Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[CG1 Blue]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

They all work, have worked or own, financial institutes and complete financial transactions, in loose speak that is called banking, it isn't technically banking as I said very early on in this conversation, however the press, the dictionary and I all agree that it is fair to refer to these people involved in transactions within the finance industry as bankers.  What is your gripe with calling a hedge fund manager a banker?  Is it pure pedantry or do you have a real reason?

I just prefer accuracy

[aright]

2 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Excuse me interrupting the bickering gentlemen but did anyone notice the vote in the House of Lords yesterday?

 

If I may quote Reuters...

 

Theresa May has suffered an embarrassing defeat in the House of Lords over the issue of Britain’s membership of the customs union, increasing pressure on the government to reopen the issue.

An amendment to the EU withdrawal bill tabled by crossbencher Lord Kerr, and backed by several senior Conservatives including Lord (Chris) Patten, as well as Labour and the Lib Dems, was passed by a 348 votes to 225 – a majority of 123.

The debate on the government’s key piece of Brexit legislation, in a packed chamber, was watched by the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer. Afterwards, he said: “The passing of this cross-party amendment is an important step forward. Theresa May must now listen to the growing chorus of voices who are urging her to drop her red line on a customs union and rethink her approach.”

We can expect further defeats I am sure, now that the consequences of Brexit become clearer.  Of course many of the Brexiteers will simply start on a rant about the House of Lords and I would probably agree with some of those rants.  However we need to have checks and balances on something that is this important and as far as the British system goes, this is as good as any.

In many ways the House of Lords is like the EU commission. An unelected body of  people with no accountability and a lot of self interest.

Thankfully I don't think their decision is prescriptive.

[simoh1490]

Report after report, model after economic model all saying the same thing, all from different sources, many even canvassing Brexiteer views....is there even one glimmer or word of acknowledgement from TVF Team Brexit that these things might just be true...not a one, nary a grunt or a fart that something might be amiss, just the same old messages and word games, yawn.

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Excuse me interrupting the bickering gentlemen but did anyone notice the vote in the House of Lords yesterday?

 

If I may quote Reuters...

 

Theresa May has suffered an embarrassing defeat in the House of Lords over the issue of Britain’s membership of the customs union, increasing pressure on the government to reopen the issue.

An amendment to the EU withdrawal bill tabled by crossbencher Lord Kerr, and backed by several senior Conservatives including Lord (Chris) Patten, as well as Labour and the Lib Dems, was passed by a 348 votes to 225 – a majority of 123.

The debate on the government’s key piece of Brexit legislation, in a packed chamber, was watched by the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer. Afterwards, he said: “The passing of this cross-party amendment is an important step forward. Theresa May must now listen to the growing chorus of voices who are urging her to drop her red line on a customs union and rethink her approach.”

We can expect further defeats I am sure, now that the consequences of Brexit become clearer.  Of course many of the Brexiteers will simply start on a rant about the House of Lords and I would probably agree with some of those rants.  However we need to have checks and balances on something that is this important and as far as the British system goes, this is as good as any.

Most definitely..

 

But even more "defeats" may be expected when the dumbass English population actually buys a map from the local newsagents-'WH Smith's'in my day-.even more distressing would be if they actually purchased a globe of the world..but..hey..baby steps.

 

Of course..it would be even more distressing if they realized that the rest of the world couldn't give a flying mushy pea for them since 1942  but..hey..no pink empire anymore,

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The overarching point here is that bankers are massively in favour of the EU, and they would do anything to keep us in.

Vote Leave still won despite the hugely powerful banking community wanting the UK to remain.

The whole country is in a mess and some make out it is a victory, beggers belief.

Of course the financial institutions are in favour of remaining, financial services is a major contribution to the UK economy, why cut off the hand that feeds you. Of course there is always the delusion that you can leave the club and retain all the benefits of membership.

[dunroaming]

1 minute ago, aright said:

In many ways the House of Lords is like the EU commission. An unelected body of  people with no accountability and a lot of self interest.

Thankfully I don't think their decision is prescriptive.

Accepted although I would suggest the self interest is the interest of the UK as a whole.  I am no fan of the H.O.L at all but they are all we have in the way of checks and balances and that is essential, especially given the way that this Brexit is going. 

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I just prefer accuracy

 

You prefer commenting on accuracy to the topic in hand?

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

The whole country is in a mess and some make out it is a victory, beggers belief.

Of course the financial institutions are in favour of remaining, financial services is a major contribution to the UK economy, why cut off the hand that feeds you. Of course there is always the delusion that you can leave the club and retain all the benefits of membership.

 

Farage went to Switzerland a long time ago with a view to convincing their institutions that post Brexit we could deregulate and perform services like they do.

[sandyf]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Farage went to Switzerland a long time ago with a view to convincing their institutions that post Brexit we could deregulate and perform services like they do.

And that is not going too well.

 

EU sparks Swiss anger with temporary market access deal

"The EU-Switzerland negotiations are being closely watched in the UK, which will become a EU third country after it exits the bloc in 2019. Thursday’s agreement shows how Brussels is willing to take an uncompromising stance on giving non-EU member states lucrative access to its markets if they do not take on board the bloc’s regulations and or recognize the validity of its highest court."

https://www.ft.com/content/e705c25e-ce90-3854-b09c-03459a53e124

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, aright said:

In many ways the House of Lords is like the EU commission. An unelected body of  people with no accountability and a lot of self interest.

Thankfully I don't think their decision is prescriptive.

 

Pretty different actually considering the EU Commission is elected by people who have been elected by each state, whichever group wins the most MEP's gets to have the presidency, something called coalition based parliamentary democracy, whereas the Lords are mainly hereditary peers and rule over the clearly less democratic first past the post system of the UK.  Also they differ in that the Commission is held fully accountable to EU parliament, they hold regular hearings where they extract clear commitments from the commission, whereas the Lords have no accountability.  Not sure what you are eluding to with the self interest comment but the Commission cannot pass regulations or laws, what they do is make recommendations for legislation, which they must always do in close consultation with the parliament and council, they hold regular consultations with civil and public society and they have a transparency register of lobbyists, they are about as transparent a democratic force as this world has ever seen, unlike what we see in the UK, a lack of transparency, an unelected and unaccountable house and clearly self serving politicians, British democracy was much safer in the EU.

[aright]

18 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Pretty different actually considering the EU Commission is elected by people who have been elected by each state, whichever group wins the most MEP's gets to have the presidency, something called coalition based parliamentary democracy, whereas the Lords are mainly hereditary peers and rule over the clearly less democratic first past the post system of the UK.  Also they differ in that the Commission is held fully accountable to EU parliament, they hold regular hearings where they extract clear commitments from the commission, whereas the Lords have no accountability.  Not sure what you are eluding to with the self interest comment but the Commission cannot pass regulations or laws, what they do is make recommendations for legislation, which they must always do in close consultation with the parliament and council, they hold regular consultations with civil and public society and they have a transparency register of lobbyists, they are about as transparent a democratic force as this world has ever seen, unlike what we see in the UK, a lack of transparency, an unelected and unaccountable house and clearly self serving politicians, British democracy was much safer in the EU.

Who voted Martin Selmayr in as Secretary General of the Commission in February? 

 

"The appointment sparked a furore in Brussels, with MEPs complaining that the appointment was orchestrated in secret, which made the EU look like an "old boys' club." 

Mr Selmayr was reportedly handed the job by Mr Juncker in a matter of minutes, following the sudden retirement of his predecessor, Alexander Italianer."

I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives. When did I last use my vote to elect the Secretary General of the EU Commission.

One of the reasons for the rise of right wing parties in the EU is because they don't like being governed by an unelected , unaccountable cabal. How effective are 78 British MEPs in a Parliament of 750 MEP's at getting my voice heard or anything done?

 

[CG1 Blue]

41 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Report after report, model after economic model all saying the same thing, all from different sources, many even canvassing Brexiteer views....is there even one glimmer or word of acknowledgement from TVF Team Brexit that these things might just be true...not a one, nary a grunt or a fart that something might be amiss, just the same old messages and word games, yawn.

Many of the Brexiteers on here have explained many times.

 

Firstly most of those who voted Leave expected some economic turbulence for a period of time, but the desire for real sovereignty and an escape from the EU's federalist plans outweighed that uncertainty.

 

Secondly, negative forecasts will continue to spew from anti-Brexit media and pro-EU think tanks because currently we are leaving the EU. Their backs are against the wall, and so of course they will manipulate the data to scare people into changing their minds.

 

If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about joining an EU which meant paying them £200m a week, cutting trade ties with our global partners, becoming subservient to EU courts and laws, and opening up our borders and fishing waters, you'd seeing a tonne of anti-EU forecasts.

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Firstly most of those who voted Leave expected some economic turbulence for a period of time, but the desire for real sovereignty and an escape from the EU's federalist plans outweighed that uncertainty.

 

I think that is true.  the lack of knowledge on both sides was shocking as we were all fed bullsh*t on a daily basis.

 

I absolutely get why people voted to  leave at the time and the reason they are still determined to see it through.  I also think the amount of people may have altered though, but we will never know.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

Is a customs union similar to what we have just now?

Can we export and import goods and services to and from the EU, our biggest trading partner?

 

If we are not in a customs union, what would that mean?

Would people in Northern Ireland be able to do their shopping in the Republic?

How would Irish wholesalers manage their customers in the two separate territories?

 

I say "throw out what works, and then we quickly can cobble together something else that might work, more or less, with a bit of effort, eventually; it's the British way.  We didn't get to where we are by meticulous planning and cautious attention to detail". 
 

Heath Robinson must be turning in his grave at the Peers' lack of imagination

 

SC

It would avoid all the problems with the need to move finished goods and components without border delays. NI people could shop duty free in the South. I THINK this is a possible solution but happy to have someone explain why not 

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Pretty different actually considering the EU Commission is elected by people who have been elected by each state, whichever group wins the most MEP's gets to have the presidency, something called coalition based parliamentary democracy, whereas the Lords are mainly hereditary peers and rule over the clearly less democratic first past the post system of the UK.  Also they differ in that the Commission is held fully accountable to EU parliament, they hold regular hearings where they extract clear commitments from the commission, whereas the Lords have no accountability.  Not sure what you are eluding to with the self interest comment but the Commission cannot pass regulations or laws, what they do is make recommendations for legislation, which they must always do in close consultation with the parliament and council, they hold regular consultations with civil and public society and they have a transparency register of lobbyists, they are about as transparent a democratic force as this world has ever seen, unlike what we see in the UK, a lack of transparency, an unelected and unaccountable house and clearly self serving politicians, British democracy was much safer in the EU.

They are certainly different. The Lords can't legislate but the EU Commission is the only EU body that can propose and put forward laws to the EP.

 

The EU Commission is the only origin of these laws. Have you ever watched the EP voting sessions to vote on those laws? It's just a toy factory, about one teddy bear every 5 seconds. Ridiculous. It's a joke.   

[Kieran00001]

21 minutes ago, aright said:

Who voted Martin Selmayr in as Secretary General of the Commission in February? 

 

"The appointment sparked a furore in Brussels, with MEPs complaining that the appointment was orchestrated in secret, which made the EU look like an "old boys' club." 

Mr Selmayr was reportedly handed the job by Mr Juncker in a matter of minutes, following the sudden retirement of his predecessor, Alexander Italianer."

I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives. When did I last use my vote to elect the Secretary General of the EU Commission.

One of the reasons for the rise of right wing parties in the EU is because they don't like being governed by an unelected , unaccountable cabal. How effective are 78 British MEPs in a Parliament of 750 MEP's at getting my voice heard or anything done?

 

  

The premise of the article is not that the appointment of the presidents secretary is undemocratic but that the appointing was partial, the president filled the post quickly giving his associate the job, that's not a lack of democracy that's cronyism hence why they liken it to an old boys club rather than a dictatorship and that says something about Junker and the EPP but not the EU itself.  I can't believe you want to vote for the secretary!  They just organise the agenda and the minutes for the commission, very boring "power".

 

The reason for the rise in the right wing parties is that some people have been using these false premises to slander the EU, people don't fact check, they just go with the rhetoric.

 

78 MEP's would be more effective if the 24 UKIP MEP's were replaced by people who wanted to get things done rather than not take part out of protest.  UKIP cost us 30% of power in the EU whilst simultaneously shouting about wanting the UK to have more power in the EU.  The 10% that we are is not everything anyway as they all come from different parties and are in different groups so they are never voting as a country, that is something for the council and they have a single representative from each country, our PM, the structure of the EU parliament is that even a party with 1 seat can join a group that has the most power.  If you want to get your voice heard then be careful which group you are voting for, not just the MEP or their sub-party.

[CG1 Blue]

33 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It would avoid all the problems with the need to move finished goods and components without border delays. NI people could shop duty free in the South. I THINK this is a possible solution but happy to have someone explain why not 

I'd be happy if we could be in a customs union without all the binds that come with it, but that's never going to happen (the 'cake and eat it' scenario).

 

I found something that outlines the case against staying in the CU.  It's a bit of a long read, but might answer your question.  I'll paste an extract before the link to save some time.

 

"The economic arguments against staying in the EU Customs Union are important, but the political and constitutional consequences are even more profound, and seem to be completely ignored those who argue for negotiating to stay inside "the" or "a" Customs Union. As explained below, remaining in the EU customs union would have profound implications for the ability of the UK to govern itself as an independent nation, and would deprive it of the ability to decide its own laws over very wide fields of domestic policy extending far beyond customs controls themselves.
It would also prevent the UK from exercising an independent trade policy or concluding its own trade agreements with states outside the EU, and would inevitably result in the UK being subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the interpretation and application of the common rules which regulate the customs union. 

Article 66 (Turkey are in the CU but not the EU)

Turkey is required to “align itself with Common Customs Tariff” (Article 13(1)) and also to “adjust its customs tariff whenever necessary to take account of changes in the Common Customs Tariff” (Article 13(2)). Turkey has no right to be involved in the EC’s decisions on changing its Tariff, but under Article 14(1) is to be “informed” of such decisions “in sufficient time for it simultaneously to align the Turkish customs tariff on the Common Customs Tariff.”
 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal-customs-union.shtml

 

 

 

 

[Kieran00001]

36 minutes ago, nauseus said:

They are certainly different. The Lords can't legislate but the EU Commission is the only EU body that can propose and put forward laws to the EP.

 

The EU Commission is the only origin of these laws. Have you ever watched the EP voting sessions to vote on those laws? It's just a toy factory, about one teddy bear every 5 seconds. Ridiculous. It's a joke.   

 

Yes, they also have the obvious difference of performing a completely different role, the post I responded to and my post were both specifically referring to the suggested similarity in lack of democracy and transparency, something that is often bandied around but is completely false.

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

I'm sure that many people that voted leave were unsure of the economic cost but were aware that there would be some, at least in the short-term. Of course noone wants to be worse off but how can anyone really know before the talking is done, even with these 'scenarios'? What all the remainers always forget, or refuse to acknowledge, is that economics was not the main concern for leave voters. The concerns have to be balanced but like every other argument from the remain side, this report only features economics.. 

  

GF have a declared agenda; most of their reports support the EU and free movement and all that. It would be good to see some comparable polls and stats from other 'think tanks' with a more neutral bias. 

Is there a Brexit think tank. Isn't that oxymoronic?

[Odysseus123]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Is there a Brexit think tank. Isn't that oxymoronic?

Oh..ha..ha..ha..

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Odysseus123

[simoh1490]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Many of the Brexiteers on here have explained many times.

 

Firstly most of those who voted Leave expected some economic turbulence for a period of time, but the desire for real sovereignty and an escape from the EU's federalist plans outweighed that uncertainty.

 

Secondly, negative forecasts will continue to spew from anti-Brexit media and pro-EU think tanks because currently we are leaving the EU. Their backs are against the wall, and so of course they will manipulate the data to scare people into changing their minds.

 

If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about joining an EU which meant paying them £200m a week, cutting trade ties with our global partners, becoming subservient to EU courts and laws, and opening up our borders and fishing waters, you'd seeing a tonne of anti-EU forecasts.

Talking of fishing....codswallop.

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I'd be happy if we could be in a customs union without all the binds that come with it, but that's never going to happen (the 'cake and eat it' scenario).

 

I found something that outlines the case against staying in the CU.  It's a bit of a long read, but might answer your question.  I'll paste an extract before the link to save some time.

 

"The economic arguments against staying in the EU Customs Union are important, but the political and constitutional consequences are even more profound, and seem to be completely ignored those who argue for negotiating to stay inside "the" or "a" Customs Union. As explained below, remaining in the EU customs union would have profound implications for the ability of the UK to govern itself as an independent nation, and would deprive it of the ability to decide its own laws over very wide fields of domestic policy extending far beyond customs controls themselves.
It would also prevent the UK from exercising an independent trade policy or concluding its own trade agreements with states outside the EU, and would inevitably result in the UK being subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the interpretation and application of the common rules which regulate the customs union. 

Article 66 (Turkey are in the CU but not the EU)

Turkey is required to “align itself with Common Customs Tariff” (Article 13(1)) and also to “adjust its customs tariff whenever necessary to take account of changes in the Common Customs Tariff” (Article 13(2)). Turkey has no right to be involved in the EC’s decisions on changing its Tariff, but under Article 14(1) is to be “informed” of such decisions “in sufficient time for it simultaneously to align the Turkish customs tariff on the Common Customs Tariff.”
 

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal-customs-union.shtml

 

 

 

 

The problem we have now is the irish border. the government has already given a legally binding commitment  to there not being border checks between the north and south of Ireland. 

 

The only way this can be done is by Northern Ireland staying in the CU and SM - all other hi-tech solutions are fairytales.

 

But if we leave either the CU or SM  that means we need a border between NI and the rest of the UK.

 

The DUP are never going to stand for that. May needs the DUP for her majority.

 

I can't see any way we can leave the CU and maintain our commitments.

 

Plus, of course, leaving the CU will kill off a good percentage of UK manufacturing.

[StreetCowboy]

1 hour ago, aright said:

...

I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives. ...

When did you get to vote for your Prime Minister?

I only ever got to elect an MP.  My understanding is that the Queen generally invites the leader of the biggest gang in Parliament to be her Prime Minister, and if my MP is not in that gang, he and I have no say in who is our Prime Minister.   Not like the US, where the President, Senate, Congress, Governor, Mayor, Sherriff and bin men are all separately elected.

[malagateddy]

They are certainly different. The Lords can't legislate but the EU Commission is the only EU body that can propose and put forward laws to the EP.
 
The EU Commission is the only origin of these laws. Have you ever watched the EP voting sessions to vote on those laws? It's just a toy factory, about one teddy bear every 5 seconds. Ridiculous. It's a joke.   

Please google.." Brexit the movie " and study it objectively..all the MEP'S are just nodding donkeys imo

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Is there a Brexit think tank. Isn't that oxymoronic?

I purposely used the word 'neutral'.

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

Please google.." Brexit the movie " and study it objectively..all the MEP'S are just nodding donkeys imo

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

OK

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Accepted although I would suggest the self interest is the interest of the UK as a whole.  I am no fan of the H.O.L at all but they are all we have in the way of checks and balances and that is essential, especially given the way that this Brexit is going. 

Wisdom is not cricketing statistics.

 

I would be inclined to listen carefully to what The Lords have to say.

[Odysseus123]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Wisdom is not cricketing statistics.

 

I would be inclined to listen carefully to what The Lords have to say.

It's a kind of political Crimean War..

 

No-one has a good word to say about it.

 

[nauseus]

33 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, they also have the obvious difference of performing a completely different role, the post I responded to and my post were both specifically referring to the suggested similarity in lack of democracy and transparency, something that is often bandied around but is completely false.

 

Just a few of many complaints. Have a ball. 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-selmayr-problem-too-many-germans-in-top-jobs/

 

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/commissions-transparency-register-strategy-extremely-worrying

 

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/eu-commission-under-fire-lack-transparency-tobacco-lobby-meetings

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sued-for-lack-of-transparency/

[aright]

19 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

When did you get to vote for your Prime Minister?

I only ever got to elect an MP.  My understanding is that the Queen generally invites the leader of the biggest gang in Parliament to be her Prime Minister, and if my MP is not in that gang, he and I have no say in who is our Prime Minister.   Not like the US, where the President, Senate, Congress, Governor, Mayor, Sherriff and bin men are all separately elected.

At the last General Election when I voted for my MP who endorsed the Prime minister. Did you ever vote for an MEP who endorsed the Sec Gen of the Commission?     Had my vote not been enough I would have accepted the PM as chosen by the winning party with good grace as I have on many occasions ,a concept which is alien to Remainers . Its called Democracy. In my lifetime I have voted for all three major parties. My vote is tied to a party's manifesto and the quality of the people running for office. I could tell you now who I would vote for in an election held tomorrow but could not in an election three years from now.