What Do You Expect a Brexit Will Bring ?
The government’s bill implementing the withdrawal deal has passed through both Houses of Parliament, meaning the UK will finally be leaving the EU on January 31st, 2020. For the duration of the debate, both sides have made bold predictions about the success of failure of the split. What are your thoughts? Will this be better for the UK? Will other nations follow? How will relationships change? Anything else?
Assuming the UK remains whole, without parts of it leaving to rejoin the EU, I expect it to be a good thing for the country. It may cost the UK some financially, or it may not, but there are other aspects as well.
The members of the UK are a people proud of their independence and their strength. The EU took that away and became their masters...masters that did NOT have the interests of the UK at heart. The negative psychology of being servants to the rest of Europe likely far outweighs any gains the the EU saw fit to give the UK.
Or so it looks to one from across the pond that doesn't truly understand the politics of Europe OR the UK.I live here in the UK naturally. I have followed and I have not followed, meaning I don't know a thing about it. Sad, perhaps, but I'm all about not worrying about the things I cannot change. I did vote and Labour lost, but I trust Heaven that things will work out. It always does in the end.
You didn't ask me all that though, my loving Friend Ralph. I don't know, really. if Donald Trump is in power in 2021, then he will perhaps work better with Boris, but so much can change in a second, let alone tomorrow. Peace, Bro.It's great to hear from you brother - I'm hearing that the UK and America already have some solid conversations about a trade agreement which will be mutually beneficial - let's hope it helps bring more peace to the world rather than more violence.
Just some food for thought:
Pre Brexit the UK Trade was 49% with the EU and 51% with the rest of the world; predominantly using Trade Agreements that the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world over the decades. The EU has Trade Agreements with 70 countries in total, including Canada, Japan and the Common Wealth e.g. Australia, New Newland and India etc. Britain, like the EU, also Trades with the USA on WTO Rules because (after 10 years of negotiations, the Trade Talks between the USA and EU finally collapsed late last year).
When the Transition Period ends (on the 31st December 2020) unless the UK has agreed a Trade Agreement with the EU then the UK and EU will be ‘Trading’ with each other on WTO Rules.
Also, because Britain (unlike Norway) will not be in Customs Union with the EU, Britain will lose access to all the existing Trade Agreements it has (as an EU Member) with those 70 counties that the EU has Trade Agreements with; and will then have to Trade with them on WTO Rules, unless it can secure its own Trade Agreements with those countries.
So far the UK has managed to secure Trade Agreements with countries that cover 11.1% of its current Trade; but they are predominantly third world counties who are as desperate for Trade Deals as the UK will be once the Transition Period ends.
The countries that are not budging in the Trade Talks are the bigger, stronger markets, like the Commonwealth and Canada etc., who already have good Trade Deals with the EU (a much larger market than the UK) e.g. EU = population of 512.4 million, and UK = population of just 66.44 million); and these counties, if they agree a Trade Deal with the UK want special concessions in return e.g. Britain could pay a high price to secure Trade Deals from these countries.
Typically Trade Deals can take up to five years or more to negotiate; and after Brexit (unlike the EU and the USA, who are tough negotiators) the UK will be in a weak negotiating position. Therefore, any Trade Deal the UK makes with the USA, if it’s done in haste (out of desperation) will not be mutually beneficial, it will be to America’s advantage, at the UK’s expense.The entire fiasco has been so depressing. In my opinion, the only people to gain from leaving the EU will be the mega rich with income from off-shore tax havens - they won’t have to comply with EU tax regulations. And yet, ordinary folk appointed a Tory government! Why, oh why, did parliament support a General Election? A bunch of incompetents on one side of the House and self-serving liars on the other. Now we are stuck with a right-wing dictatorship for at least five years. We may rejoin the EU one day - but it’s unlikely to be in my lifetime.
In the interests of minimising my impact on the environment, I try to avoid buying goods that have to cross an ocean to arrive in the UK.
Most defiantly yes, I’m with you there: Minimising OUR Carbon Footprint.
When we’re on holiday in Britain it always pleases us to find a local craft shop, farm shop, or café etc. who supports and promotes local suppliers; which benefits both the local community (for jobs), and the Environment (Lower Carbon Footprint).
One place that really sticks in my mind was our visit to Aysgarth Falls when on holiday in the Yorkshire Dales. The falls are situated in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and are designated an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), so a great tourist attraction.
To visit the water falls you have to park in the National Park’s carpark (which is free), and adjoining the Visitor’s Centre is the Coppice Café which serves a great selection of drinks and meals, all largely made with locally-sourced ingredients; even to the extent that the cakes and jams etc. are home-made by local residents in their own homes, in the local village (Cottage Industry).
The video below starts off with me filming a squirrel while we were sitting outside Coppice Café enjoying some of the locally produced produce; before we strolled down to the falls to admire their beauty.
Aysgarth Falls, Wensleydale, North Yorkshire, England: https://youtu.be/w5_H5Og2ytc
Pouring salt in old wounds. It’s inevitable, so most of us who voted remain just want to forget the who,e sorry mess - until the next a General Election comes around in 5 years time. By which time I hope many people will have reached a conclusion that they made a terrible mistake.
Will other nations follow?
No. Simply because if you have the euro as a currency you can not go back. Greece wanted it, but it was technically almost impossible to do so. Besides, it would be financial suicide.
Since the referendum, the pound dropped to the Euro and it has not recovered since.
British Steel went bankrupt even before the real damage of the Brexit started, endangering 5000 jobs. Many businesses will follow.
Simply put when the UK leaves the EU it will be a small country on the world market. It will have to make new financial deals with the EU. Those deals will be worse then they have now. Simply because when a small country does business with a big country (the EU or the US) the small country has no leverage in the deals. but the EU has.
The UK will not be more independent. It will be more dependent.
Within the EU the UK would have a say in its economic block (a big say) Now the UK won't have the privileges any more and with the new contracts, it will have to obey the rules of more powerful nations like the US, China, and the EU.
When the UK was within the EU it was protected and it could make a stand.
The EU won't give any more money to science programs. The Erasmus project is closed for students from the EU. UK nationals need work permits to work in the EU. Europol won't share data automatically with the UK. Internet privicy rules will change.
Personal note: The Brexit will affect us heavenly as my wife is English, living in Spain and working in the Netherlands. As an EU citizen, she could easily do so. As a non-EU citizen, she has to ask for a work permit. And as she works as a freelance violinist the orchestra's she's playing for probably won't want to go threw the hassle of asking permits and visa but asking more "local" players. So she will probably lose her job.
Many brits in Europe are in the same situation. The value of their work will be questioned and compared with Europeans with the same classifications. That's why my wife is applying for a Dutch passport at the moment.
I don't see any advantages of leaving the EU. Except for if you have a lot of money offshore. As the EU is much stricter when it comes to financial transparency. To me, it's not a coincidence that the referendum took place after the EU approved a law that would make offshore money banking and money laundering more difficult.
In other words, Brexit is a pure form of disaster capitalism. (read Naomi Kein for what I mean by this term, it was an eye-opener for me.) It benefits the rich as only they become richer during a crisis.
The referendum was after all never a binding one only advisory, it's used as an excuse to reform the UK into a country with a use schism between rich and poor.
Goodbye NHS (National Healthcare System), it will be sold to the US pharma during the negotiations. The US was always a huge supporter of the Brexit. Of course, as it makes the UK weak, and ready for profitable (for the US and China) negotiations.Yep, I agree with every word you say.
Also, in one of the other replies you made in this forum you stated “I feel first of all a human then European and then Dutch.”
Although both my maternal and paternal ancestors settled in England (from Normandy) after the 1066 invasion, I’ve always considered myself European 1st, Bristolian 2nd, and British 3rd. And in the light of your comment I could add ‘English 4th’.
I was a remainer, because, although I admit that the EU had its faults, I thought we were better with the devil we knew than heading into uncharted waters. But I favour democracy, so admit that we have to abide by the referendum result. Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain, we will be leaving on 31st January. It is now up to Boris and co. to prove that what they said was true and ensure that the UK is better off out than in.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. The UK was a global powerhouse of a nation, long before the EU was even thought of. I expect to see them quickly and efficiently start gaining traction in the world markets once again and return to greatness
This is precisely what my fellow Englishmen who cling to the idea that we are still an Empire believe. It’s a myth. We are a small island.
Brexit has been hugely divisive. Most Scots would rather be a member of the EU than of the U.K.; and leaving has brought huge potential problems for trade between northern and Southern Ireland.
Yes, I believe in democracy, but there is ‘Democracy’ and there’s ‘Democracy’. No system is perfect, but the British System is certainly flawed; which in many ways does undermine ‘democracy’.
#1 In the 2019 General Election, the Conservatives won 56.2% of the seats on just 43.6% of the vote.
#2 Apart from the DUP (the Democratic Unionist Party) who won 1.2% of the seats on just 0.8% of the votes (and a small handful of other MPs) the Conservatives is the ONLY Party who supports Brexit.
Therefore in the recent General Election over 56% of voters voted for political parties who do NOT support Brexit; without there being at least a 2nd Referendum to let the people have the final say.
#1 Brexit is a Constitutional Change. In many countries across the world Constitutional Changes cannot be made on the basis of a simple majority in a Referendum; often a two-thirds majority is required.
#2 Under current British Law Referendums are NOT binding, they are ONLY Advisory e.g. Parliament decides, because Referendums in Britain are based on simple majorities and not a two-thirds majority.
#3 The Result of the Brexit Referendum back in 2016 (four years ago) was only marginal, it was not decisive. If the result had been decisive then fine, the people would have spoken, but by being marginal the nation is split and therefore a good case for the people to have had a final say once the full facts of what Brexit were known.
#4 People do change their minds, which is one reason why we have General Elections once every four or five years; and with Brexit being far more important than choosing a Government, to deny the people the chance to re-think e.g. a 2nd Referendum after four years is un-democratic.
#5 Notwithstanding the above; the Referendum was won (by a small margin) on the back of lies and deceit e.g. the most blatant lie of all (by Boris) which persuaded many to vote for Brexit being the false claim that EU Membership costs Britain £350 million a week, and that money would instead be used to fund the NHS (both statements are false). For clarity, In the Brexit Referendum Campaign, Boris claimed we pay the EU 18.2 billion membership fee per year; the actual figure is 8.9 billion. In the Brexit Referendum Campaign, Boris claimed that the 18.2 billion per year would be spent on the NHS; the actual figure (according the Conservatives own Election Manifesto) is only 2.7 billion per year.
As regards to whether Britain will be better off or worse off: Britain will be worse off. The worst is yet to come. Although we leave the EU on the 31st January 2020, the UK then enters the Transitional Period until the 31st December 2020 e.g. we retain the same relationship with the EU that we currently have until the end of the year to give time for a Trade Deal to be agreed.
If no Trade Deal is agreed between the EU and the UK by the 31st December 2020, then on the 1st January 2021 we leave the EU with a ‘No Trade Deal’ e.g. Hefty Tariffs forcing sharp price rises, and shortages, in food, medicine and goods.
The EU is our closest Trading Partner and therefore quite naturally our major Trading Partner. Therefore even with a Trade Deal being agreed by the end of the year, which is increasingly looking unlikely, the cost of Trade will rise, and prices in the shops will rise.
Even by the Government’s own Confidential Reports, which it tried to hide, but of which some the Government was forced to publish through legal action in the Courts, and some of which were leaked to the Press; Britain will be significantly worse off after Brexit.
Even if Boris does manage to secure a Trade Deal by the end of the year; which isn’t very likely because the far-right wing element of the Conservative Party (the ERG) who put Boris in Power are Nationalist who want to leave the EU without a ‘Trade DEAL’ specifically so that Britain can Trade with the world on WTO Terms.
The worst of Trading on WTO terms (as the ERG within the Conservative Party want), notwithstanding the increased prices in the shops, is that to do so will require Britain having to lower many of its hard fought for ‘Standards’ e.g. Food Standards.
Given that there is strength in numbers, as part of the EU, Britain was a Major Player on the World Stage. With Brexit, Britain becomes a small island on the outskirts of Europe; and its role in the world will go into decline. Evidence of that has already manifested itself with many car manufacturers having either already relocated to mainland Europe, or are in the process of doing so, since the Brexit Referendum; as have a significant number of Banks and Financial Institutions, with some re-locating to the Republic of Ireland.
Notwithstanding the Economics and Westminster Politics, the other issue of major concern is the stability of Peace in Northern Ireland, given that the Boris Withdraw Agreement contravenes the Northern Ireland Peace Treaty (Good Friday Agreement) of 1998; so much so that even the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) don’t support Boris’s Withdraw Agreement e.g. it risks sparking the ‘Troubles’ (civil war) in Northern Ireland again.In the 2019 General Election, the Conservatives won 56.2% of the seats on just 43.6% of the vote.
Had Labour won on a similar percentage, would you be complaining about it? That’s how the process works.
Apart from the DUP (the Democratic Unionist Party) who won 1.2% of the seats on just 0.8% of the votes (and a small handful of other MPs) the Conservatives is the ONLY Party who supports Brexit.
No it isn’t. Labour, during the 2017 election, promised to support the result. Jeremy Corbyn exhorted the government to implement Article 50 right after the referendum. The Brexit Party also did what it said it would do.
Therefore in the recent General Election over 56% of voters voted for political parties who do NOT support Brexit; without there being at least a 2nd Referendum to let the people have the final say.
This is Femi Sorry-style convoluted thinking.
Brexit is a Constitutional Change. In many countries across the world Constitutional Changes cannot be made on the basis of a simple majority in a Referendum; often a two-thirds majority is required.
It wasn’t. It has taken almost four years and a ton of legislation. How other countries operate is irrelevant.
Under current British Law Referendums are NOT binding, they are ONLY Advisory e.g. Parliament decides, because Referendums in Britain are based on simple majorities and not a two-thirds majority.
No, but Article 50 is binding. It’s taken from the Lisbon Treaty. Do remember that we were taken into the EU with NO referendum at all.
The Result of the Brexit Referendum back in 2016 (four years ago) was only marginal, it was not decisive. If the result had been decisive then fine, the people would have spoken, but by being marginal the nation is split and therefore a good case for the people to have had a final say once the full facts of what Brexit were known.
Leave won. That’s how it works. You don’t rerun sporting competitions because one side one by just one point and you didn't like the result.
People do change their minds, which is one reason why we have General Elections once every four or five years; and with Brexit being far more important than choosing a Government, to deny the people the chance to re-think e.g. a 2nd Referendum after four years is un-democratic.
People do change their minds but the election results speak for themselves.
Notwithstanding the above; the Referendum was won (by a small margin) on the back of lies and deceit e.g. the most blatant lie of all (by Boris) which persuaded many to vote for Brexit being the false claim that EU Membership costs Britain £350 million a week, and that money would instead be used to fund the NHS (both statements are false). For clarity, In the Brexit Referendum Campaign, Boris claimed we pay the EU 18.2 billion membership fee per year; the actual figure is 8.9 billion. In the Brexit Referendum Campaign, Boris claimed that the 18.2 billion per year would be spent on the NHS; the actual figure (according the Conservatives own Election Manifesto) is only 2.7 billion per year.
No, it turns out that the gross figure is much higher than £350m pw - around £384m. If you read the statement, it says, “We send £350m to the EU every week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.” That in my book is called a suggestion. ‘Let us...’, not ‘We will’. Future NHS funding, first put into place by Theresa May is set to be increased from £114bn to £145.5bn per year over the next five years.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk … y/CBP-8798
Edit: Haven't got time to refute many of your other points, but you do know that, for instance, motor manufacturing is down substantially in other EU countries, and worldwide for that matter? Blaming it on Brexit is just a remainer untruth. Ford, just down the road from me in Bridgend, announced back in 2004 that the plant would eventually close.YOUR COMMENT:-
“Had Labour won on a similar percentage, would you be complaining about it? That’s how the process works.”
The ‘Honest’ Answer is YES & NO.
I am a Socialist (and in my younger days I was a Trade Union Activist), and my politics align very closely to those of Corbyn (Extreme Left); so obviously I prefer to see Labour win than Conservatives.
However, it doesn’t alter the fact that the current electoral system for the General Election and Local Elections is imperfect (flawed) and undemocratic. Therefore, I am fully in favour of Proportional Representation, like we have for the Mayoral Elections, as it is far more democratic.
And that’s why in the Referendum for Proportion Representation in 2011 I voted YES. And I was deeply disappointed when the people voted overwhelmingly No to Proportional Representation; but that was a democratic vote with a clear majority. However, I do hope that one day the people will get a 2nd chance to vote on Proportional Representation again, and that next time people do vote in favour of it.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“No it isn’t. Labour, during the 2017 election, promised to support the result. Jeremy Corbyn exhorted the government to implement Article 50 right after the referendum. The Brexit Party also did what it said it would do.”
The Brexit Party NEVER won any MPs.
Jeremy Corbyn was predominantly in favour of Brexit in principle only if certain conditions were met; none of those conditions have been met by the Boris Withdrawal Deal.
In the 2019 General Election the Labour Party was fully committed to putting any Deal Agreed back to the people, to let the people decide; nothing can be more democratic than that.
YOUR COMMENT:-
Reference my statement that Brexit is a Constitutional Change….; you stated:-
“It wasn’t. It has taken almost four years and a ton of legislation. How other countries operate is irrelevant.”
FYI Brexit is a Major Constitutional Change, just as the Scottish Devolution Referendum in 1997 was a major Constitutional Change for Scotland.
Yes the reason it took four years is because the Nation is ‘Divided’. And those four years was not spent passing tons of legislation, those four years were wasted in arguments because we are a divided Nation; which was reflected in Parliament.
True, just because other countries do things a particular way doesn’t mean that we have to do it that way; but it doesn’t alter the fact that what other countries do is ‘arguably’ a better system, and therefore in that respect is relevant.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“No, but Article 50 is binding. It’s taken from the Lisbon Treaty. Do remember that we were taken into the EU with NO referendum at all.”
Actually, Article 50 is NOT binding; our Government has the ‘Legal’ right (as confirmed by the European Court last year) to unilaterally revoke Article 50 at any time it wishes to do so prior to the UK leaving the EU. However, Revoking Article 50 would not have been democratic, and I (like many others) would have preferred a 2nd Referendum to Revoking Article 50.
Yes, I agree with you, taking the UK into the EU back in 1973 without a Referendum was undemocratic. Every other country that joined at that time did so following Referendums. However, that was rectified in 1975 when we did have a Referendum on our Membership, and in that Referendum 67.23% of the People voted to Remain in the EU.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“Leave won. That’s how it works. You don’t rerun sporting competitions because one side one by just one point and you didn't like the result.”
On lesser issues I would agree with you. But when the stakes are so high, and it’s going to have such a major impact on everyone, and when once done it can’t be reversed; it’s something we can’t be flippant about.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“People do change their minds but the election results speak for themselves.”
NO, the election results do not speak for themselves. The Conservatives won 56.2% of the seats on just 43.6% of the vote. If the votes (rather than seats won) was to be translated into a binary Yes/no in a Referendum it would suggest that about 56.4% of the people would have voted to Remain in the EU, and 43.6% voted to leave.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“No, it turns out that the gross figure is much higher than £350m pw - around £384m. If you read the statement, it says, “We send £350m to the EU every week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.” That in my book is called a suggestion. ‘Let us...’, not ‘We will’. Future NHS funding, first put into place by Theresa May is set to be increased from £114bn to £145.5bn per year over the next five years.”
Regardless to whether its £350m (£18.2 billion per year) as Boris said, or £384m as you state; it is propaganda because it totally ignores the Generous Discount that Margaret Thatcher won from the EU in perpetuity in the 1980s. The actual Gross Amount we paid to the EU, with the Discount was nearer to $12 billion per year. But when you also factor in the monies the EU spend in the UK each year the total NET amount is around 8.9 billion.
Thanks for the NHS link; which if you read carefully, the total increase in NHS spending per year for the next four years ‘in Real Terms’ is 20.5 billion. So Boris seems to be keeping one of his promises; but that does little more than make up for the chronic cuts the Conservatives have made to the NHS ‘In Real Terms’ since 2010.
Using Official Data from the NHS and the Bank of England:-
In 2010 the Government spent 116.9 billion on the NHS
In 2019 the Government spent 132.9 billion on the NHS
Over that 9 year period, inflation increased by 26.1%
Therefore, if Government spending had kept up with inflation the Government budget for the NHS in 2019 would have been 147.4 billion a year, not the 132.9 billion it spent; a net decrease in spending ‘In Real Terms’ of 14.5 billion per year.
The fact that Government spending on the NHS will not reach £148.5 billion until 2024, just 1.1 billion more than it should have been last year if Government spending had kept up with inflation; and the fact that we have another four years of inflation to take into account between now and 2024, it makes it crystal clear that the Conservatives are not actually increasing spending ‘In Real Terms’ over the next four years from what it was when they came to power in 2010.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“Edit: Haven't got time to refute many of your other points, but you do know that, for instance, motor manufacturing is down substantially in other EU countries, and worldwide for that matter? Blaming it on Brexit is just a remainer untruth. Ford, just down the road from me in Bridgend, announced back in 2004 that the plant would eventually close.”
Yes, car manufacturing is down worldwide; and yes, some car manufacturing companies had already made plans to cut production before the Brexit Referendum; but NOT ALL.
The Independent Newspaper gives a comprehensive list of ‘state of play’; listing both Companies giving Brexit as the reason, and those Companies who say it’s for other reasons. So the Newspaper is not trying to make out that’s it is all one way or the other; but the fact remains that Brexit is a significant factor.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi … 92296.htmlI am starting to feel like I should pay you guys for this education. Thanks nathanville.
GA
Roll on proportional representation and compulsory voting! Our electoral system is not fit for purpose. But how to achieve a more representative system when it is not in the interests of whichever of the two main Parties happens to hold power?
Yes; what we need is another 'hung parliament' where the Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power. It's only a matter of time.
Once people realise what Brexit means, I'm sure the Liberal Democrats campaign over the coming years (decades) to re-join the EU will attract increasing support (building up their powerbase); so I'm quietly confident that the 'tide will turn'.
Well damn theraggededge, as a non-Brit, totally ignorant of the facts or national perspectives of this Brexit issue, you folks are sounding a lot like the U.S.—divided.
Stay with it. I look forward to learning something about Brexit from you guys. I don't trust our media presentations, either for or against, so I will learn from your exchanges.
But I do have a bias towards national sovereignty and independence, so I probably lean to the 'exit' side of Brexit.
GAAnd yet, you live in a Union. Many Brits felt that we were moving towards a federated Europe and disliked the idea. But the U.K. could have stayed in the EU and resisted federation.
Personally I would love for the EU to be a Federated Europe. An attempt was made in the late 1980's to establish a Constitution for the EU. But Margaret thatcher used her veto because MPs in the Tory (Conservative) Party felt it would have transformed the EU into a Federation. One of the other Northern Member States also vetoed the idea (after they held their Referendum). All the other Member States (after their Referendums) had the support from the people for an EU Constitution (Federated Europe).
But as you say, too many Brits dislike the idea of a Federated Europe, and in respecting that, I agree with you that we could have stayed in the EU and resisted Federation; in the same way that since 2010 the UK has blocked the EU from forming an EU Army.
As an EU Member we would have been in the position to steer the EU Reforms in a direction more in line with the desires of the British Public; but from the outside (once we've left), the EU is free to find its own path.
So when we do eventually re-join, its going to be the same mistake Britain made back in 1956 (History Repeating Itself) e.g. we are going to have to accept the EU for what it is, not what we could have made it.
Back in 1956 Britain made the mistake of joining the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) instead of the EEC (European Economic Committee); two of several experiments set up in the aftermath of the 2nd world war, in attempt to tie Europe together Economically to reduce the risk of war again (Peace in Our Time).
The principle of the EFTA was for an Economic Union based on 'Agreements'.
The principle of the EEC was for an Economic Union based on Legislation; on the bases that Legislation is more binding than Agreements, and therefore might be more successful in the long term.
When Britain realised its mistake and tried to switch to the EEC in 1961 our Application was blocked by France until 1969; by which time it was too late e.g. the building blocks for the EEC and its future path (vision) had already been laid.
Had we jointed the EEC back in 1957 as Founder Member, we would have been fundamental in shaping the EEC (and its future visions) from the beginning; and in all probability Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have had the big bust-ups that she had with them in the 1980s.Other experiments of ‘Peace in Our Time’ in the aftermath of war-torn Europe included the creation of the Eurovision Song Contest in 1956; on the principle of ‘Make Love Not War’.
It was from their entry to the Eurovision Song Contest that ABBA was flung to world fame. The show has an audience of up to 600 million internationally, and it’s something we look forward to watching each May.
Jeux sans frontiers (Games Without Frontiers), more commonly known by Brits as ‘It's a Knockout’, is of a similar ilk, and ran from 1965 to 1999. At its height of popularity, the show was watched by 110 million viewers across Europe.Makes sense to me. Sadly, we can't undo the mistakes of the past
I'm wavering on the concept of a federated Europe. On the one hand it seems prudent in light of the huge political blocks elsewhere on the planet. On the other hand, like many, I cling to sovereignty. But it's irrelevant what I think. The next generation must be left to find a way forward in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world.Yep, sadly, we can’t turn the clock back; we can only move forward.
And yep, it will most likely be a generation before we re-join. Even in a worst case scenario of Brexit going belly-up, the economy collapsing and the Government with it within two years of us leaving; there is a high probability that at least one of the 27 Member States would veto our Application to re-join (as France did when we first tried to join).
Even if there was no veto, we wouldn’t be able to re-join on the same terms we enjoy now.
We wouldn’t get the generous Membership Discount that Margaret Thatcher fought so hard to win.
We would be expected to join the Euro (which I would love, because I love the euro, but a lot of Brits wouldn’t be so happy).
And we would have to give up our ‘pint’ and our ‘chocolate’, and all the other minor concessions; all hard won concessions by Margaret Thatcher. Not that I would miss them myself, especially the chocolate, as I think the European Chocolate is far superior anyway.
As regards sovereignty, national Governments get a lot of sovereignty anyway:-
1. The veto on all Constitutional matters and Foreign Affairs, and
2. All Legislation passed by the EU requires a majority decision (50%), and on important matters a ‘qualified majority’ (55%), by the Member States (National Governments) i.e. The European Council (Heads of States). The Proposed Legislation then has to also be passed by the European Parliament before it becomes law; the European Parliament being democratically elected by the citizens of Europe.
So it’s not so much the case that Britain losses Sovereignty, it’s more of a case that the British Government losses some sovereignty e.g. to the European Parliament. And to me, that’s not a bad thing because left to their own devices I don’t have a great deal of trust in our own Governments e.g. it leaves the ‘likes of Boris’ to act like the Dictator he is, and potentially undermine the good works done by previous British Governments, such as all the Social Reforms the Labour Government introduced following their landslide victory in 1945.
As a Member State of the EU National Governments can still make Laws, but at the same time it acts as a ‘check & balance’ preventing extremist Governments from acting too much like a Dictatorship e.g. as a Member of the EU a Government can’t abolish (or lower) the minimum working standards, or the minimum Health & Safety Standards on Food and Goods etc.
On the flip side, as the EU becomes more of a voice on the world stage; any nation that is a Member of the EU has a voice through the EU (The European Council made of the Heads of States); and hence sovereignty. Whereas a small country like Britain, on the outskirts of the EU, doesn’t have that voice through the EU; and thus less sovereignty on the world stage.
“Had Labour won on a similar percentage, would you be complaining about it? That’s how the process works.”
The ‘Honest’ Answer is YES & NO.
Well, that’s refreshing and can be taken as a No. You would not be complaining if Labour had won, that’s clear. Why would you?
And that’s why in the Referendum for Proportion Representation in 2011 I voted YES. And I was deeply disappointed when the people voted overwhelmingly No to Proportional Representation; but that was a democratic vote with a clear majority. However, I do hope that one day the people will get a 2nd chance to vote on Proportional Representation again, and that next time people do vote in favour of it.
That referendum was not for proportional representation, it was for Alternative Voting and almost 70% of voters who could be bothered to turn out, voted against it.
The Brexit Party NEVER won any MPs.
I never said they did. But they probably would have if they hadn't stood down to allow the Conservatives a free run in over 300 seats. They had plenty of MEPs though
Jeremy Corbyn was predominantly in favour of Brexit in principle only if certain conditions were met; none of those conditions have been met by the Boris Withdrawal Deal.
Labour campaigned as a Brexit-supporting party. Right from the start. Then they betrayed their core voters who voted Leave.
In the 2019 General Election the Labour Party was fully committed to putting any Deal Agreed back to the people, to let the people decide; nothing can be more democratic than that.
They said they would negotiate a new deal and then they'd campaign against it. AFTER saying they would support the result of the 2016 referendum. Utter lunacy. People laughed in their faces. Your leader is a disgrace. Every one knows that Corbyn hates the EU and denounced them at every opportunity throughout his career. Your own party members did not have a clue what his personal view was. That’s why they lost.
Yes the reason it took four years is because the Nation is ‘Divided’. And those four years was not spent passing tons of legislation, those four years were wasted in arguments because we are a divided Nation; which was reflected in Parliament.
The reason it took four years is because Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour to pass A50, which included the No Deal option… and then proceeded to vote against it at every opportunity. It had nothing to do with ‘the nation’. People like Jess Phillips whose constituency voted almost 70% for Brexit spent all their time fighting the result. Crazy.
Actually, Article 50 is NOT binding; our Government has the ‘Legal’ right (as confirmed by the European Court last year) to unilaterally revoke Article 50 at any time it wishes to do so prior to the UK leaving the EU. However, Revoking Article 50 would not have been democratic, and I (like many others) would have preferred a 2nd Referendum to Revoking Article 50.
Yes it could have been revoked by further legislation. That’s how all laws work. Meanwhile, it was binding in the sense that Parliament had voted to enact it so my point stands.
Yes, I agree with you, taking the UK into the EU back in 1973 without a Referendum was undemocratic. Every other country that joined at that time did so following Referendums. However, that was rectified in 1975 when we did have a Referendum on our Membership, and in that Referendum 67.23% of the People voted to Remain in the EU.
There was never a referendum to join the EU. The 1975 one that you reference was to remain a member of the trading bloc known as the Common Market, the EEC. The EU was foisted upon us and we did not have a say. While politicians knew exactly where the EEC was headed, the people were duped. Simple as that.
On lesser issues I would agree with you. But when the stakes are so high, and it’s going to have such a major impact on everyone, and when once done it can’t be reversed; it’s something we can’t be flippant about.
Exactly. Which is why we should have had a proper referendum before the signing of Maastrict and Lisbon (even though duplicitous Labour promised one and subsequently reneged). Now we have had one, you can’t change the result, however much you’d like to.
NO, the election results do not speak for themselves. The Conservatives won 56.2% of the seats on just 43.6% of the vote. If the votes (rather than seats won) was to be translated into a binary Yes/no in a Referendum it would suggest that about 56.4% of the people would have voted to Remain in the EU, and 43.6% voted to leave.
You can quote mythical percentages of Yes/No all you like, but the Conservatives won an 80 seat majority, showing clearly that the population want Brexit done.YOUR COMMENT:-
“That referendum was not for proportional representation, it was for Alternative Voting and almost 70% of voters who could be bothered to turn out, voted against it.”
FYI ‘Alternative Voting’ is Proportional Representation (PR) aka ‘Single Transferable Vote’, and it’s my preferred version of PR, although any form of PR is more democratic than the ‘First Past the Post’ system. In 2011 67.9% of voters voted against PR (over two-thirds), so it was a clear decision.
YOUR COMMENT:-
In response to my statement “The Brexit Party NEVER won any MPs.”
“I never said they did. But they probably would have if they hadn't stood down to allow the Conservatives a free run in over 300 seats. They had plenty of MEPs though.”
No, if the Brexit Party had stood against the Conservatives in those 300 seats they would have split the Conservative vote and risked Labour and the Liberal Democrats winning seats from the Conservative. The Brexit Party concentrated their efforts only in those areas where they could split the Labour vote and allow Conservatives to win seats; most predominantly Northern England where the support for Brexit is strongest.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“Labour campaigned as a Brexit-supporting party. Right from the start. Then they betrayed their core voters who voted Leave.”
No, Not exactly. Labour was split on the issue because the vast majority (64%) of Labour supporters voted remain in the Referendum, but Corbyn (who himself is a Euro-sceptic) was too concerned about losing valuable votes in the 26 ‘leave-voting’ Constituencies in Northern England. Therefore, Labour did NOT campaign to leave the EU at any cost; Labour campaigned to honour the Referendum to leave to EU on the condition that 5 conditions were met.
Those 5 Conditions were:-
1. Membership of a Customs Union with the EU.
2. Close Regulatory Alignment with the EU’s Single Market.
3. Dynamic alignment on citizens and workers ‘rights’ and ‘protection’ so that the UK’s Standards maintained EU standards as a minimum.
4. Close Partnership with the EU on Environmental, Educational and Industrial Regulations.
5. Close ties with the EU on Security.
The one thing Labour did NOT support at any time (under any circumstances) was a ‘NO Deal’ Brexit.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“They [Labour] said they would negotiate a new deal and then they'd campaign against it. AFTER saying they would support the result of the 2016 referendum. Utter lunacy. People laughed in their faces. Your leader is a disgrace. Everyone knows that Corbyn hates the EU and denounced them at every opportunity throughout his career. Your own party members did not have a clue what his personal view was. That’s why they lost.”
I could make as many (and more) personal attacks on Boris, but I will not stoop to such low levels at this point.
Yes Labour said they would negotiate a New Withdrawal Deal (which would have included a Customs Union) because Boris’s Deal (which is nothing more than a few minor tweaks to Theresa May’s Deal) is the worst Deal possible for the future of the UK.
Labour did not say they would campaign against any such new Withdrawal Deal in a 2nd Referendum; it was one of the two options dependent on how accommodating the EU would have been in agreeing the 5 conditions laid out by Labour, and on the internal democratic decision within the Labour Party as to whether to support such a Deal or Not.
If the EU had agreed to the five conditions laid out by Corbyn (which they almost certainly would have done because those conditions are more in line with what the EU would prefer) then Corbyn would almost certainly have been pushing his party to recommend campaigning for acceptance of the Deal in the 2nd Referendum which the Labour Party was fully committed to in the 2019 General Election.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“The reason it took four years is because Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour to pass A50, which included the No Deal option… and then proceeded to vote against it at every opportunity. It had nothing to do with ‘the nation’. People like Jess Phillips whose constituency voted almost 70% for Brexit spent all their time fighting the result. Crazy.”
Voting in favour of Article 50 is NOT the same as voting in favour of a No Deal Brexit. Article 50 is just a two-year notice of intent to leave the EU; nothing more, nothing less.
The exact terms under which we leave the EU (including a No Deal option) was subsequently subject to debate and agreement in Parliament; and quite rightly so. And if No Deal, or any Deal that Theresa May negotiated with the EU is not acceptable to Parliament then Parliament quite rightly has the democratic right to reject it.
The problem with Theresa May’s Deal is that it didn’t include a ‘Customs Union’, so it didn’t get support from Labour MPs, and it didn’t include a 2nd Referendum so that the people could have a final say and therefore didn’t get support from the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, in a hung parliament Theresa May’s Deal was rejected.
Yes it did have a lot to do with the Nation. The Nation is as split as Parliament was; almost half the population voted to Remain; the overwhelming majority of voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar voted to Remain. 96% of the voters in Gibraltar voted to Remain. The overwhelming majority of voters voted to remain in many Labour strongholds, including Bristol and London.
It’s not all just one sided as you’re suggesting. FYI, 30% of Conservative Constituencies voted to Remain in the Referendum, yet apart from the Conservative Rebels, many of those Conservative MPs supported Brexit in Parliament (Partisan Politics).
YOUR COMMENT:-
“Yes it could have been revoked by further legislation. That’s how all laws work. Meanwhile, it was binding in the sense that Parliament had voted to enact it so my point stands.”
Actually, that is not incorrect. Under International Law, Legislation is not required to Revoke Article 50. As confirmed by the European Court last year, the UK could have unilaterally Revoked Article 50 at any time simply by the Prime Minster sending a letter to the EU in accordance with the British Constitution.
As things stand at this moment in time; under the British Constitution there are three routes that could be taken for that letter to be written:-
1. The Prime Minister could choose to use his/her ‘Royal Prerogative’ e.g. revoking Article 50 without giving MPs the chance to vote on it.
2. The Prime Minster could choose to ask for Parliamentary Approval, this would not require Legislation; it would only require Parliament voting in favour of the Prime Minister sending the letter.
3. Parliament could take control of Business, as they did against Boris in August of last year to pass the Ben Bill, and under this circumstance all that would be required is for the majority of MPs to instruct the Prime Minster to Revoke Article 50.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“There was never a referendum to join the EU. The 1975 one that you reference was to remain a member of the trading bloc known as the Common Market, the EEC. The EU was foisted upon us and we did not have a say. While politicians knew exactly where the EEC was headed, the people were duped. Simple as that.”
Granted, it would have been better to have had the Referendum before we joined rather than two years later; but the fact remains, a referendum was held, and the people had a choice, and the vast majority (67.23%) voted to Remain.
Whether the EU was foisted upon us or not is a matter of ‘Personal Opinion’. I happen to agree with the EU, and what it stands for; you don’t. That is your prerogative, which I respect (especially as you take the trouble to think about things, which unfortunately a lot of people don’t), and I would hope that even though we have opposing views (and we are never going to agree on our politics) that you would have at least some respect for my views.
YOUR COMMENT:-
Exactly. Which is why we should have had a proper referendum before the signing of Maastricht and Lisbon (even though duplicitous Labour promised one and subsequently reneged). Now we have had one, you can’t change the result, however much you’d like to.
I don’t disagree with you; every other EU Member State had Referendums before the Maastricht Treaty was signed; Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Minister) chose not to.
The 2016 Referendum wasn’t about the Maastricht Treaty it was simply a Yes or No on whether we should leave the EU or not, and a SLIM majority voted to leave; leaving the Nation Divided.
No one is talking about changing the results of a slim majority in a Referendum held four years ago; all that was being asked for was to give the people the final say on whatever ‘Deal’ or ‘No Deal’ had been agreed after four years, with an option for people to change their minds; which would have been the most democratic solution.
No we can’t change how things have turned out after four years. But with a divided nation the fight go on, which will no doubt be spearheaded by the Liberal Democrats who will be well placed to build their strength over other coming years and decades; especially when people start to feel the true impact of Brexit after the 1st January next year when the Transitional Period ends.
YOUR COMMENT:-
“You can quote mythical percentages of Yes/No all you like, but the Conservatives won an 80 seat majority, showing clearly that the population want Brexit done.”
Yes I can, because the Conservatives won an 80 seat majority with just 43.6% of the voters; 56.4% of voters did NOT vote Conservative, and therefore it does NOT clearly show that the population want Brexit. It just shows that we are a divided Nation.
YOUR LINKS:-
Reference to your links about car manufacturing in decline worldwide as evidence that Brexit is not a Factor in the UK ignores the realities that Brexit is a major factor; you also ignore the fact that many Banks and Financial Institutions have (or are in the process of) moving their operations out of Britain and relocating them in the EU.
This link below gives some good insight into how damaging Brexit is for the car manufacturing Industry in the UK:-
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/ … ws/brexit/
No time, but...
The EEC was not the EU. Nothing like it. So that 1975 referendum was not a true indication of the public's view. My parents and grandparents did not have the information that is available today. It was called the 'Common Market' for a reason.
And as for banks and financial institutions...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-brita … KKBN1ZJ00D
Feel free to post all the personal attacks on Johnson you like. You won't upset me, I didn't vote Conservative. But Corbyn... he really is a piece of work, as our American friends like to say
Yep, I know. I first took a keen interest in the EEC when the European Parliament was created in 1979. From that time I learnt about the EEC (EU’s) history, functions and visions; and ever since have closely followed its progress as it’s evolved.
And the nerd that I am I’ve even been closely following the USA/EU Trade Negations on the EU’s Commission and Parliamentary websites; the Trade Talks now in its tenth year.
I happen to agree with what the EU is, what it stands for, and what its vision is; but that’s my own personal view.
Thanks for your last comment about being free to insult Boris, if I so wish; I’ll bare it in mind. But throwing personal insults during debates tend to be counterproductive; so I hope to refrain from lowering myself to such levels (at least most of the time!).
As you didn’t vote Conservative, and obviously not Labour, and you certainly didn’t vote Liberal Democrats because of your staunch anti EU views; then I assume you voted for the Brexit Party?
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS:-
Thanks for the link on the Financial Institutions; it helps to fill in a few gaps.
FYI (If you didn’t already know):-
London is one of the Financial Centres of the World. $6.6 trillion is traded daily on the foreign exchange markets; $3.5 trillion of that through London.
As a World Financial Centre (Hub), and as an EU Member State, London has always been the ‘Clearing House’ (Gateway) between the EU and the rest of the world. Under EU Law (Comes under the Heading of Services) only EU Member States can perform this role; hence why over 300 financial firms in Britain have relocated those services to Ireland and other parts of the EU; with a loss of over 7,000 British jobs (mostly in London).
As highlighted in your link; it’s a two edge sword. After Brexit, Britain might not be able to serve the EU on the world market anymore; but likewise, there will be barriers between Britain and the EU, so Financial Institutions within the EU wishing to tap into the UK market will have to set up offices in the UK in the future.
Hence (according to your link) why 712 EU Finance Firms intend to set up offices in England after Brexit: 228 from Ireland, 170 from France, 165 from Cyprus and 149 from Germany. How many jobs it will create, to off-set the 7,000 lost isn’t quoted. Although with the UK being a much smaller market than the EU I suspect the actual job increase isn’t going to be that great e.g. the EU market that London served prior to Brexit is 512.4 million population, while the UK market is only 66.44 million population (2018).
Besides, as the article in the link says “It’s a false comfort that you are providing by only focusing on jobs,”…. It’s not so much in the immediate future, but “….. you have to look, on a five, 10, 15 and 20 year framework”, and “it would be a shift in activities and not jobs that will affect London most.”
Potentially all worrying reading for the future, especially if you consider (as stated in the link) “banks will now have to decide whether having multiple hubs in the euro zone and Britain after Brexit makes economic and strategic sense or if some should be closed.” My betting is that it’s the Financial Firms in Britain that will come under most pressure to close, simply because the EU is a much bigger ‘Trading Block’ (larger population) than the UK.I am impressed at how you are both arguing the opposing viewpoints. You illustrate well how much this issue has divided the British public. I am in awe of your in depth knowledge. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. I only hope that my fears do not come to pass and that Boris can manage somehow to come good on his pre referendum promises. Otherwise we're looking at a gloomy future.
My knowledge of the EU stems from my curiosity of it; sparked initially by the creation of the first elected European Parliament back in 1979.
Therefore, being the nerd that I am, I wanted to know more about the EEC and its history. So I started to read up the subject, and got hooked; the more I read, the more interested I got.
What intrigued me (at the time) about the elected 1979 European Parliament was that initially, it didn’t have any ‘powers’ other than the power to veto the EU’s Budget. It was on researching this point that I discovered that it was a part of a deliberate ploy at the time (although modern critics would say otherwise):-
Back in 1957, when the six founding Member Nations (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany) founded the EEC they had a vision of it perhaps one day becoming the United States of Europe. Winston Churchill had the same vision for Europe in his famous speech shortly after the end of the 2nd world war.
However, the founding members (starting with a blank sheet) recognised that the formation of a United Europe couldn’t be ‘Revolutionary’, it had to ‘Evolutionary’. The idea of the first elected European Parliament having ‘no powers’, except for the power to veto the budget was based on the concept that (similar to how the British House of Commons evolved) Parliament would quite naturally, over time, use its Power to veto the Budget as a leaver to ‘win’ more powers; until a ‘natural’ ‘Balance of Power’ was achieved.
Ever since then I’ve continued to follow the EU’s progress (and politics) with great interest and fascination; as it’s continued to evolve. To me, it’s almost like watching the birth and growth of some cute creature as it grows and develops (albeit I’m not quite old enough to have witnessed the actual birth of the EEC itself).This is the Famous Winston Churchill Speech of 1946 calling for a United States of Europe:-
https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/ … ill_en.pdfWhen in Bruxelles a few years ago, we went round an exhibition about the EU. It made the point strongly that since the early linking up of European nations, the cycle of wars between those countries ceased.
Cool: In past years we’ve quite frequently visited Belgium, the most memorable visit being to the ‘Chocolate Factory Museum’ in Bruges; but we’ve never been to the EU exhibition in Bruxelles.
Yes, a very profound point. A couple of years ago I spent ages compiling a list of all the wars in Europe as part of a lengthy debate with an American. And when compiled, it was very striking to see that the past 70 years is the first time in our history, in over 2,000 years, that there haven’t been nations somewhere or another in Western Europe fighting each other.
What’s more striking is that when you look at all the recorded wars across the whole world over thousands of years, is that until 70 years ago, Europe historically (over the past 2,000 years) was one of the most violent places on Earth.
The short (5 minute) video below very graphically shows that e.g. some other nerd has referenced every battle on Wikipedia (10,626) over the past 4,500 years and represented each one with a dot on a time-lapse map.
Time-lapse of Every Battle in History: https://youtu.be/HK5OsDWYJmQI only hope the potential for disagreements between the UK and the EU in years to come doesn't take us back to the years of conflict as in the past.
Yep, of all the wars and conflicts we’ve had with other nations, our longest and most bitter ones have tended to be with the French; the hundred years war (which was actually 116 years) being the longest. In over a 1,000 years, our ‘love hate’ relationship with France has never ceased.
Even today (in peace time) our conflicts with France continue e.g. the ‘Scallop wars’, sparked by the British fishing for Scallops in French waters.
Scallop wars: Fishermen recall 'terrifying' clash with French boats (2018): https://youtu.be/ys7VYAy6nXw
Well, I really have no opinion. As an American I just observe what is going on. I'm responding because I gained a lot of insight into the issue by reading these posts. It's been very enlightening.
I have a question.
Do you think Prime Minister Boris Johnson will know how to make Brexit work?
Again, I don't know enough to provide an opinion. I'd like input from those who are affected by this decision.A Fair Question; I can only give you my opinion, and others may have different views:-
I see your question as being in two parts:
Part A: What is meant by “Make Brexit Work”, and
Part B: Does Boris have the [whatever] to make it work.
Dealing with Part A First (What is meant by “Make Brexit Work”):-
This falls into at least three main categories:-
• Economic
• Social
• Political
Dealing with each in turn:-
ECONOMICS
This is probably the least ambiguous of the three, because we have the Government’s own predictions; which were last updated on the 18th October 2019.
The actual impact on the UK economy is dependent on which Trade Deal (if any) we agree with the EU by the deadline of 31st December 2020. We don’t currently know what type of Trade Deal it will be because the Trade Talks with the EU don’t actually start until February 2020. But the Four Options are:-
1. No Trade Deal e.g. Trade with the EU on WTO Rules.
2. Boris Johnsons favoured Trade Deal e.g. similar to the Canadian Model with the EU.
3. The Labour Party’s favoured Trade Deal e.g. similar to the Norway Model (Customs Union)
4. Theresa May’s Trade Deal, which Parliament rejected 3 times.
According to the Government’s own figures, how much worse off the UK economy will be for each scenario is as follows:-
1. 9.3% worse off with a No Trade Deal.
2. 6.7% worse off with a Canadian Style Trade Deal with the EU.
3. 1.4% worse off with a Norway Style Trade Deal with the EU.
4. 3.9% worse off with Theresa May’s Deal.
SOCIAL
If you are a Brexiteer, Brexit will work, come what may; even if they lose their jobs because of Brexit, if they support Brexit many will not make the link and blame anything but Brexit.
On the other hand, to a Remainer (especially a staunch Remainer), any loss is detrimental, for example:-
• British citizens will no longer be able to nip over to France and Belgium and load their cars up with food and drink; the old ‘Duty Free’ system of where you are limited to just a few bottles of wine etc. will be re-imposed; and
• UK citizens will no longer be able to freely live, work and retire in the EU. My son is one of the luckier ones, because my wife’s father was born in Northern Ireland, both she and our son had an automatic right to claim dual nationality with the Republic of Ireland (which they have done). Therefore, unlike me, my son remains an EU citizen, so if he wishes to (for example) retire in France when he’s older, he has that option.
POLITICAL
If you are a Nationalist e.g. the Conservative ERG Group of MPs, or the likes of Boris, then yes (politically) Brexit works, then the Government (with a large majority in Parliament) has the ‘sovereignty’ to act like a Dictatorship with no one other than the British Courts and the House of Lords to stop them doing whatever they wish.
If on the other hand you are a Liberal Democrat, or a European at heart, then Brexit doesn’t work.
Dealing with Part B (Does Boris have the [whatever] to make it work):-
You used the words “know how”, I’ve substituted it for the word “whatever”, because ‘no’ Boris does not have the “know how”; but he does have the ‘gift of the gab’.
Therefore, regardless to what happens he will claim it a success; and people will believe him; even when the Press point out his lies.
I say he does not have the ‘know how’ because although he went to Eton, and is well educated, he does have a number character flaws, for example:-
• He is renowned for not reading official documents, but making assumptions based on his opinions without knowing all the facts e.g. last year, he was caught out on at least two occasions in television and radio interviews where he didn’t know or understand the subject matter (relating to Brexit) that he was being interviewed about.
• Part of his ‘gift of the gab’ is telling his ‘target’ audience what he thinks they want to hear; even if it means lying.
• When he does things wrong, rather than denying it (which would bring attention to it) he just ignores it (as if it never happened), and then people seem to forget about it.
• His only main ambition is ‘himself’ and ‘power’ e.g. being Prime Minister, predominately due to his long standing rivalry with David Cameron; but that’s another story.
I don’t know whether my convoluted answer has helped or not?A sad thing that the opposition also wanted a Brexit. There was never a true opposition and a clear stance. Thats why Labour lost big time. Only thanks to the undemocratic UK voting system labour still has some seats as it is almost impossible for other parties to get past the post.
I think the only thing the UK can hope for is a Canadian option. Forget the Norway deal, the Norway deal will only work with the permission of Norway. The UK is to big for Norway to accept it. The May deal was realistically the best option at the time.
As the pound dropped it’s cheaper for Europeans to go to the UK. (If the tourist visa will not be to expensive..) But that’s the only advantage of the Brexit.
A sad day for Britain.It wasn’t a Norway Deal, it was a Deal based on the Norway Model; the preferred option for the EU and the Labour Party because it included a Customs Union; and thus would have ensured the closest ties to the EU, with the least amount of disruption to trade.
But it’s not an option for the Conservative Nationalists as the price to pay for membership of a Customs Union with the EU is to accept two of the three pillars of the EU e.g. free movement of Labour and Goods; and thus prevented the UK from having its own immigration policy, and making its own Trade Deals because of the need to maintain Regulatory alignment.
The third pillar being Free Movement of Services e.g. ‘Banking’, which is not part of any Trade Deals the EU makes with other countries.
Norway would not have had any say in the UK agreeing a Norway style deal with the EU because Norway is not a full member of the EU, it is only an Associate Member, and therefore doesn’t have any voting rights in the EU.
Besides, Norway is one of our closest allies in Europe and therefore is one of the few Industrialised countries in the world who is keen to help Britain by making closer ties with us after Brexit; even if they can’t make a Trade Deal with us because of their Associate Membership to the EU.
May’s deal was certainly the next best option economically, but it was doomed to failure from the start because she tried to please ‘all sides’ in the divide, and in doing so pleased no one. There was no way she was going to please the Nationalists in her own party, but if she’d taken it one step further and made the customs union for mainland Britain permanent, rather than just two years then she might have attracted support from Labour MPs, and if she’d had linked her Deal to holding a 2nd Referendum then she would have gained support from the Liberal Democrats.
Yes, a Canadian style Trade Deal is the best we can hope for now, but it’s not that much better economically than a ‘No Deal’ because not only does it sever all close ties with the EU (which was 49% of our Trade) but it also means we lose access to the Trade Deals that the EU has with 70 countries, which means we will be trading with the rest of the world on WTO Rules until we negotiate our own Trades Deals with them, which will never be as good as the ones we enjoyed as an EU Member State, because the EU is a large Trading Block (with a population of 512.4 million) and therefore in a strong position to negotiate Good Trade Deals.
Yep, the fall in the value of the pound because of Brexit does make it cheaper for tourists visiting the UK, but it also means that we’re paying more for imported goods that end up in our shops and on the supermarket shelves.
As you said “A Sad Day for Britain”.I was thinking about this article I read "a long time ago..."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … rexit-plan
Above all, it's so painful to see. Europe is more than just rules and regulations. It's a sign of sharing a common European history. (from the greeks up to now.)
It's like America's pride. If you come from Alabama, Florida or Michigan, black, red, yellow or white, Catholic, Jew or Muslim, they all feel American.
I feel first of all a human then European and then Dutch.
The nationalism that the UK is promoting by Brexit is probably the saddest thing. It's going back to an "us and them" mentality, fortifying the borders instead of looking ahead and cooperating with other countries. It's this narrow-minded mentality that saddens me of all.
I know this Brexit thing is part of the class war that's running the country for ages. as Brexit will turn the UK in a country with more millionaires and more poverty. It will strengthen the ruling upper class and weaken the lower and working class. (middle class is a dying species...)
There is a lot to say about this complex Brexit thing. But for one or two positive things there are 100 negative ones.Yep, what you say peterstreep is my sentiments exactly; 100%.
Also, thanks for the link. It shows just how confusing the language can get when we generalise terms to try to simply the language for the benefit of the General Public.
The Term ‘Norway-plus’ as described in the Guardian article was a specific proposal for the UK to re-join the European Free Trade Association (which we left in 1973 to join the EEC); EFTA subsequently formed its own close Trading ties with the EU in 1992. This arrangement is called the ‘European Economic Area’ (EEA), and is officially the ‘European Union Customs Union’.
The founding members of EFTA back in 1960 were Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; the current members are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.
However, with the EU being so young (only 63 years old) it is still evolving and growing, so the EEA isn’t the only ‘Trading Block’ which has some form of ‘customs union’ with the EU. Collectively, these Trading Blocks, including the EEA are known as ‘European Union Association Agreements’ (AA). Other AA’s include the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Association’ (EMAA) and the ‘Stabilisation and Association Agreements’ (SAA) e.g. the SAA includes Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Kosovo.
The problem is if British politicians had started talking about the various ‘Agreement Associations’ which the EU has with different Trading Blocks, both politicians and the public would have quickly got confused. It’s much simpler just to point to Norway as an example because most people in Britain know the relationship Norway has with the EU. Hence reference to the Norway Model as an example e.g. the desire for Labour to have ‘a Customs Union’ with the EU (similar to the arrangement enjoyed by Norway) is a lot simpler for the British Public to understand than to start talking about the complexities of the other Association Agreements the EU has with other Trading blocks.
Hence the confusion by the British Public between a Norway style Model, and the ‘Norway-plus’ proposal; as there has been confusion by the British Public between the differences between ‘a customs union’ and ‘the customs union’.
An early sign on whether Boris might make Brexit work or not is going to be the level of Patriotism for the UK by the British Public on Brexit day in a few days’ time!
On VE (Victory in Europe) Day at the end of the 2nd world war there were street parties, with British flags flying everywhere, across the whole of the UK in celebration; as there was for Coronation Day and the Silver Jubilee.
There is no sign of any such mass celebrations being held for Brexit, except for the attempts by Boris to make a big fan fair of it.
https://apnews.com/eb7a79320fe6d19cc433f60b222201cdThanks for providing such good information.
I understand the Boris Johnson won a recent election by a good margin. Why do you think this happened? I wonder what the political climate is in the UK for him to be elected by a good margin.
I've had people from the UK try and explain to me about your political system. I still find it confusing. As an American I don't understand a call for elections, forming a government, etc. I guess people in the UK understand it and that is all that is necessary.
Why do you think people supported him? I have no idea, so, I am just asking questions.It’s a major flaw in our electoral system for General and Local Elections.
Like the USA, the UK uses the ‘First Past the Post System’ e.g. whichever candidate gets the most votes wins the seat.
However, unlike the USA, we don’t have a two-party system (Republicans and Democrats), we have a multi-party system. Usually about 6 main political parties, plus lots of smaller parties and lots of Independents: The main parties being Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party; with the Conservatives and Labour being the two biggest.
Therefore it’s quite easy for a candidate to win a seat on just 35% of the votes, even though the majority of voters didn’t vote for him or her, simply because he or she got more votes than any other candidate in that seat.
Therefore, in this General Election, because of our flawed electoral system, Boris won 56.2% of the seats (an 80 seat majority in Parliament) in spite of the fact that only 43.6% of those who voted, actually voted for the Conservative Party. In other words, 56.4% of the people (who voted) voted for political parties other than Conservatives.
This link below is typical of the results in a multi-party election using the ‘first past the post’ system.
Election Result where the Liberal Democrat LEADER losses her seat to the SNP (Scottish National Party): https://youtu.be/Ec5KKxnJyTg
Election Result of a Green Party MP holding her seat: https://youtu.be/F-b8BzBQvTs
As regard your second question (call for elections and forming a government)
Britain has an ‘unwritten’ Constitution; so it can be as clear as mud sometimes. In the event of a dispute the High Court has the final say in interpreting what the Constitution is.
Notwithstanding the above, under the ‘Fixed Term Act’ (which only became law in 2011) a General Election has to be called once every 5 years; unless the Government requests Parliament to hold an election sooner, and two-thirds of MPs agree.
With regard forming a Government after a General Election; there are 650 seats in the House of Commons (the lower chamber in Parliament), and if a political party wins over 50% of the seats (more than 325 seats) then they form the Government, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.
If no political party wins more than half the seats (as happens on occasions) then it’s a hung parliament and under the British unwritten constitution the party with the largest number of seats has the first bite at the cherry at trying to form a government e.g. a coalition government, minority government or electoral pact with one of the other political parties. If they fail in their attempt then the political party with the second largest number of seats is given a chance to try to form a workable government.
It’s in the above context that the Government is the ‘Executive’ and Parliament is the ‘Legislature’.
Parliament is made up of two chambers:-
The Lower Chamber: The House of Commons; MPs elected by the people, and
The Upper Chamber: The House of Lords; Peers who are unelected and either hold the post for life or inherited the post (hereditary peers), plus over two dozen Bishops.
Because the Upper Chamber is unelected, since the constitutional crises of 1948 the House of Lords have adopted the principle of not blocking legislation from the House of Commons if that is what the Government was elected on e.g. promises made by the Government in their Election Manifesto; this is known as the Salisbury Convention. Under the Salisbury Convention, any policy a Government tries to push through, which was not in their Election Manifesto is ‘fare game’, the House of Lords are free to block it if they so wish.
The Salisbury Convention came about because back in 1945 the overwhelming majority of peers in the House of Lords were predominately Conservatives, and Labour (a Socialist Government) won the General Election with a landslide Victory, and quite naturally wanted to push through all their radical socialist policies (such as the Welfare State and the NHS) which the Conservatives were totally opposed to; an impasse (deadlock) between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
The deadlock was broken by Lord Salisbury, Conservative Peer, and Leader of the House of Lords; reasoning with his fellow Conservative Peers that it would be undemocratic for an unelected upper Chamber to block the ‘will of the people’; and as the ‘will of the people’ was to elect a Socialist Government with Socialist Policies then that should be honoured; hence the Salisbury Rule becoming part the British unwritten Constitution.You may find this of some interest!
The Magna Carta of 1215: The foundation and corner stone of the British Constitution (Freedom and Democracy, British Style).
Magna Carta (1215) and the emergence of Parliament: https://youtu.be/4qj2vpp9Wf4
Many people simply wanted to "Get Brexit Done" and that was the basis of his election campaign. It was really an election about leaving the EU rather than a wide-ranging manifesto. I can't think of any other reason why traditional Labour strongholds in the North of England would have changed allegiance so dramatically,
The Liberal Party leader would not co-operate with the Labour Party and so split the vote. A coalition could have defeated the Tories.
Johnson was the least bad of two possible leaders (though the LibDem Leader was firmly convinced, erroneously, that she could win the election).
Lots of propaganda, often lies, presented the Labour Party leader as anti- semitic, covertly anti-EU, and indecisive.
Targeting susceptible people on social media, particularly facebook, after they had been identified by illegally collected personal information.
The Labour Party manifesto was over-ambitious and the spending plans were unachievable.
*********************************************************************************
There are 2 Chambers in British Government -
* House of Commons, 650 Members of Parliament who each represent a geographic area and are elected in a first past the post system at the national General Election, which takes place every five years - or earlier if the Prime Minister thinks that he can win and can get agreement from the majority of MPs. Which is what happened recently! Inexplicably!
* House of Lords - unelected ,and made up of hereditary Peers of the Realm (Lords) and people who are promoted to the state of Lords either for service to the Country or for political reasons. At the moment there are approx 800 Lords entitled to sit in the House and vote. Some Lords support the Conservative Party, others support Labour or a minority Party. Lords are Lords for their lifetime - unless an appointed Lord does something dreadful and is stripped of his title. Many people are opposed to unelected people having a voice in how the UK is run.
The purpose of the Lords is largely advisory. They examine Bills that the government in the Commons wants to pass into UK Law. They vote on recommendations for amendments to Bills - recommendations which may or may not be accepted by the government.
There are two main political parties - the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour. The first of these is seen to be supportive of business and the second as championing the working class and nationalisation of major utilities. One or other of these has won the General Election in a first past the post system for a very long time.
There is also a few other political Parties with a small number of seats - LibDems, Scottish National Party (SNP), Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland (DUP). Plaid Cymru (Welsh) and the Green Party. Sometimes they form alliances with one or other of the two main Parties on a tit for tat basis.
The Party in power controls the agenda, sets the national budget, brings forward Bills to be enacted into Law etc. At the moment the Conservative Party has a majority of 80 seats in the Commons and we are therefore, in effect, living in a right-wing dictatorship for the next 5 years.Thanks again for providing so much information.
There is one thing I've always wondered about.
How does a "call for elections" happen during a person's term in office? Excuse my lack of knowledge but I don't know what is involved with a "vote of no confidence."
A British person once explained to me this is a way you can get out a bad politician. In the United States, I'm sure you know, impeachment is a very formal and drawn out process and no president has ever been removed from office because of it.
In the United State, our president can only serve 8 years in office. I know that's not the case in the UK.
So, another question, why did some people in Britain want Brexit?A Prime Minister can be removed from office by a vote of No Confidence, instigated either by his own Party or, more likely, by an Opposition Party. However, the vote would have to be carried by a majority - and that is unlikely to happen during the next few years, given the large majority that the Conservative Party has in the Commons.
A call for an election is usually made by the Prime Minister of the Party in office. For example, if a Prime Minister thinks at some point during his five year term his Party would be able to extend their term by bringing forward the next General Election he might well call for a vote in the Commons for an election. That is what Boris Johnson recently did. The Labour Party and the LibDems supported the call because each Party leader felt that their Party could win the election. Obviously, they were wrong. If they had not supported the call the Election would not have happened (because the Conservatives would not have won the vote) until the terms and conditions of our exit from the EU had been negotiated. Disclosure of the terms might well have resulted in a second referendum for the people to decide whether or not the truly wanted to leave. Because we had, and still have, no idea what those terms were likely to be. Boris Johnson took a gamble on holding an election and it paid off.
With regard to your question about why some people in Britain wanted Brexit - I have no idea! There was a lot of misinformation on a number of subjects - in particular the amount of money that we contributed to EU budgets that might be better spent on our NHS.
Prior to leaving there was free movement of labour between the UK and all other EU countries. A big issue was that many felt that immigration was uncontrolled and that we therefore needed to 'take back control' of our borders.Glenis,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. You've provided me with some good information.
I met a guy from Britain when I was in the US Army. We became friends. He came to the United States and spent some time with me, and then I went to the UK and spent time with him. We never really discuss politics. He doesn't want to talk about it.
I went and stayed with his family. They live near the town of Caernarfon in Wales. What amazing castles they have around there. I must confess, I did struggle to understand the people in Wales and I know they struggled to understand me. Everyone was nice.
Do you think immigration is an issue for the UK?In my opinion the only problem is illegal immigration. That said, I have some sympathy for people who are fleeing from war, drought etc., I take the view that if I or my loved ones were ever forced to be refugees I would hope for compassion and help.
Caernarfon Castle is where the investiture of Charles as Prince of Wakes took place.
My brother-in-law is Welsh and, yes, the accent is sometimes a little difficult to understand. The Welsh language was in danger of dying out back in the 70s but now it is taught in schools and has undergone a revival.
P.S. My name is Welsh.I can’t think of anything to add to Glenis’s concise and comprehensive replies except perhaps to give the occasion since the 2nd world war when one of the main two parties have needed the support of other political parties to form a Government:-
1. The Labour Party won a slim majority in 1974, and therefore became the Government. They lost that majority in 1977 in a by-election defeat, and faced a vote of no-confidence; which they averted by forming an Alliance with the Liberal Party (the Lib-Lab Pact) until the next General Election in 1979.
2. The Conservatives won the most seats in the 2010 General Election, but not an overall majority; so they formed a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats, until the next General Election in 2015.
3. In the 2015 General Election Liberal Democrat supporters punished their party heavily for having kept The Conservatives in power for the previous 5 years; so the Liberal Democrats lost half their seats, e.g. by their supporters voting for Labour instead, and so with a weakened Liberal Democratic Party in areas where they are better placed to win against the Conservatives than Labour, the Conservatives won a slim majority.
In 2016 David Cameron (Prime Minister) held the Brexit Referendum to try to appease the Nationalists in his party; but he campaigned for Remain, and when he lost, he resigned. Theresa May took over from him as Prime Minister, and in 2017 she took a gamble to increase her Government’s majority by calling for a snap General election (appealing to the Public to support her so that she could get Brexit done); but her gamble failed, and she lost her slim overall majority. So the only way she could form a Government in 2017 was by negotiating a ‘supply and demand’ agreement with the 10 DUP MPs (Democratic Unionist Party), the only other political party in the House of Commons that supported Brexit.
The Current Political makeup (seats) in the House of Commons is:-
• The Speaker = 1
• Conservatives = 365
• Labour =202
• Scottish National Party = 47 (a thorn in the side of Boris)
• Liberal Democrats = 11
• Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) = 8
• Plaid Cymru = 4
• SDLP = 2
• Alliance Party = 1
• Green Party = 1
• Independent = 1
• Sinn Fein = 7 (but they never sit in the Commons on Principle), and
The Current Political makeup of the House of Lords is:-
• Lord Speaker = 1
• Bishops = 26
• Independents (Non-affiliated and Crossbenchers etc.) = 242 (of which 28 are hereditary)
• Conservatives = 244 (of which 42 are hereditary)
• Labour = 180 (of which 2 are hereditary)
• Liberal Democrats = 92 (of which 3 are hereditary)
• Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) = 4
• Green Party = 2
• Plaid Cymru = 1
We toured Caernarfon, with its walled city and castle, last October while on a week’s holiday in Snowdonia; and yes it is an amazing place. I don’t have so much difficulty with the Welsh accent as we live in Bristol, which is on the border with Wales; so we frequently make day-trips over to Wales, and periodically have a holiday there. So we are used to the accent; albeit I can’t speak Welsh though, but I do love hearing it spoken; such a poetic language.
However, were I do have more difficulty is attuning to Scottish ascent when we go north of the border.
I imagine the rich will continue to grow richer and the rest of us will be paying higher prices for food - and have less choice on the shelves. I’m English first and European second. Sad to have left. But there are more important issues on my mind now - climate control at the top of the list.
Yep, you’ve summed it up. And yes Climate Control is most certainly a top priority.
Albeit, although my ancestors immigrated to England around 1066, I am European 1st, Bristolian 2nd, and British 3rd; so for me the fight for Europe goes on.I'm too tired now to keep up the campaign. It was mentally exhausting! To the extent that I have had to cut down drastically the amount of news etc that I follow in the press and on tv, and have stopped tweeting. We may rejoin at some point in the future but in five years time I will be 77 so will be leaving it to others to carry the banner. In the meantime - supporting the Electoral Reform Society and campaigns for proportional representation. Pleased to see Keir Starmer is in favour.
I fully understand. I used to be a Trade Union Activist in my younger days, going on marches, protests and demonstrations, supporting good causes. But these days, especially as I am now retired, I leave the more active stuff to the younger generation. Although I still keep tabs on what’s going on, and more than willing to sign any worthy petitions, and lobby my MP when appropriate etc.
It’s good to hear you’re supporting the Electoral Reform Society and campaigns for proportional representation; it’s something that’s desperately needed in this country. Although it’s one campaign I haven’t followed in recent years because I’ve been focused on fighting Brexit (and will continue to be so). Nevertheless, if you have any useful contacts (websites) to follow on any campaigns for proportional representation then I will most certainly be very interested, as if I can lend any support to it I will do.Thanks, greatly appreciated. I've signed the petition and promoted it on Social Media, Twitter etc. And with the updates they'll send me in the future I can keep an eye on events and progress; and promote the cause further where and when possible.
Thanks Again for the Link and Info.
"From Little Acorns...…"
Related Discussions
- 96
UK decides to leave the EU
by rhamson 7 years ago
With a huge turnout and in the wake of a controversial killing of a MP the UK people voted to leave the EU. Many cited the control of its' borders as the main reason. A handful of other members are also considering a similar direction. Can the US learn anything from this or are we just terminally...
- 18
Something interesting! Negative partisanship is the main issue.
by Tim Mitchell 2 weeks ago
New research suggests that concerns about threats to democracy match the economy and immigration as issues shaping the 2024 election by Ipsos (Mar 1, 2024)https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/new-researc … es-shapingSetting it up . . ."In this study, Ipsos experimented with three different sets...
- 41
Really Now-Do You Think That The Government Cares About You?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 14 months ago
Americans, do you believe that the Democratic & Republican parties care for their constituents or do they care to advance their monetary holdings & furthering their own clout? Democrats & Republicans are both sides of the same coin sociopolitically. In reality, they will say...
- 33
Brexit is it worth it?
by peterstreep 5 years ago
It's over a two years after the referendum. And the UK is on the brink of Brexit.In those two and a half years a lot has changed. People are much more aware of what the consequences are now then when they voted.It's a complicated issue and you could ask the question if with such complicated issues...
- 50
The end of Britains participation in the EU experiment?
by karl 9 years ago
It seem that the EU is adamant that it will appoint Jean-Claude Juncker as president. He is a federalist who is likely not to encourage any reform but to demand closer ties and centralisation of power. David Cameron is dependant on his pledge to give a referendum on Europe and his hope that he...
- 14
Now that the UK has "brexited" from the EU, will Ireland and Scotland declare th
by LoliHey 7 years ago
Now that the UK has "brexited" from the EU, will Ireland and Scotland declare their independence?Do you think those countries could try?