Would you change your vote ?
- Thread starter gov
- Start date
1066 Country
srhutch said:sp3ctre said:
Scaremongering again.:wink:
Not that I give a $hit about football.
Evening - I now work for a French firm who’re footie mad - the comment has been made a few times by those I work with so not substantiated unlike the rest.
Jembo said:srhutch said:sp3ctre said:
Scaremongering again.
Not that I give a $hit about football.
Evening - I now work for a French firm who’re footie mad - the comment has been made a few times by those I work with so not substantiated unlike the rest.
So that’s idle chit chat substantiation then :wink:
Rob
The real problem with Brexit is that the negotiations for leaving have a two year period which ceases on 29th March 2019. The EU always takes negotiations to the 59th minute of the 11th hour so until that time comes, nobody will know what has yet to be agreed.
Unfortunately, the media is wanting to report everything as a blow-by-blow event throughout this 2 year period and this is really winding people up and most are now either bored stiff with it, or scared of an uncertain future.
The British establishment will actually be running the UK gameplan, rather than it being the scheme of TM and a few other Tories, and as such all the UK negotiations will be intended to run the clock down until 29th March 2019 when the EU will eventually claim that miracles have been performed and an agreement has been reached with the UK. The UK has played a masterstroke by putting £39bn on the table at an early stage for the EU to lose if it doesn't do a deal which is acceptable to the UK at the end.
The UK is the second biggest contributor into the EU's coffers and the EU is making Brexit as difficult as possible for us to deter any of the other contributing countries (particularly France and Holland) from attempting to leave. The smaller EU countries which have been latterly admitted are invariably net recipients of our money and so enjoy the benefits that our contributions provide. The EU will have a big blackhole in its funds when the UK leaves which will put huge financial pressure onto the economies of Germany and France mainly to provide the shortfall. The EU will not want trading with the UK to be reduced, of which the EU economies are beneficiaries, because that would put further pressure on the Germans, particularly, to continue and increase financial support to the EU to supplement the UK's former contributions. Therefore, a No Deal scenario from the EU perspective must be unimaginable.
The EU wants the "backstop" in place, or any other delaying tactic, so that until the UK eventually leaves the EU, we would still have to keep making annual payments into the EU's coffers. Th EU does not relish the UK making a clean break because our contributions would cease immediately. In the game of brinksmanship being payed out, the UK must show the EU right up to 29th March 2019 that we are prepared to do a No Deal Brexit, where all contributions to the EU immediately cease, that they will not receive £39bn and that future trade with the UK would be reduced thereafter.
What is wrong with Europe getting back to being a straightforward trading arrangement as it was before Maastricht?
Unfortunately, the media is wanting to report everything as a blow-by-blow event throughout this 2 year period and this is really winding people up and most are now either bored stiff with it, or scared of an uncertain future.
The British establishment will actually be running the UK gameplan, rather than it being the scheme of TM and a few other Tories, and as such all the UK negotiations will be intended to run the clock down until 29th March 2019 when the EU will eventually claim that miracles have been performed and an agreement has been reached with the UK. The UK has played a masterstroke by putting £39bn on the table at an early stage for the EU to lose if it doesn't do a deal which is acceptable to the UK at the end.
The UK is the second biggest contributor into the EU's coffers and the EU is making Brexit as difficult as possible for us to deter any of the other contributing countries (particularly France and Holland) from attempting to leave. The smaller EU countries which have been latterly admitted are invariably net recipients of our money and so enjoy the benefits that our contributions provide. The EU will have a big blackhole in its funds when the UK leaves which will put huge financial pressure onto the economies of Germany and France mainly to provide the shortfall. The EU will not want trading with the UK to be reduced, of which the EU economies are beneficiaries, because that would put further pressure on the Germans, particularly, to continue and increase financial support to the EU to supplement the UK's former contributions. Therefore, a No Deal scenario from the EU perspective must be unimaginable.
The EU wants the "backstop" in place, or any other delaying tactic, so that until the UK eventually leaves the EU, we would still have to keep making annual payments into the EU's coffers. Th EU does not relish the UK making a clean break because our contributions would cease immediately. In the game of brinksmanship being payed out, the UK must show the EU right up to 29th March 2019 that we are prepared to do a No Deal Brexit, where all contributions to the EU immediately cease, that they will not receive £39bn and that future trade with the UK would be reduced thereafter.
What is wrong with Europe getting back to being a straightforward trading arrangement as it was before Maastricht?
I think its been claimed that if we enter the backstop then we won't have to pay any EU contributions which, its suggested, is an incentive for them to get on with things because they won't like giving us access to the single market when we aren't paying anything - makes some sense I suppose?
I don't know what the precise make up of the £39 Billion is (and I don't think its been made public) but a substantial chunk of it is reported to be based on our legally binding commitments to fund initiatives in the current budget round (ends 2020) , some represents future payments for UK MEP pensions (eg Farage). Some of the future projects are in the UK and the EU will continue to pay for those even if we leave. Personally I don't think its at all credible for the UK to renege on the divorce payment - we are not a banana republic. Perhaps the non legally binding element might be withheld?
The oft quoted £350M a week on the leave battle bus was totally misleading, based as it was on the gross amount due (£18.6bn) and ignored the rebate (£5.6bn), direct grants (£4bn)and other payments to private companies and R&D organisations(£1.5bn). So the real cost to the UK is therefore less than £150M a week - which is what the debate on value for money or not should have been based. In 2016 (last published data that I could find) the UK was the third largest contributor at 13.5% behind France 16.6% and Germany 19%
Having done a bit of research on WTO rules I'm beginning to understand why experts are warning it could be such a huge hit to the economy. Take cars as an example - WTO tariff is 10% so all our exports have to have that extra cost applied - why would UK based manufacturers that currently export to the EU want to continue with that and risk losing customers? - far easier to shift production to mainland Europe and avoid it all together. This is the reason why countries put so much effort into getting trade deals and, I'd suggest, why the EU customs union has been good for us.
I don't know what the precise make up of the £39 Billion is (and I don't think its been made public) but a substantial chunk of it is reported to be based on our legally binding commitments to fund initiatives in the current budget round (ends 2020) , some represents future payments for UK MEP pensions (eg Farage). Some of the future projects are in the UK and the EU will continue to pay for those even if we leave. Personally I don't think its at all credible for the UK to renege on the divorce payment - we are not a banana republic. Perhaps the non legally binding element might be withheld?
The oft quoted £350M a week on the leave battle bus was totally misleading, based as it was on the gross amount due (£18.6bn) and ignored the rebate (£5.6bn), direct grants (£4bn)and other payments to private companies and R&D organisations(£1.5bn). So the real cost to the UK is therefore less than £150M a week - which is what the debate on value for money or not should have been based. In 2016 (last published data that I could find) the UK was the third largest contributor at 13.5% behind France 16.6% and Germany 19%
Having done a bit of research on WTO rules I'm beginning to understand why experts are warning it could be such a huge hit to the economy. Take cars as an example - WTO tariff is 10% so all our exports have to have that extra cost applied - why would UK based manufacturers that currently export to the EU want to continue with that and risk losing customers? - far easier to shift production to mainland Europe and avoid it all together. This is the reason why countries put so much effort into getting trade deals and, I'd suggest, why the EU customs union has been good for us.
You've hit the nail on the head with the term "mission creep". But what is the mission of the EU?Smartbear said:
The origins of the EU lie in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 which proposed the pooling of coal and steel production of France and Germany to prevent weapons production by either country thereafter. It then progressed into the Common Market, an economic group of six geographically linked countries in Central Europe which has continued to expand to what it is today and increasing its social remit when it became the European Union. We are permitted to talk about the economic aspects of the EU, but with "political correctness" in place we are prevented from discussing the social aims of merging of 28 nations into a single political union without the suppressive accusation of racism being levelled.
It would appear that the social policy of the EU is to implement the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan (look it up). The free movement of people within the EU is one of the 4 pillars of the EU's "principles", and coupled with mass uncontrolled (economic) migration from outside of Europe, this will ultimately produce the kind of population proposed in the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. The effect of this will be that many European citizens will have no single nationality which will effectively remove all national territorial boundaries, creating a "single" European state. At that point, the European Union will have no need for a European Parliament which represents 27 nations, when it can act as a single state. From then on there will be no way that the EU could return to nation states. If all this appears a bit fanciful, then take a look at the list of winners of the Charlemagne Prize (look it up), awarded for work done in the service of European unification, which was first awarded to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1950.
The total unification of Europe into a single state (fools rush in where angels fear to tread) is effectively doing Russia's or China's future work for them. Without national boundaries in Europe, any defeat of Europe as a single state would produce total capitulation of almost 500 million people.
There's a lot more to Brexit than the Economy.
Vornwend said:
There is almost an infinite number of different ways of calculating the contributions made to the EU by each of the member states. In my earlier posting where I stated that the UK is the second biggest contributor I used the information provided here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm under the "Net Contributions" button.
Alternatively, if you choose to see the figures by "%age of Income" you will see that Greece is the greatest contributor!
ronk said:
Fuelled by an antagonistic negotiating stance & throwing away our ace card (the majority vote of the people to leave)
Had the negotiators started with ‘we have a mandate to leave’, let’s ask if we can have a conversation what we can do for the U.K. to address the people’s issue with:
- Freedom of movement
- Amount we pay in
- .... all the list of the other reasons why 52% said leave
It’s a simple question, the EU would know if they said F off they would be responsible for the U.K. continuing to leave - now the U.K. are seen as untrustworthy, the key element of any negotiation, so we’re really F’d
Had they adopted this normal business approach, avoided confrontational negotiation & come up with a decent popular compromise... I believe many leavers may agree to remain, putting the fire out with all the remainers.
All that’s happened with such an unprofessional negotiating approach is both remain & leavers are pissed off... & taking it out on each other.
So, way back in the early 70's we had a vote to join the Common Market - not to be ruled by Brussels. Then years later we become a member of the European Union being ruled by Brussels. Our grandparents never fought 2 World Wars for that outcome.
In 2016 we had a YES or NO vote to stay in EU. As we all know, the vote result was NO - now some people wan't a Second vote because it was the wrong result in the first vote (given the wrong information etc,etc).
Thus, the next time we have a General Election does that mean whatever party gets in power, that is elected by the democratic nation, the winning party may not necessarily stay in power because it has misled the electorate as usual!
Hence we should keep having elections/votes until the correct party gets in power.
In 2016 we had a YES or NO vote to stay in EU. As we all know, the vote result was NO - now some people wan't a Second vote because it was the wrong result in the first vote (given the wrong information etc,etc).
Thus, the next time we have a General Election does that mean whatever party gets in power, that is elected by the democratic nation, the winning party may not necessarily stay in power because it has misled the electorate as usual!
Hence we should keep having elections/votes until the correct party gets in power.
griffnut said:
The point of a ‘second vote’ is to confirm whether the people are happy with May’s deal, because Brussels won’t budge anymore.
Yes or No.
IF the people’s answer is YES, we go ahead with May’s Brexit - as a remainer I would have to accept this.
IF the answer is NO, then & only then a second choice then comes in of HARD BREXIT or REMAIN
This is the point of a second people’s vote...
Jembo said:
The ballot paper for the 2016 Referendum gave each voter the choice of either: Remain a member of the European Union, or Leave the European Union. Those voting to Leave the EU were in the majority, so in our democracy, our Parliament then set about following the will of the People. Parliament then voted 498 to 114 (81.3%) in favour of triggering Article 50 when it did, as per the will of the People, which means that we will no longer be members of the EU after 29th March 2019.
What the UK and the EU have been negotiating is the Exit Terms of the UK leaving the EU, and the EU is unwilling to negotiate future trading terms between itself and the UK until after the UK is no longer a member of the EU. A so-called "No Deal" Brexit has always been the scenario that will take place on 30th March 2019 and thereafter. That is Plan A and there is no place or reason to have a second "people's vote" or to do anything to change the date of our leaving the EU.
The EU is hoping like hell that the UK electorate will get "cold feet" and then Parliament will either i.) seek an extension of Article 50, or ii.) will withdraw Article 50 and permanently remain in the EU. If either of those 2 situations occur, then the EU is guaranteed to continue to receive payments to the EU, which is the reason the EU really wants the UK, as the 2nd largest net contributor to its budget, to remain in the bloc. The EU is reliant on the fear of the unknown for the UK population to make us change our minds.
However, if we do not sign up to the present Agreement on offer, on 30th March 2019 there is no Irish backstop in place, and the UK has no intention of putting a hard border between NI (UK territory) and the ROI (EU territory). Therefore if the EU requires a hard border then it is its prerogative to do so. Without there being any backstop terms for future trading negotiations, the UK and EU will be negotiating as "equals" which will pressurise the EU to agree deals with some haste, rather than being able to use a backstop as a means of blackmailing the UK.
The EU may wish to make trading somewhat difficult between the UK and the rest of the EU, but to do so would be economic madness and I'm sure that EU businesses will not tolerate the EU, in receipt of their money, to do this. Likewise if the EU do try to make life somewhat uncomfortable for us, I am sure that the UK could find many ways of retaliating.
At the end of the day, the EU has Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty which states:
" The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
Perhaps Trump was right when he said that the UK should sue the EU?
exdos said:
So, if the EU offered back control of our borders, concessions on our subscriptions & other things just so we remain... would you consider changing your mind?
Smartbear said:Jembo said:
Remain shouldn’t be on the menu at all, that option was defeated in the referendum, so it should be Mays deal or leave & sort ourselves out with the rest of the world in my opinion
Rob
There we’ll agree to disagree