areas should be familiar to every UK tax payers. We get the diagram every year on our Annual Tax Summaries. It comes from HM Revenue & Customs and is not "supplied by the left which is intended to mislead". It tells me that about 0.7% of the income tax and NIC I pay each year go towards the UK contribution to the EU budget. If you want actual figures, they are easily obtainable: In 2017 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.0 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.9 billion. This is a large amount of money of course but Peckris was only suggesting that it is a small fraction of what we spend on other things. E.g. £264 billion on welfare in 2017. 

I already had my say about Brexit and so will be not be commenting further in this tread for a while. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sword,

I appreciate your comments and agree with them as I think everyone is entitled to their say. However when ever I have commented on this subject I receive a tirade of leftist comment from a certain quarter and as a result feel that I am entitled to respond. As I say IMO the left is of the opinion that their view is the only view anyone who does not agree with them is  stupid and were mislead also in the reply we are referring to it was filled with irrelevant  information on the subject also the author suggested that the no case should have been explained to the people .where in fact  both the no and yes cases should have been fairly presented for the electorate to make up its mind. The author is entitled to his view but don't belittle every one elses'. I also suggested that the electorate are a lot smarter than the author gives them credit for.. This was IMO the author using the tactics of the left to progress his point of view. The author has in many cases shown where his political views reside which seems to be some what left of the labor party

Edited by ozjohn

Share this post


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

In the Brexit debate, I think it is inappropriate to talk about the views of the "left" or views of the "right". The fact is that the country was deeply split in the referendum and one can hardly say that Remain was the view of the "Left" or Leave was the view of the "Right". Just because the Cameron government campaigned for "Remain" did not make them a "Leftie" government for example. 

I think you are describing the beginnings of a new divide in the UK - not on the traditional left  (Labour) versus right (Tory) lines, but along newer lines which Brexit may not be actually causing, but certainly highlighting. On one side you have the 'chattering classes', the internationalists, the younger, the liberals, the Greens, and many Scots - (quite a mix), while on the other you have traditionalists, nostalgics, working poor who feel ignored by Westminster, Tory 'Shires', the more elderly - (also quite a mix). It's very similar I feel, to the divide between Trump supporters and Trump haters in the US. I'm not sure the divide would be the same if was a different situation, i.e. non-Brexit, but the old divides are definitely beginning to be replaced with new ones.

  • 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

×