Brexit and the Consequences

[sminicooper]

I beg to differ on your last point. The referendum was advisory. It does not represent the law of the land which is Parliament. The papers, the politicians and the people have been sold a pack of false promises that can not be delivered. They've even labelled the highest court in the land which claimed sovereignty of parliament traitors.

Moreover, the same numpties who bang on about taking back control are quite happy to cut and paste all EU rules into UK books whilst taking control away from Parliament.

TM held in contempt of Parliament. First time. Talk about sidelining parliament. Can anyone imagine what life would be like with Brexiteers thinking they have some carte blanche cheque to do what they bloody well like? Worst nightmare.


We need to bury Brexit. Euroseptic Remoaners are a minority and I'd hazard a guess they only represent 20-30% of the UK population if that?


As for where we go from here that's the big question. I still feel TM's half baked deal is naff and will cost UK more without really delivering a real deal. It's simply transition period when extended will cost more. During this time EU funds and investment will stop, uncertainty will prevail and a new deal hammered going forward. It's a load of costly tripe for impending worse deal.

If the EU gave UK a better deal than what she had, would that be fair on the remaining 27 member countries. No. Not exactly fair play by UK and I don't feel EU will entertain the thought either.

I now turn over TV station when TM when appears and opens her gob as I do when Trump starts talking. Feel as if my brain dies a little every time I have to listen to them talk crap.


Uncertainty prevails.

 

[sminicooper]

Conservatives fail to deal with the problem; Labour = doomsville; electorate unimpressed; gaping space waiting for an alternative. I await Farage & his backers to come forward & embrace a resurgence of populism/people power. Complacent & deaf politicians have brought us nothing but uncertainty. Dangerous times.

 

[Signalcalc]

*Signalcalc conspiracy theory (that eventually comes true) alt news service flash update*

As suspected, this whole debacle is planned, she delays the agreement vote (as she new the 1922 vote was coming) on the same day EU removes any possible opposition to UK amending Art50 timetable, she makes a quick visit to the continent to reassure/collude/prep the EU for next steps, makes a confident speech back home before the 1922 vote (she new she would be staying in power), now is back on the continent planning to either implement a different kind of agreement that parliament could agree to and/or to finalise the delay of Art50 preparations before the reinstatement of the vote which will fail, triggering the planned delay to Art50.

 

[Atilla]

Ear SC,

Just wondering what your thoughts may be if this fiasco goes to a 2nd referendum like back in 1975 and the people re-think it through and vote to remain as before and scrap Brexit?

Will you accept or carry on with the Euroseptic moaners?

 

[Atilla]

Conservatives fail to deal with the problem; Labour = doomsville; electorate unimpressed; gaping space waiting for an alternative. I await Farage & his backers to come forward & embrace a resurgence of populism/people power. Complacent & deaf politicians have brought us nothing but uncertainty. Dangerous times.

LOL his bored of his LBC radio show. People must be sick of him by now.

Very much looking forward to Farage UKIP-V2 party.

Bring on Labour and then LibDems.


Oh what joy

 

[Signalcalc]

Ear SC,

Just wondering what your thoughts may be if this fiasco goes to a 2nd referendum like back in 1975 and the people re-think it through and vote to remain as before and scrap Brexit?

Will you accept or carry on with the Euroseptic moaners?

For starters, you need to present facts - we had a single referendum in 1975, it was designed to gauge support for continued membership of the EC, a membership that the UK was brought into without the public's consultation, we'd already been signed into the EC by Ted Heath in 1973, the people didn't have an opportunity to state their opinion on the matter, that was the first constitutional mistake. The second constitutional mistake happened in 1992/3 when John Major joined us into the EU, again without any public consultation, if only a referendum had been held in 1992, then we might not be in such a difficult position now.

If I was of voting age in 1975, I may have voted for continued membership, despite the unconstitutional way the UK had been taken in, I'm pretty sure it looked like a trading arrangement in 1975 with very little hint of the political and legal maelstrom that would ensue 20 years later. However the problems over the sovereignty and legal aspects were clear in 1975 and possibly not communicated enough to the UK public, but not being old enough at the time then it's difficult to say. If we'd had the internet back then, then I suspect we would have extricated ourselves at that point as the public would have voted leave.

When you read the history and timeline of the 1975 referendum debates and the way parliament voted, the arguments, the split in the Tories and Labour and the recommendation of the govt to remain, you can draw many parallels with what has happened in the last 2.5 years, it's almost history repeating itself, apart from the fact that the vote has now gone against the majority remain that exists in parliament. This is where the political class and the citizens are at odds with each other.

So, given all that unconstitutional history surrounding the UK's membership of the EU and the current unconstitutional way Brexit has been handled so far, I'd say we have a clear pattern, except this time it's 3rd time unlucky for remainers. If there is another referendum at this point, that is unconstitutional to begin with, I am opposed to that. If such a referendum manifests in a vote to remain then I will feel doubly aggrieved at the process of leaving the EU. There is simply no excuse for it.

So yes the campaign to leave would continue and I am pretty sure that it will happen in time, there would be millions of people who would feel very similar to myself that will begin to vote for a political class that does listen to those who have voted for them, regime change would be on the cards, as remote as it may seem now, in 1993 leaving the EU was a remote possibility, so anything can happen, this thread will still be rolling in 30 years

Regardless of Brexit, there are many in the silent majority on the continent that are unhappy with the EU, change is coming, speed of change is the real question and how will it effect the member states in the years to come. If France, Germany, Italy and the UK are in full rebellion, then the EU only has the EU military to fall back on

 

[barjon]

No constitutional requirement for public consultation so far as I know.

 

[Atilla]

For starters, you need to present facts - we had a single referendum in 1975, it was designed to gauge support for continued membership of the EC, a membership that the UK was brought into without the public's consultation, we'd already been signed into the EC by Ted Heath in 1973, the people didn't have an opportunity to state their opinion on the matter, that was the first constitutional mistake. The second constitutional mistake happened in 1992/3 when John Major joined us into the EU, again without any public consultation, if only a referendum had been held in 1992, then we might not be in such a difficult position now.

If I was of voting age in 1975, I may have voted for continued membership, despite the unconstitutional way the UK had been taken in, I'm pretty sure it looked like a trading arrangement in 1975 with very little hint of the political and legal maelstrom that would ensue 20 years later. However the problems over the sovereignty and legal aspects were clear in 1975 and possibly not communicated enough to the UK public, but not being old enough at the time then it's difficult to say. If we'd had the internet back then, then I suspect we would have extricated ourselves at that point as the public would have voted leave.

When you read the history and timeline of the 1975 referendum debates and the way parliament voted, the arguments, the split in the Tories and Labour and the recommendation of the govt to remain, you can draw many parallels with what has happened in the last 2.5 years, it's almost history repeating itself, apart from the fact that the vote has now gone against the majority remain that exists in parliament. This is where the political class and the citizens are at odds with each other.

So, given all that unconstitutional history surrounding the UK's membership of the EU and the current unconstitutional way Brexit has been handled so far, I'd say we have a clear pattern, except this time it's 3rd time unlucky for remainers. If there is another referendum at this point, that is unconstitutional to begin with, I am opposed to that. If such a referendum manifests in a vote to remain then I will feel doubly aggrieved at the process of leaving the EU. There is simply no excuse for it.

So yes the campaign to leave would continue and I am pretty sure that it will happen in time, there would be millions of people who would feel very similar to myself that will begin to vote for a political class that does listen to those who have voted for them, regime change would be on the cards, as remote as it may seem now, in 1993 leaving the EU was a remote possibility, so anything can happen, this thread will still be rolling in 30 years

Regardless of Brexit, there are many in the silent majority on the continent that are unhappy with the EU, change is coming, speed of change is the real question and how will it effect the member states in the years to come. If France, Germany, Italy and the UK are in full rebellion, then the EU only has the EU military to fall back on

I agree about starting with facts but yours are sooo wrong and incomplete, it is bordering on criminal deception.

UK first applied back in 1961. There is an excellent article for anyone who's interested here and you can read more by clicking on the article.

Britain’s first attempt to join the EEC was thwarted by Charles de Gaulle. Piers Ludlow argues that the long and laborious process of negotiating the UK’s entry is relevant to the Brexit debate. Firstly, it is useful to remember why Britain felt the need to join the European club. Secondly, it is a reminder that states which wish to join must adapt to the EU’s rules, rather than the other way around. And even in 1961 the polarising effect of ‘Europe’ on British political debate was beginning to be felt.
Britain’s first application to join the EEC was made over half a century ago, in July 1961. Thanks to President Charles de Gaulle’s intervention, the membership bid failed. In the wake of the General’s celebrated – or infamous – press conference of January 14, 1963 at which he issued the first of his two vetoes of British membership, the application was frozen indefinitely. Britain’s wait on the margins of the integration process would continue for a decade more.

You really have to question why UK didn't join at conception and delegated task of watching Germany to the French? Anyhow don't want to go back to WW2 dribble.

Moreover, why did the UK change her mind? Fact of the matter is UK was falling behind EU on all accounts. UK has done well out of the EU as we are now fifth in the GDP league tables.

You keep talking about the constitution but totally sidelining sovereignty of Parliament. Which or what constitution are you referring to in your arguments above?


So the facts are
1. UK did not wish to join ESCC when it first thought of it as a great idea - created in 1952. Plan being for French to check Germany did not build military machine again
2. UK Made application to join EEC in 1961 - after realising it was falling behind EU countries growth
3. De Gaulle strongly opposed UK membership
4. UK managed to get full membership in 1973
5. Eurosceptics still not happy and we have another referendum in 1975 to see if we should leave.

Facts are having tried for 12 years to get into the club, a referendum follows after two years to see if it was worthwhile and we had good returns in 2 years and whether we should continue to stay.

You can't make this Sh!t up from the Euroseptics. Hillarious. AND so the real remoaners party continues today.

Being 5th in the World League of top GDP nations not good enough. Brexiteers think they can do better. They talk a lot but zilch evidence. They focus on 9 bn instead of 2.1 trillion of GDP. Like a flea on a dogs ar5e telling it where to sh1t. No need for brains.

 

[Signalcalc]

I agree about starting with facts but yours are sooo wrong and incomplete, it is bordering on criminal deception.

UK first applied back in 1961. There is an excellent article for anyone who's interested here and you can read more by clicking on the article.

Britain’s first attempt to join the EEC was thwarted by Charles de Gaulle. Piers Ludlow argues that the long and laborious process of negotiating the UK’s entry is relevant to the Brexit debate. Firstly, it is useful to remember why Britain felt the need to join the European club. Secondly, it is a reminder that states which wish to join must adapt to the EU’s rules, rather than the other way around. And even in 1961 the polarising effect of ‘Europe’ on British political debate was beginning to be felt.
Britain’s first application to join the EEC was made over half a century ago, in July 1961. Thanks to President Charles de Gaulle’s intervention, the membership bid failed. In the wake of the General’s celebrated – or infamous – press conference of January 14, 1963 at which he issued the first of his two vetoes of British membership, the application was frozen indefinitely. Britain’s wait on the margins of the integration process would continue for a decade more.

You really have to question why UK didn't join at conception and delegated task of watching Germany to the French? Anyhow don't want to go back to WW2 dribble.

Moreover, why did the UK change her mind? Fact of the matter is UK was falling behind EU on all accounts. UK has done well out of the EU as we are now fifth in the GDP league tables.

You keep talking about the constitution but totally sidelining sovereignty of Parliament. Which or what constitution are you referring to in your arguments above?


So the facts are
1. UK did not wish to join ESCC when it first thought of it as a great idea - created in 1952. Plan being for French to check Germany did not build military machine again
2. UK Made application to join EEC in 1961 - after realising it was falling behind EU countries growth
3. De Gaulle strongly opposed UK membership
4. UK managed to get full membership in 1973
5. Eurosceptics still not happy and we have another referendum in 1975 to see if we should leave.

Facts are having tried for 12 years to get into the club, a referendum follows after two years to see if it was worthwhile and we had good returns in 2 years and whether we should continue to stay.

You can't make this Sh!t up from the Euroseptics. Hillarious. AND so the real remoaners party continues today.

Being 5th in the World League of top GDP nations not good enough. Brexiteers think they can do better. They talk a lot but zilch evidence. They focus on 9 bn instead of 2.1 trillion of GDP. Like a flea on a dogs ar5e telling it where to sh1t. No need for brains.

You were talking about a second referendum that we had in the 1970s which is untrue.

You then decide to go further back in history in attempt to cover up your mistake and discredit me.

What randomness shall we move to next?

 

[Signalcalc]

No constitutional requirement for public consultation so far as I know.

Given that the UK doesn't have a constitution then there is not a constitutional requirement not to consult the public either!

I use the word unconstitutional in the UK context to convey the sense of the way UK politics acts as if it is a constitution, which is unlike say the US that does operate on a constitution and to say something is unconstitutional in the US would be true if it is contrary to the US constitution.

The general accepted parlance of a constitution in the UK is one of a country that has a constitution as parliament conducts its politics based on laws and acts set down over many years without reference to a constitution.

I hope that clears some of the confusion for you?

 

[Signalcalc]

I agree about starting with facts but yours are sooo wrong and incomplete, it is bordering on criminal deception.

Point out which facts I have stated that are wrong, just as I have done with your 'facts'?

UK first applied back in 1961. There is an excellent article for anyone who's interested here and you can read more by clicking on the article.

Britain’s first attempt to join the EEC was thwarted by Charles de Gaulle. Piers Ludlow argues that the long and laborious process of negotiating the UK’s entry is relevant to the Brexit debate. Firstly, it is useful to remember why Britain felt the need to join the European club. Secondly, it is a reminder that states which wish to join must adapt to the EU’s rules, rather than the other way around. And even in 1961 the polarising effect of ‘Europe’ on British political debate was beginning to be felt.
Britain’s first application to join the EEC was made over half a century ago, in July 1961. Thanks to President Charles de Gaulle’s intervention, the membership bid failed. In the wake of the General’s celebrated – or infamous – press conference of January 14, 1963 at which he issued the first of his two vetoes of British membership, the application was frozen indefinitely. Britain’s wait on the margins of the integration process would continue for a decade more.

You really have to question why UK didn't join at conception and delegated task of watching Germany to the French? Anyhow don't want to go back to WW2 dribble.

Moreover, why did the UK change her mind? Fact of the matter is UK was falling behind EU on all accounts. UK has done well out of the EU as we are now fifth in the GDP league tables.

All very interesting history, but irrelevent to the question you asked me.

You keep talking about the constitution but totally sidelining sovereignty of Parliament. Which or what constitution are you referring to in your arguments above?

At what point in my response did I sideline the sovereignty of parliament and for what purpose? The UK doesn't have a constitution, I've explained my use of the word unconstitutional in the UK context in my previous post, take heed.

So the facts are
1. UK did not wish to join ESCC when it first thought of it as a great idea - created in 1952. Plan being for French to check Germany did not build military machine again
2. UK Made application to join EEC in 1961 - after realising it was falling behind EU countries growth
3. De Gaulle strongly opposed UK membership
4. UK managed to get full membership in 1973
5. Eurosceptics still not happy and we have another referendum in 1975 to see if we should leave.

Good summary

Facts are having tried for 12 years to get into the club, a referendum follows after two years to see if it was worthwhile and we had good returns in 2 years and whether we should continue to stay.

I don't understand this sentence?

You can't make this Sh!t up from the Euroseptics. Hillarious. AND so the real remoaners party continues today.

What sh!t are you referring to?

Being 5th in the World League of top GDP nations not good enough. Brexiteers think they can do better. They talk a lot but zilch evidence. They focus on 9 bn instead of 2.1 trillion of GDP. Like a flea on a dogs ar5e telling it where to sh1t. No need for brains.

Your ranting makes no sense, who is claiming what where and by whom to do what and when?

 

[barjon]

Given that the UK doesn't have a constitution then there is not a constitutional requirement not to consult the public either!

I use the word unconstitutional in the UK context to convey the sense of the way UK politics acts as if it is a constitution, which is unlike say the US that does operate on a constitution and to say something is unconstitutional in the US would be true if it is contrary to the US constitution.

The general accepted parlance of a constitution in the UK is one of a country that has a constitution as parliament conducts its politics based on laws and acts set down over many years without reference to a constitution.

I hope that clears some of the confusion for you?

Now, now signal, by your assertion that the UK does not have a constitution you cannot therefore claim that taking us in etc without public consultation was non-constitutional. So, either way, you were egging the pudding. Not sure where the confusion lies, dear chap

 

[Atilla]

Point out which facts I have stated that are wrong, just as I have done with your 'facts'?



All very interesting history, but irrelevent to the question you asked me.



At what point in my response did I sideline the sovereignty of parliament and for what purpose? The UK doesn't have a constitution, I've explained my use of the word unconstitutional in the UK context in my previous post, take heed.




Good summary



I don't understand this sentence?



What sh!t are you referring to?



Your ranting makes no sense, who is claiming what where and by whom to do what and when?

Ok you may be right in terms of a first referendum, but you are playing at words and semantics skewing facts imho.

UK refuses to join in 1952. Sees it self above EU affairs with ESCC.

Gains access in 1973 and then has referendum just two years later in 1975.

What is the point of joining the EU having tried so hard for 12 years knocking on the door, only to have a referendum to check pulse of the nation just after two years later?

The sh!t I was referring to was the ability of the UK public to judge whether joining the EU was beneficial or not? 2 year horizon for a mega membership that took 12 years to make/join, is a very short window of opportunity to gauge anything reasonable. Why the self doubt? Indecision? Effectively a second poll of opinion is it not? Hence, my reference to 2nd referendum. Still looking at a 2 year payback as some kind of ROI to judge EU membership is a bit of a joke, is it not?

Looking at Wikipedia reason stated was to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European ... That continued membership speaks volumes.


Mixed up Eurosceptic puppies comes to mind. Wonder what or who made them think that was a good idea?

 

[Atilla]

You were talking about a second referendum that we had in the 1970s which is untrue.

You then decide to go further back in history in attempt to cover up your mistake and discredit me.

What randomness shall we move to next?

Not covering anything matey. You and CV have a habit of skewing events and facts to suit your agenda with no context.

 

[Signalcalc]

Now, now signal, by your assertion that the UK does not have a constitution you cannot therefore claim that taking us in etc without public consultation was non-constitutional. So, either way, you were egging the pudding. Not sure where the confusion lies, dear chap

Well, as I explained, I use the word unconstitutional to convey the sense that the UK operates politically as though it has a constitution even though it doesn't. In modern parlance I think most people understand that to be the case (whether they know that the UK has a constitution or not).

I could use other words to convey a similar meaning: unmoralistic, unfair, unrepresentative....and so on, but in the context of politics I think unconstitutional fits the bill even though it has no legal standing.

 

[Signalcalc]

Ok you may be right in terms of a first referendum, but you are playing at words and semantics skewing facts imho.

UK refuses to join in 1952. Sees it self above EU affairs with ESCC.

Gains access in 1973 and then has referendum just two years later in 1975.

What is the point of joining the EU having tried so hard for 12 years knocking on the door, only to have a referendum to check pulse of the nation just after two years later?

Because at the time there was a wide (not wide enough) understanding and scepticism of the real and undeclared intentions of the EU to expand it's borders in a legal and ideological manner. Look at the confusion this creates amongst remoaners and Brexiteers alike today, never mind in the 70s when it were much simpler then and beer was served warm.

Now we have had 45 years to evaluate the EU and come to the conclusion that it's not such a good idea after all, do you think that is enough time to make a good evaluation?

The sh!t I was referring to was the ability of the UK public to judge whether joining the EU was beneficial or not? 2 year horizon for a mega membership that took 12 years to make/join, is a very short window of opportunity to gauge anything reasonable. Why the self doubt? Indecision? Effectively a second poll of opinion is it not? Hence, my reference to 2nd referendum. Still looking at a 2 year payback as some kind of ROI to judge EU membership is a bit of a joke, is it not?

I was way too young at the time to be aware of it, but reading the history feels like experiencing it again for the last 30 months, at the end of the joining process there would have been so much arguing in parliament about the issue of joining that the only way to settle the matter would have been to put it out to a referendum, because parliament couldn't decide.

Looking at Wikipedia reason stated was to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European ... That continued membership speaks volumes.

I already said that in my previous post, and explained my reasoning why it happened on that timeline, the govt of the day was backtracking and trying to remove the pressure from eurosceptics.

Mixed up Eurosceptic puppies comes to mind. Wonder what or who made them think that was a good idea?

I don't see it that way, it's always been an argument about sovereignty and supremecy of law, nothing has really changed other than the ideology introduction in the early 90s that once again we had no say over. If a referendum had been held in 1992 we might not be in this position today as we might have ended up with some form of Norway/Canada/Swiss/take your pick agreement rather than total(itarium) control.

 

[Signalcalc]

I would welcome a referendum on the terms of our leaving the EU, there should be 2 questions:

• Leave on terms negotiated by UKGov & the EU
• Leave with no agreement

I don't see why there should be an option to remain, it makes no sense.

 

[Atilla]

Because at the time there was a wide (not wide enough) understanding and scepticism of the real and undeclared intentions of the EU to expand it's borders in a legal and ideological manner. Look at the confusion this creates amongst remoaners and Brexiteers alike today, never mind in the 70s when it were much simpler then and beer was served warm.

Now we have had 45 years to evaluate the EU and come to the conclusion that it's not such a good idea after all, do you think that is enough time to make a good evaluation?



I was way too young at the time to be aware of it, but reading the history feels like experiencing it again for the last 30 months, at the end of the joining process there would have been so much arguing in parliament about the issue of joining that the only way to settle the matter would have been to put it out to a referendum, because parliament couldn't decide.



I already said that in my previous post, and explained my reasoning why it happened on that timeline, the govt of the day was backtracking and trying to remove the pressure from eurosceptics.




I don't see it that way, it's always been an argument about sovereignty and supremecy of law, nothing has really changed other than the ideology introduction in the early 90s that once again we had no say over. If a referendum had been held in 1992 we might not be in this position today as we might have ended up with some form of Norway/Canada/Swiss/take your pick agreement rather than total(itarium) control.

Thank you for pointing that distinction out for me SC, but checking the referendum results and considering 12 year determination to join, I beg to differ about wide difference and/or scepticism you refer to. Referendum result was conclusive.

Thursday 5 June 1975, and voters approved continued EC/EEC membership by 67% to 33% on a national turnout of 64%.

UK industrial strife and failings were increasingly becoming obvious as shipbuilding, cars, textiles and manufacturing lost market share to international competition. In contrast, European countries grew very fast catching up to UK.

You are right in that the EU has grown and become more integrated but they were all steps in the right direction by virtue of our position today, shared values and principals not forgetting our living standards and quality of life in EU.

Our affairs will always be geo-politically and economically integrated into the EU. Eurosceptics argument about walking away and that we can do better elsewhere without EU was proven to be mistaken between 1952 - 1973. Without evidence or a game plan, it will similarly prove disastrous in the future unless we correct our mistake.

 

[Signalcalc]

Thank you for pointing that distinction out for me SC, but checking the referendum results and considering 12 year determination to join, I beg to differ about wide difference and/or scepticism you refer to. Referendum result was conclusive.

Thursday 5 June 1975, and voters approved continued EC/EEC membership by 67% to 33% on a national turnout of 64%.

UK industrial strife and failings were increasingly becoming obvious as shipbuilding, cars, textiles and manufacturing lost market share to international competition. In contrast, European countries grew very fast catching up to UK.

You are right in that the EU has grown and become more integrated but they were all steps in the right direction by virtue of our position today, shared values and principals not forgetting our living standards and quality of life in EU.

Our affairs will always be geo-politically and economically integrated into the EU. Eurosceptics argument about walking away and that we can do better elsewhere without EU was proven to be mistaken between 1952 - 1973. Without evidence or a game plan, it will similarly prove disastrous in the future unless we correct our mistake.

Unfortunately for Europhiles, having had 45 years to make an assessment, has resulted in a majority of 17.4M not agreeing, what can Europhiles do to persuade them to think otherwise?

 

[barjon]

I would welcome a referendum on the terms of our leaving the EU, there should be 2 questions:

• Leave on terms negotiated by UKGov & the EU
• Leave with no agreement

I don't see why there should be an option to remain, it makes no sense

I suppose there is some logic in that - it’d give me sleepless nights though. Frying pan or fire, frying pan or fire, frying pan or fire . Help!!