Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[Khun Han]

13 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

 "there will be a consumer spending boom once brexit kicks in" - remember, you heard it here first! 

 

Or, one could listen to the voices of doom, who keep having to put their predictions of economic armageddon back....and back.....and back.....but it will happen, honestly .

[simoh1490]

9 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Sorry, your post doesn't make any sense as a response to the facts provided by Aright. We were told, a while back, on this forum that a weak Sterling would create stagflation. Why didn't that happen?

We are well aware that most posts containing logic and fact don't make sense to you, I won't confuse you further by replying. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

7 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

We are well aware that most posts containing logic and fact don't make sense to you, I won't confuse you further by replying. 

 

May I ask who the ‘we’ are that you refer to. Do you represent other posters on this forum, or is the ‘we’ just intended to add weight to your comment  …… thanks

[Kieran00001]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Bloody hell, talk about labour market paradise! An impractical proposal except for short-term contracts. Who in their right minds would want to work (alone) for more than a year or two, then leave the system once they were in it, innit?  

 

 

 

But there are a lot of short term contracts available, they don't appeal to people that are already settled in the UK, they appeal to migrants, 90% of our seasonal agricultural work is taken by short term migrants, I think everyone prefers that those migrants go home during the months they have no work rather than sitting in the UK on benefits.

 

 

[simoh1490]

6 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

May I ask who the ‘we’ are that you refer to. Do you represent other posters on this forum, or is the ‘we’ just intended to add weight to your comment  …… thanks

The Royal We.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

10 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

The Royal We.

So you don't represent anyone else, you just like to make it sound as if you do. Thanks for the clarification ?

[simoh1490]

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

So you don't represent anyone else, you just like to make it sound as if you do. Thanks for the clarification ?

We could have a vote!

[Eloquent pilgrim]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

We could have a vote!

Now that's a much better and more democratic use of 'we' .... well done ??✌️✌️

[simoh1490]

Just now, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Now that's a much better and more democratic use of 'we' .... well done ??✌️✌️

It's still the royal we however!

[Eloquent pilgrim]

Au contraire ….. a vote requires more than one person, and as I hope you are aware, The royal we, is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person

 

... apologise everyone this has somehow been posted twice and I can't find a way to delete it ??

Edited April 25, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[Eloquent pilgrim]

12 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

It's still the royal we however!

Au contraire ….. a vote requires more than one person, and as I hope you are aware, The royal we, is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person ??✌️✌️

[tebee]

There is a lot of c@ap being talked about the customs union, here and elsewhere

First that the EU customs union is protectionist. Really, with average tariffs around 4% (bit more for agriculture)? Exchange rate fluctuations often have much greater effect. 

BTW, if the EU were the US they’d accuse the UK of having had the EU Ref to achieve a competitive devaluation. 

In a customs union the UK loses its ability to strike trade deals. So what? The EU has many free trade agreements, and it gets very good terms because it offers free access to 500 million consumers market. 

In international trade, size does matter. And you need some protection (higher) tariffs to be able to offer something to the other side. 

But tariffs are a side show. It is on regulatory issues that trade agreements matter. This is where both size and voice really count. Look at GDPR, which everyone knows by now. The whole world needs to comply: EU market size.

Some thought that Brexit would lead the UK to try to acquire some global regulatory leadership. Difficult but not impossible. But no, the Govt just wants to sign up to EU regulations, agencies and all. 

 

This could still be done, particularly in services, where the WTO concept of trade in services liberalization has clearly failed. But no indications that this is being pursued. 

No need to believe me on regulatory issues. What has the US already indicated it wants from the UK? To abandon EU regulatory alignment and adopt US-style regulation. 

And the Indians? Do they talk about tariffs? No, they want more immigration. 

Nor does remaining in a customs union preclude a border in Ireland. All kinds of checks need to be eliminated. This took the EU 10 years in the 80s/90s. Not replicated anywhere else. 

But I understand the fierce debate. If the UK cannot conclude its own trade agreements, how on earth could Brexiteers continue to argue that there are some tangible economic benefits to leaving? 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

There is a lot of c@ap being talked about the customs union, here and elsewhere

First that the EU customs union is protectionist. Really, with average tariffs around 4% (bit more for agriculture)? Exchange rate fluctuations often have much greater effect. 

BTW, if the EU were the US they’d accuse the UK of having had the EU Ref to achieve a competitive devaluation. 

In a customs union the UK loses its ability to strike trade deals. So what? The EU has many free trade agreements, and it gets very good terms because it offers free access to 500 million consumers market. 

In international trade, size does matter. And you need some protection (higher) tariffs to be able to offer something to the other side. 

But tariffs are a side show. It is on regulatory issues that trade agreements matter. This is where both size and voice really count. Look at GDPR, which everyone knows by now. The whole world needs to comply: EU market size.

Some thought that Brexit would lead the UK to try to acquire some global regulatory leadership. Difficult but not impossible. But no, the Govt just wants to sign up to EU regulations, agencies and all. 

 

This could still be done, particularly in services, where the WTO concept of trade in services liberalization has clearly failed. But no indications that this is being pursued. 

No need to believe me on regulatory issues. What has the US already indicated it wants from the UK? To abandon EU regulatory alignment and adopt US-style regulation. 

And the Indians? Do they talk about tariffs? No, they want more immigration. 

Nor does remaining in a customs union preclude a border in Ireland. All kinds of checks need to be eliminated. This took the EU 10 years in the 80s/90s. Not replicated anywhere else. 

But I understand the fierce debate. If the UK cannot conclude its own trade agreements, how on earth could Brexiteers continue to argue that there are some tangible economic benefits to leaving? 

There are plenty of items (mainly food) with tariffs of >15%, some much more. 

[tebee]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

There are plenty of items (mainly food) with tariffs of >15%, some much more. 

Yes but the EU also has FTA with over half the world and most of the developing countries which mean most don't have to pay that tariff. 

[tebee]

 

[transam]

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

I would have thought it was only natural for members to sit back until it is finally sorted, common sense to me...

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, transam said:

I would have thought it was only natural for members to sit back until it is finally sorted, common sense to me...

and while the deck of cards are sorted on one table on the next they have finished the game

[transam]

2 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

and while the deck of cards are sorted on one table on the next they have finished the game

Depends if they are playing Bridge on one and three card brag on the other....

[Eloquent pilgrim]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

There is a lot of c@ap being talked about the customs union, here and elsewhere

First that the EU customs union is protectionist. Really, with average tariffs around 4% (bit more for agriculture)? Exchange rate fluctuations often have much greater effect. 

BTW, if the EU were the US they’d accuse the UK of having had the EU Ref to achieve a competitive devaluation. 

In a customs union the UK loses its ability to strike trade deals. So what? The EU has many free trade agreements, and it gets very good terms because it offers free access to 500 million consumers market. 

In international trade, size does matter. And you need some protection (higher) tariffs to be able to offer something to the other side. 

But tariffs are a side show. It is on regulatory issues that trade agreements matter. This is where both size and voice really count. Look at GDPR, which everyone knows by now. The whole world needs to comply: EU market size.

Some thought that Brexit would lead the UK to try to acquire some global regulatory leadership. Difficult but not impossible. But no, the Govt just wants to sign up to EU regulations, agencies and all. 

 

This could still be done, particularly in services, where the WTO concept of trade in services liberalization has clearly failed. But no indications that this is being pursued. 

No need to believe me on regulatory issues. What has the US already indicated it wants from the UK? To abandon EU regulatory alignment and adopt US-style regulation. 

And the Indians? Do they talk about tariffs? No, they want more immigration. 

Nor does remaining in a customs union preclude a border in Ireland. All kinds of checks need to be eliminated. This took the EU 10 years in the 80s/90s. Not replicated anywhere else. 

But I understand the fierce debate. If the UK cannot conclude its own trade agreements, how on earth could Brexiteers continue to argue that there are some tangible economic benefits to leaving? 

In 2016 the EU increased the tariff on oranges from third party countries from 3.2% to 16%; and while the Spanish citrus growers (who had been lobbying) rejoiced in the protectionism of this incredible increase, and started planting more groves of Navel’s and Valencia Late’s, one must surely question the primacy of producer interests over that of the consumer. It is us, the consumers that will pay for this protectionism.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

So you don't represent anyone else, you just like to make it sound as if you do. Thanks for the clarification ?

 4 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

 

The Royal We.

 

Perhaps he meant the royal wee.

[tebee]

For those who keep talking about the "will of the people"

 

 For you constitutional law is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?

 

There is no "British people" and hence there is no "will". That's fascist talk, the kind of thing the Russian propaganda machine churns out on a daily basis. 

 

And the parliamentary vote is the key. Referendums have no legal force unless such force is embodied in the legislation. That is not the case here. As DAG points out, the government can claim a mandate for "leaving the EU", but that gets us nowhere near the practicalities of it. Many UK government agencies are making no plans to leave EU bodies because they know fine that it wont come to that; to borrow the words of the hapless Chris Grayling, who claimed on Question Time that there will be no checks on goods coming in at Dover after Brexit, "there's no other way of doing it".

 

Reality nullifies Brexit. Get over it. 
 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

For those who keep talking about the "will of the people"

 

 For you constitutional law is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?

 

There is no "British people" and hence there is no "will". That's fascist talk, the kind of thing the Russian propaganda machine churns out on a daily basis. 

 

And the parliamentary vote is the key. Referendums have no legal force unless such force is embodied in the legislation. That is not the case here. As DAG points out, the government can claim a mandate for "leaving the EU", but that gets us nowhere near the practicalities of it. Many UK government agencies are making no plans to leave EU bodies because they know fine that it wont come to that; to borrow the words of the hapless Chris Grayling, who claimed on Question Time that there will be no checks on goods coming in at Dover after Brexit, "there's no other way of doing it".

 

Reality nullifies Brexit. Get over it. 
 

Very confusing, whatever it is.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

24 minutes ago, tebee said:

For those who keep talking about the "will of the people"

 

 For you constitutional law is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?

 

There is no "British people" and hence there is no "will". That's fascist talk, the kind of thing the Russian propaganda machine churns out on a daily basis. 

 

And the parliamentary vote is the key. Referendums have no legal force unless such force is embodied in the legislation. That is not the case here. As DAG points out, the government can claim a mandate for "leaving the EU", but that gets us nowhere near the practicalities of it. Many UK government agencies are making no plans to leave EU bodies because they know fine that it wont come to that; to borrow the words of the hapless Chris Grayling, who claimed on Question Time that there will be no checks on goods coming in at Dover after Brexit, "there's no other way of doing it".

 

Reality nullifies Brexit. Get over it. 
 

For the record, I have never talked about the “will of the people”

 

I am however baffled and somewhat dismayed to learn from you that there are no British people. I say this, simply because I am a person born in the UK and my passport claims that I am a British Citizen. I am intrigued to know how you would describe people like myself, that are people and  have been born in Britain ??

 

I don't know why you're telling us that the referendum was not legally binding, even my grandmother's cat, tigerpoos, knows that, so everyone in the country must know. The referendum did however, show that the will of the eligible electorate that could be bothered to vote, was for the UK to leave the EU.

 

The government decided to act on this advisory instruction from the electorate and started the protracted process of leaving. I’m not sure why you find this so confusing

Edited April 25, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[aright]

26 minutes ago, tebee said:

For those who keep talking about the "will of the people"

 

 For you constitutional law is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?

 

There is no "British people" and hence there is no "will". That's fascist talk, the kind of thing the Russian propaganda machine churns out on a daily basis. 

 

And the parliamentary vote is the key. Referendums have no legal force unless such force is embodied in the legislation. That is not the case here. As DAG points out, the government can claim a mandate for "leaving the EU", but that gets us nowhere near the practicalities of it. Many UK government agencies are making no plans to leave EU bodies because they know fine that it wont come to that; to borrow the words of the hapless Chris Grayling, who claimed on Question Time that there will be no checks on goods coming in at Dover after Brexit, "there's no other way of doing it".

 

Reality nullifies Brexit. Get over it. 
 

 

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

 Thomas Jefferson

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

For those who keep talking about the "will of the people"

 

 For you constitutional law is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?

 

There is no "British people" and hence there is no "will". That's fascist talk, the kind of thing the Russian propaganda machine churns out on a daily basis. 

 

And the parliamentary vote is the key. Referendums have no legal force unless such force is embodied in the legislation. That is not the case here. As DAG points out, the government can claim a mandate for "leaving the EU", but that gets us nowhere near the practicalities of it. Many UK government agencies are making no plans to leave EU bodies because they know fine that it wont come to that; to borrow the words of the hapless Chris Grayling, who claimed on Question Time that there will be no checks on goods coming in at Dover after Brexit, "there's no other way of doing it".

 

Reality nullifies Brexit. Get over it. 
 

 

"And the parliamentary vote is the key. Referendums have no legal force unless such force is embodied in the legislation. "

 

Errr...and parliament voted to trigger Article 50, no? I don't understand the point of your comment.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, aright said:

 

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

 Thomas Jefferson

 

Are you saying we should have another referendum? 

[aright]

46 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Are you saying we should have another referendum? 

The will of the people was expressed at the referendum. Are you saying we should keep having referendums until you get the result you want?

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

The will of the people was expressed at the referendum. Are you saying we should keep having referendums until you get the result you want?

Maybe just that now once people get to see what Brexit will actually mean for them, they might want to reconsider.

[malagateddy]

Maybe just that now once people get to see what Brexit will actually mean for them, they might want to reconsider.

Or maybe they will not..yesterday is history and tomorrow is a mystery..think it's time both "sides" had a t-break..and I am a Brexiteer??

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

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, aright said:

The will of the people was expressed at the referendum. Are you saying we should keep having referendums until you get the result you want?

 

It's not about getting the result I want, but I would support another referendum, yes. 

 

For one, the last one was too long ago, half a million voters have died since then and another half a million are not old enough to vote, they deserve their vote on this.  Also because the Leave campaign are currently accused of electoral fraud, and so I believe it should be put on hold until the investigation is complete and if it is true then it should be nullified and done again.  And then there are the polls where the public back a second and final referendum in a large majority.  If you believe in the will of the people then you would back a second referendum, the public want it by a 8 point lead.