brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

As I have already stated, the pound has taken a massive tumble

Indeed, which has resulted in a huge increase in tourism and staycations. Billions more are now being spent on our products and services.

Every cloud has a silver lining and I have great confidence that this once great Country will be great again when finally untied from the EU failure.

Silly lefties and remoaners will carry on with the doom vibe and silly court cases.

Thal

[ahinton]

Indeed, which has resulted in a huge increase in tourism and staycations. Billions more are now being spent on our products and services.

It will inevitably have resulted in some people from within the Eurozone taking advantage of a cheap pound, but how long that might last given the widely publicised and slowly developing animosity towards UK from within parts of EU is anyone's guess; UK has done itself no favours with any of the others and Ms May's assertions that she'll be able to negotiate remaining in the single market for free whilst at the same time not complying with all the four conditions laid down for that possibility speaks eloquently for its own implausibility.

Every cloud has a silver lining and I have great confidence that this once great Country will be great again when finally untied from the EU failure.

I, too, hope that it will be so, but the fact that there are failures within EU (on which I agree with you) will continue to beset UK whether or not it remains a member; the worse EU fails, the worse it will be for the whole of Europe including UK. EU will be weaker and, I suspect, less easily amenable to much needed reform without UK as a member state.

Whatever happens, UK will not in any case be "untied" from EU for years, if ever.

Silly lefties and remoaners will carry on with the doom vibe and silly court cases.

The only people who will be carrying on with the court cases are the judges, court staff, lawyers and barristers, prosecution and defence, be they of the left, the right or anywhere in between; everyone else will simply have to observe what happens and digest the significance of the outcomes, whatever they might be, thereafter.

You seem to ignore the fact that many Remain supporters are not at all of the left; in so doing, you run into the danger of over-simplification. Not all left-wing people supported Leave. Not all Scots supported Remain. Not everyone in the larger UK cities supported Remain and not everyone living in rural areas supported Leave. It's not so simplistic and cut-and-dried as you appear to want to try to make out.

Furthermore, no one's doing the "doom vibe" right now, largely because no one knows what if anything might happen or when.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Well, i certainly can't accuse you of over simplification.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, i certainly can't accuse you of over simplification.

Well, that's good to know insofar as it goes, although you do not specify whether this is because you're incapable of doing so or because such accusation would not be justified.

That said, it would seem that the UK/EU in/out situation is itself hardly amenable to simple interpretation and that is, after all, the subject of the thread.

One thing that is relatively simple to understand (albeit far from simple to describe in full) is that, should UK leave EU, EU will be irrevocably damaged and become a lesser entity - and one of the victims of the fallout from that will be UK itself, as it is in Europe whether anyone likes it or not.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

One thing that is relatively simple to understand (albeit far from simple to describe in full) is that, should UK leave EU, EU will be irrevocably damaged and become a lesser entity - and one of the victims of the fallout from that will be UK itself, as it is in Europe whether anyone likes it or not.

The only thing that will be damaged will be the massive and unnecessary pile of red tape and interference that this monster has grown in to. I do not hope the EU is damaged in its current form, I would like to see it destroyed. The horridly corrupt institution that this failed body has grown into is not needed for European Countries to do business with each other.

You moan that it will take years to unentangle ourselves from this mess and no doubt it will. I only wish that stupid politicians of the past had not signed away so much of our control.

Hopefully, the elections that are due in France and Germany will see the end of the EU and hopefully the end of Merkel who has destroyed the destiny of her Country and who's thoughtless actions will turn a once great Country into an infested third world craphole.

Thal

[ahinton]

The only thing that will be damaged will be the massive and unnecessary pile of red tape and interference that this monster has grown in to.

I fear that it will not be so simple; if only it were. The departure of UK (should it occur) will will only serve, as I stated, to make due refors to EU all the less likely.

I do not hope the EU is damaged in its current form, I would like to see it destroyed. The horridly corrupt institution that this failed body has grown into is not needed for European Countries to do business with each other.

But with what would you replace it? Pre-WWII Europe is not something to which anyone in his/her right mind would wish to return and it remains the case that all wars in Europe since WWII have taken place outside EU. Whatever might replace EU shold it fail completely will be another national grouping or series thereof and there would be no guarantees that it would end up any better than EU. No European country is or could ever be self-sufficient and, up against the big super-powers, individual European nations would stand little chance or survival.

You moan that it will take years to unentangle ourselves from this mess and no doubt it will.

I don't "moan" about this; I merely not the obvious. Just taking apart tens on millions of pages of more than four decades of law and revising them would alone require years and resources of almost bankrupting immensity.

I only wish that stupid politicians of the past had not signed away so much of our control.

But what "control" did UK have before EU? Remember the two wold wars and UK's part therein?

Hopefully, the elections that are due in France and Germany will see the end of the EU and hopefully the end of Merkel who has destroyed the destiny of her Country and who's thoughtless actions will turn a once great Country into an infested third world craphole.

I doubt that these and the ones in the Netherlands will do any such thing, especially on their own; the warning lights are already on following UK's departure announcement, so precautions against this risk are doubtless already being taken. I disagree entirely with your take on Merkel; can you imagine who else would have done better in her position should she not herself have occupied it?

I am not in favour of ever greater European integration to the point of the creation of the United States of Europe, but inter-European co-operation there must be, in the ultimate cultural, trading, security and other interests of the 70 or so nations that make up greater Europe. Each individual nation is far too small to manage alone in any kind of isolationist way. There's nothing essentially wrong with national pride as long as it does not rear its head above the international kind.

Unlike you, I do not see either the country where I live (England), the one that I came from (Scotland) or UK as a whole as "my" country; I'm not possessive about it and see no reason to be so. Furthermore, some people's pride in their country embraces pride in having immigrants living and working within it. No one has ever expressed "Scots go home" sentiments in my hearing and I'd no more wish to hear such if I lived in Poland than I would living as I do in England.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I agree that there must be co-operation, but not integration nor interference and that is what the EU has grown into.

The recent judgement on "Apple", shows that an individual Country cannot even control its own taxation.

The EU experiment has failed and deserves to die.

Thal

[ahinton]

I agree that there must be co-operation, but not integration nor interference and that is what the EU has grown into.

Not total integration, no - or even integration to limited the extent that the United States of America are integrated, but one problem with EU (albeit by no means the only one) is the lack of consistency of approach towards the desirability of integration to a certain level and the adverse effects of it when taken too far - in other words, not every senior EU official has the same take on this.

One of the vital reforms of EU must therefore be the establishment of such consistency of approach to integration, so that it has only positive effects but at the same time does not unduly interfere with members states' own aspirations. UK already trades with non-EU nations, just as do other EU nations; care must be taken not to restrict unduly any member state's right to trade outside EU.

The recent judgement on "Apple", shows that an individual Country cannot even control its own taxation.

Whilst that judgement will be appealed, you are, of course correct but it goes farther than this in illustrating what can happen when a company becomes sufficiently wealthy and powerful as to be capable of overriding nations' governmental rules, systems and controls. In UK, the Institue of Economic Affairs, clearly aware of this in general terms and with particular reference to this case, has lately been calling for UK to abolish Corporation Tax altogether, not least because taxation does not, cannot and will not escape the world of international competition, tax being as competitive an industry as any other.

The EU experiment has failed and deserves to die.

What you write here might be taken to be suggestive of some kind of "final solution"; death, however, solves few problems; were EU to fail completely, as you appear to advocate, the fallout for the whole of Europe would be very grave indeed, especially if no one had planned in advance for a hopefully more viable alternative régime just as has been and remains the case in UK in respect of Brexit!

Meanwhile, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-37265840 .

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What you write here might be taken to be suggestive of some kind of "final solution"; death, however, solves few problems; were EU to fail completely, as you appear to advocate, the fallout for the whole of Europe would be very grave indeed

Why would it be very grave?

Released from the burden of this interfering nonsense and released from pouring billions of pounds into a corrupt and failed business would be great for individual Countries.

Thal

[ahinton]

Why would it be very grave?

Released from the burden of this interfering nonsense and released from pouring billions of pounds into a corrupt and failed business would be great for individual Countries.

Think WWI and WWII.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I think you are in the realms of fantasy there Jones.

Thal

[ahinton]

I think you are in the realms of fantasy there Jones.

You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment (wrote he, pitting one television series against another). In any event, no one wants the risk of a return to a pre-WWII situation or anything remotely akin thereto.

Never call a Scotsman "Jones"; it doesn't usually go down too well.

Anyway, let's put our trust in Ms May (who's done nothing material about the matter 72 days after the opinion poll outcome wsas announced) to continue not to act, as she is legally entitled to do; after all, Theresa raft of reasons for her to sit tight and avoid pressing buttons...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It was not an opinion poll it was a referendum.

Mrs May has probably done more than you or i think and if she needs time to get the best deal for us, then so be it.

So sooner she pulls the trigger the better.

Thal

[ahinton]

It was not an opinion poll it was a referendum.

Same thing. It is not merely my opinion that UK referenda have no legal clout; it is a plain unadulterated and unarguable fact. All UK referenda are therefore just that; opinion polls to test the apparent view of the electorate, no moe, no less. The same applied in the first Scottish referendum; OK, its outcome was maintenance of the status quo so there was nothing that could have been done following its outcome but, had that outcome supported Scotland's independence from the rest of UK, it would have had no legal clout at all (just like this year's UK/EU in/out one) and therefore no one in Holyrood or Westmonster would have needed to do anything about it.

Mrs May has probably done more than you or i think and if she needs time to get the best deal for us, then so be it.

I'm not suggesting that she's been idle and done nothing at all; I merely pointed out that there have to date been no material outcomes of anything that she might so far have done. And yes, if she needs more time to get the best deal for UK, then so be it, despite your clamouring for her to pull the trigger at the earliest opportunity - but then if she decides that the best deal for UK is to do nothing, that that's presumably what she'll do. She's probgably only too well aware of the difficulties that will be put before her and her government if negotionations commence.

So sooner she pulls the trigger the better.

But you just said that, if she feels that she needs more time, then so be it! Which is it to be? Impetuosity or patient pragmatism?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

She will have 2 years after pulling the trigger. If she can't extracate us from this mess within that time frame, she should go and she must stick to her guns on immigration.

Hopefully the morons that were responsible for gradually signing away our powers will be held to account, but i doubt it.

Thal

[ahinton]

She will have 2 years after pulling the trigger.

That's not only not set in stone but extremely unlikely; the negotiations, should they ever cpommence, are widely assumed to require far longer than that and, in any case, there's fortunately no sign of her pulling that trigger in the foreseeable future in any case.

If she can't extracate us from this mess within that time frame, she should go

It was not a mess of her particular making, even though it was her party that was the only one to offer a referendum on the matter (so, had it lost the last General Election, it wouldn't have been held anyway).

she must stick to her guns on immigration.

But what particular guns are they? and how can she stick with them if she wants to ensure UK's continued free participation in the European single market when free movement of labour, &c., is one of the four conditions of that to which all other EU member states must ans do adhere?

Hopefully the morons that were responsible for gradually signing away our powers will be held to account, but i doubt it.

One of "our powers" that hasn't actually been signed away is the sovereignty of Parliament; in this instance, however, instead of signing it away, government has sought to ignore and indeed undermine it by submitting this most important of issues to a non-legally binding referendum rather than to debate and vote in both houses of UK's so-called "sovereign" Parliament as the electorate elects and pays for it to do.

Is the mercifully unlikely event that Parliament wished, for example, to consider bringing back the death penalty for murder, would you be content to let it put this out to referendum rather than debate and vote on it in both houses of Parliament?

Had the Tories not won the UK General Election last time around, how would you have felt about the abandonment of the referendum that would then have occurred because no other party wanted to have one?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Had the Tories not won the UK General Election last time around, how would you have felt about the abandonment of the referendum that would then have occurred because no other party wanted to have one?

Firstly, it was bleeding obvious that the Tories were going to win the election in the absence of any credible opposition.

Secondly. It would have been horrific for the electorate to have been refused a say on such an important matter. If Labour had got in, we would have suffered even further erosion of our powers, even more integration and perhaps even joining the Euro which would have driven the final nails into the UK coffin.

Thal

[ahinton]

Firstly, it was bleeding obvious that the Tories were going to win the election in the absence of any credible opposition.

It wasn't at all obvious to most political commentators at the time that anyone would win it outright, but that's not the whole point; only the Tories included this referendum promise in their election manofesto - even UKIP didn't do that! If that doesn't tell you something, it should!

Secondly. It would have been horrific for the electorate to have been refused a say on such an important matter. If Labour had got in, we would have suffered even further erosion of our powers, even more integration and perhaps even joining the Euro which would have driven the final nails into the UK coffin.

I wasn't taking about Labour getting in. The previous government had been a coalition of two parties and some forecasts had suggested that the outcome might have to be one made up of three. A second coalition would have seen off this referendum. But why offer this matter to the public in the form of a referendum when no other important issue has been farmed out like this in living memory and when many members of the electorate simply don't have the expertise to make an intelligent decision based on sufficiently comprehesnive knowledge of what is after all a most complex subject?

I do not think for one moment that UK would (or, for that matter, should) have applied to join the Euro; it's not done so in 17 years, so why now?

I voted because I felt obliged to do so and did do some study beforehand but do not pretend that I had anything like the expertise to do this. Why do you believe that the referendum instrument was appropriate for this particular process but not for any other lawmaking process?

Meanwhile, take care of your blood pressure because I'm about to link to a short piece in very bad French from someone whom I would never usually think to quote - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-britain-can-still-avoid-brexit-a7220641.html ...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

To take the taste of Tony Blair out of readers' mouths, here's more:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/05/david-davis-brexit-commons-statement-leaving-uk-since-brexit-vote-poll-suggests-politics-live
https://news.sky.com/story/japans-unprecedented-warning-to-uk-over-brexit-10564585
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-will-make-insurance-firms-quit-uk-says-lloyds-of-london-boss-a7225941.html
https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/09/what-does-brexit-mean-when-we-have-decided-what-you-voted-for-we-will-tell-you/
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-theresa-may-immigration-calais-jungle-protests-farmers-refugees-australian-style-points-a7226661.html
https://theconversation.com/frozen-like-a-rabbit-in-g20-headlights-britain-struggles-to-deal-with-brexit-64785
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-japan-companies-could-withdraw-uk-investment-eu-deal-requests-a7225996.html .

What's the betting that stuff like this will still be in circulation by the time of the next General Election, whenever that might be.

For anyone who's yet to be bored stiff by the way in which all of this is not being handled, here's a useful source of published information:

https://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Brexit

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But why offer this matter to the public in the form of a referendum when no other important issue has been farmed out like this in living memory and when many members of the electorate simply don't have the expertise to make an intelligent decision based on sufficiently comprehesnive knowledge of what is after all a most complex subject?

What a snobbish thing to say. In that case, why do we have general or local elections when the poor electorate don't have sufficient knowledge?

As individuals we have a vote, whether we can grasp complex political problems or not. What you said stinks of elitism.

We had a referendum to join this mess and it was entirely appropriate to have another one to consider leaving.

End of story. Live with it.

Thal

[ahinton]

What a snobbish thing to say. In that case, why do we have general or local elections when the poor electorate don't have sufficient knowledge?

As individuals we have a vote, whether we can grasp complex political problems or not. What you said stinks of elitism.

We had a referendum to join this mess and it was entirely appropriate to have another one to consider leaving.

End of story. Live with it.

So if everyone had greater expertise to deal with and vote on so vastly important an issue than did the Parliament whose members it elects and funds, why do we need those elected and paid-for representatives in Parliament? We might as well do it all ourselves!

We do indeed have a vote but, at general and local government elections, we have several representatives of different political parties from whom to choose when voting whereas, in this referendum, there were no candidates, one simple in/out question about an incredibly complex set of issues and the only option besides Remain and Leave was abstention.

You have never answered why you believe that a referendum held under the conditions that this one was held was the best way to deal with this but not so in respect of any other legislative matter. Could you answer that now?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Clearly we cannot have a referendum on every piece of legislation. They are horrifically expensive and time consuming.

As i have said before, we nad a referendum that got us into this mess and it was right that we had a referendum to get us out.

Now please stop all your snobby elitist nonsense.

Thal

[ahinton]

Clearly we cannot have a referendum on every piece of legislation. They are horrifically expensive and time consuming.

Indeed; as to the expense, you have only to consider that the government that launched it spent some £9m on the campaign and that was only for starters.

But if, as you quite rightly note, "we cannot have a referendum on every piece of legislation", why should we have had one on this one? For what other types of legislation might you consider a referendum to be appropriate?

The most fundamental problem with using the conduct of referenda as a means towards the creation of new legislation in UK is that their outcomes are not legally binding upon Parliament and the buck for setting and repealing legislation is Parliament; when an issue is subjected to Parliamentary debate and voting, as is almost always the case with legislation, the outcome IS legally binding once each such piece of legislation is given the Royal Assent.

We didn't need this issue to be raised at all, either in Parliament or in a referendum (and only one UK political party promised in its election manifesto that it would be so, had that party not won an outright majority, it would never have occurred) but, since it has, the notion of subjecting it to referendum was as dangerous as it was pointless and it has exposed all manner of divisions, not least between (a) the four nations of UK and (b) MPs and their constituents; in terms of the latter, just think how many MPs voted one way when the majority of their consitutents voted the other way!

As i have said before, we nad a referendum that got us into this mess and it was right that we had a referendum to get us out.

We shouldn't have had one for either, actually but, since we have done, it is important to be careful what you wish for and to recognise that the outcome of a non-legally binding opinion poll with a very close result is likely to get us into far more than it will get us out of.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

it is important to be careful what you wish for and to recognise that the outcome of a non-legally binding opinion poll with a very close result is likely to get us into far more than it will get us out of.

That is your view and i doubt if it will ever change. My view is different as i believe we will thrive when finally freed from the suffocating tentacles of the EU.

Already, the signs are good. The Project Fear nonsense is clearly baseless and what has been said by the Tories thus far is promising. Curtailing the hoards of unemployed EU citizens is essential.

Tha,

[ahinton]

That is your view and i doubt if it will ever change.

My views are always amenable to change if and when there good reasons in the form of reliable evidence to persuade them to do so; that said, my description of the referendum voting figures as "the outcome of a non-legally binding opinion poll with a very close result" is not "my view" or indeed anyone else's "view" - it's a plain fact. Parliament is not obliged to do anything about it (although it can if so it chooses) and the result was very close; there's no getting away from either of those unless one has one's head firmly in the sand.

My view is different as i believe we will thrive when finally freed from the suffocating tentacles of the EU.

Whilst I applaud your optimism and indeed wish that I could share it, where your view is flawed - or at the very least insufficiently well considered - is in the fact that, even should Article 50 be invoked and negotiations begin, you have no more idea than I or anyone else to what extent their outcomes will serve the best interests of UK and, if broadly speaking they do not, UK could end up after they're done and dusted in a state of disagreement whereupon EU would have no option but simply to eject UK as one of its member states and it would then call the shots and have things its own way, possibly to the severe detriment of UK. I am not, in so saying, suggesting that Ms May and her negotiators in waiting are a bunch of incompetents - far from it, indeed - but they will be up against 27 other nations throughout and that will, as you have yourself admitted, mean a real uphill struggle.

One problem right now with some Tories as well as some Brexiteers from other parties is the unfounded but noisy and seemingly unshakeable braggadocio with which they seek to convince the public that UK will simply sweep in like some moder-day jknight in shining armour and get everything that it wants from EU just as and when it wants it; I fear that they'll find that they have quite another set of thinks coming and that the reality may well be quite uncomfortably different to the aspirations that they seek to parade as foregone conclusions (rather like so many liars on both sides sought to parade speculations as statistical facts during the referendum campaign).

Already, the signs are good. The Project Fear nonsense is clearly baseless and what has been said by the Tories thus far is promising.

What "signs"? What that's "been said"? Very little has been done and very little said other than a mix of hot air, vague generalisations and hand-waving rhetoric, so it is a matter of little surprose that Project Fear has yet to depart these shores.

Curtailing the hoards of unemployed EU citizens is essential.

To the extent that we're all EU citizens and will remain so for the next few years whatever may happen (or not) to Brexit, then yes, there remains a need to curb unemployment by ensuring that the economy can develop sufficiently well to support the creation of more jobs but, much as I hope that it will do just that, the consequences of firms cutting back and pulling out of UK because of Brexit can no more be ignored than can the immense cost of seeing Brexit through to whatever end result can be obtained.

Furthermore, as I've already said (and many others have done the same), EU will be worse off without UK and that fact can only end up damaging Europe as a whole.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The EU will be worse off without the UK as we are a huge contributor, but i very much doubt if the UK will be worse off without the EU.

They need us at least as much as we need them, so i expect a good trade deal with severe curtailment of free movement.

The stupid cow Merkel is already paying the political price of her stupidity and  doubt if she will survive.

Thal

[ahinton]

The EU will be worse off without the UK

As indeed I have already said; worse of not only economically but in many other waysa as well and, as this will reflect throughout EU, it will inevitably reflect outside it in the rest of Europe - and, as we are all Europeans, it will affect us. Cutting of noses to spite faces will be well illustrated here if it's allowed to proceed.

but i very much doubt if the UK will be worse off without the EU.

It will be so not only because of what I've written above but because UK will still be seeking to trade with the remainder of a depleted and disadvantaged EU and so will suffer along with all those other EU nations.

They need us at least as much as we need them, so i expect a good trade deal with severe curtailment of free movement.

But "they" didn't ask UK to leave or want UK to leave and so they will be aggrieved; UK's leaving will damage EU and UK will suffer as a consequence, just as will all other EU nations IF it's all allowed to proceed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We will still be trading with other Countries in the EU, so i do not see who is disadvantaged.

We will be able to make our own trade deals with any country we choose when removed from the EU mess. Don't forget that the EU failed to secure a deal with the US.

Thal

[ahinton]

We will still be trading with other Countries in the EU, so i do not see who is disadvantaged.

What's needed is a reduction in restrictive trading practices as part of EU's modus operandi in terms of each member state's entitlement to trade with nations outside EU; that would be good for EU and UK.

Where some of the future disadvantage might well occur is as a consequence of the destabilising and weakening of EU due to UK's future departure should that occur; that would be bad for EU and for UK.

We will be able to make our own trade deals with any country we choose when removed from the EU mess. Don't forget that the EU failed to secure a deal with the US.

It's not all about what UK thinks that it will be able to do and seeks to persuade its electorate that it can do; it's also about what other nations are prepared to accept and do. Australia, for example, has now announced that it wants to prioritise trade deals with EU over those with UK and to postpone the making of the latter arrangements until a clearer picture emerges as to what Brexit means for UK, which isn't about to happen any time soon.

What US might do is anyone's guess. Obama's threat to put UK to the back of the queue should Brexit be pursued was unfortunate and, frankly, unworthy of him but, as his days as President are now numbered, it's unclear whether
(a) Clinton will more or less follow suit should she win and
(b) whether Trump will adopt a different stance should he win.

The latter is arguably the more unpredictable of the two (just as Trump himself is the more unpredictable of the two Presidential candidates), not least because of the likelihood of his pursuing somewhat isolationist policies and goals based upon a misplaced exaggeration of America's assumed potential self-sufficiency.

In the meantime, what's now also increasingly being suggested in UK is that the most appropriate time, if any, for a second referendum (although hopefully it won't be handled that way) is at the end of the negotiations with EU (should they commence and be seen through) and it should on that occasion be for the purpose of deciding what to do thereafter in terms of whether and to what extent the outcomes of those negotiations are deemed to be in UK's interests.

The principal thrust behind this idea is that, should those negotiations fail to result in deals that sufficiently favour UK, its electorate (should the outcomes then be put to a second referendum) or Parliament (if not) would likely decide to abandon Brexit and have UK remain an EU member state unless EU decided to eject it as such (which I think unlikely, regardless of the amount of animosity that will have been generated during those negotiations).

You wrote yesterday of inflexibility and a refusal to change one's mind; would you change yours and vote for UK to remain in EU a few years down the line should those negotiations result in a much worse set of deals for UK?

As someone has posted earlier today on another forum:

Looks like even the Aussies, who are so desperate to sign a new trade deal with us, are now telling us a deal is years away and a EU deal with them comes first.

It has now become perfectly obvious that, if and when we do leave the EU, we shall then become completely dependent on still being able to access the Single Market. Even by leaving and negotiating the best deal with the EU available, that deal cannot possibly be as good as the one we enjoy at present. The UK will still have to pay the EU for this access and it will have absolutely no say in the forming of EU policy which will continue to directly affect us even when we do leave.

So we end up in a worse position, with no extra money for the NHS or anything else. We shall then have to wait until the Aussies and others find it convenient to strike any new deals with us. Wow, really exciting and empowering all this 'return of sovereignty' sounds, doesn't it?

So much for "getting our country back", "getting our control back" and all other similarly mythical platitudes!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I do not share your doom and neither it appears does the govenor of the Bank of England.

Getting control back was a powerful message used by the Brexit campaigners and it was entirely correct to do so. When finally freed of those meddling idiots, the World is our oyster and i have great faith in our current PM to see us through any hiccups.

If you wish to carry on with yiur silly fear stories, please do it somewhere else.

Thal

[ahinton]

I do not share your doom and neither it appears does the govenor of the Bank of England.

There's no doom here, Thal. Whatever anyone might say or think, good or bad, about Brexit, the procedure to commence negotiations does not even have a start date yet, they'll take years if ever they do commence and, if the end results are deemed by government and others in authority to be against UK's interests, you would surely not expect the government to lie down, accept them and complete Brexit procedures, would you?

Getting control back was a powerful message used by the Brexit campaigners

I know - although control of precisely what and how was never made clear, unsurprisingly, because it can't be. If negotiations do begin, UK will have to do its best and I don't doubt that it will do so, but it's in no position to call all the shots and guarantee results that favour it; that would entail its being able to tell EU what all the deal arrangements are to be. Bravado-struck Brexiteers seem conveniently to overlook that rather important fact.

When finally freed of those meddling idiots

...with whom you earlier stated correctly that we would continue to deal (in trade and other things), so when and how could we ever be "freed from" them?

the World is our oyster

But being an EU member state does not preclude UK from trading with nations outside EU now! - and, personally, I'm not fond of oysters (for all that such admission constitutes heresy of the worst kind in France and Cornwall!)...

i have great faith in our current PM to see us through any hiccups

Well, you're good at hiccups, Thal, as we know, but my faith in her is in her pragmatism, her refusal to be rushed and her eventual decision either to
(a) refuse to invoke Article 50 or
(b) to invoke it some time next year, oversee the ensuing negotiations and refuse to accept the result of them if they're against UK's interests, in which case Brexit will forthwith be ditched in those interests and the status quo will be restored. At least we share some faith in Ms May, even if it is not quite about the same things!

If you wish to carry on with yiur silly fear stories, please do it somewhere else.

I do not, nor have I done, nor do I even have any such stories to tell. I have simply presented facts are they are. As I stated earlier, neither you nor I nor the UK government nor the Bank of England governor nor indeed anyone else can possibly predict the outcome of any of the negotiations that might not even begin; that itself is one such fact.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But being an EU member state does not preclude UK from trading with nations outside EU now!

We cannot negotiate trade deals with non member states whilst we are still a member of the EU. We have to let those idiots do it for us.

Even if we left the EU with no trade deal with them, we would have to pay a tariff which is widely thought would be under 3%. Our net contribution to the EU is equivalent to a 7% tarriff. Would you be happy to pay 7% to avoid paying under 3%.

A one word answer will suffice.

Thal

[ahinton]

We cannot negotiate trade deals with non member states whilst we are still a member of the EU. We have to let those idiots do it for us.

I've already stated that there are restrictive practices which need to be revised, which can be done only if UK remains an EU member state unless other EU member states manage to do it.

Even if we left the EU with no trade deal with them, we would have to pay a tariff which is widely thought would be under 3%. Our net contribution to the EU is equivalent to a 7% tarriff. Would you be happy to pay 7% to avoid paying under 3%.

A one word answer will suffice.

Sorry, I can't oblige with a one word answer, but I hope that a six word one will do. It is "let's wait and see what happens".

"Tariff" has only one "r", by the way.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

1. The only way to remove restrictive practices is to leave, not stay. The EU is unreformable.

2. You did not answer my question.

Thal

[ahinton]

1. The only way to remove restrictive practices is to leave, not stay. The EU is unreformable.

In your opinion, perhaps - but UK leaving it will almost certainly make it considerable more so, which will do neither UK nor the remainder of EU any good whatsoever.

2. You did not answer my question.

I answered it by  stating that it is premature to answer it! We do not yet know what will be on the table - or indeed if anything will be on the tabvle or even if there will be a table; it is therefore pointless to discuss percentages when no date has even been set for negotiations and it might yet not be set at all.

Whatever happens if Article 50 is involked will find one nation - UK - battling it all out with 27 others that did not want it to leave EU, which in itself hardly bodes well for good outcomes for UK.

You, incidentally, did not answer my questions, as follows.

Firstly, you wrote

"When finally freed of those meddling idiots"

and I responded

"...with whom you earlier stated correctly that we would continue to deal (in trade and other things), so when and how could we ever be "freed from" them?"

Secondly, I wrote "You wrote yesterday of inflexibility and a refusal to change one's mind; would you change yours and vote for UK to remain in EU a few years down the line should those negotiations result in a much worse set of deals for UK?"

I asked these question because

(a) I cannot see how UK will be "freed" of all associations with any other EU member state with which it continues to trade, in which some of its citizens live and work and some of whose citizens live and work in UK and
(b) somehow I cannot imagine you looking favourably upon UK's wholesale acceptance of any deals that emerge from the negotiations (assuming that there ever are any and that none of them ends in deadlock) if they do not serve its interests well.

Perhaps you can clarify these points.

In the meantime, one vital factor that you and some other Brexiteers seem almost wilfully to overlook is that, as an EU member state for the foreseeab le future, UK does not, will not and cannot call all the shots, so even if Ms May does eventually press that button, there is no reason whatsoever to anticipate everything going in UK's favour thereafter.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Very long, but you still have not answered my simple qiestion.

Thal

[ahinton]

Very long, but you still have not answered my simple qiestion.

What's a "qiestion"?

Anyway, never mind that - I've told you why I have not answered your question and that is, quite simply, because it doesn't have an answer right now; I do not provide answers to hypothetical questions because to do so would neither prove nor achieve anything.

We do not know what percentages, if any, might apply following the outcome of negotiations should they commence, because we cannot know how UK might emerge therefrom. We also have no idea of the effect on EU of the very fact that negotiatons are taking place ove a period of years, although I imagine that it is far more likely to be negative than positive.

Moreover, Netherlands, France and Germany all have elections next year; these will take place either during that period of negotiation or before it should Ms May postpone invoking Article 50 until after their results are known; any one or possibly all of these could have a significant impact upon those countries and, in turn, upon EU as a whole and might accordingly affect how matters proceed between UK and the rest of EU.

I've asked you not one but two easily answerable questions, but you have so far declined to oblige; perhaps you might care to do that now.

In the meantime, here's some more homework for you, all published within the pastg 24 hours and, please note, none in The Guardian:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-trigger-brexit-eu-revoke-economic-plan-legal-trade-agreement-a7231446.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/ryanair-basing-new-planes-outside-of-uk-due-to-brexit-35030035.html

https://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-increases-uk-prices-for-iphone-7-ipad-pro-air-after-brexit-weak-pound-2016-9

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/iphone-7-uk-price-release-date-pre-order-apple-store-brexit-a7231416.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/brad-pitt-compares-brexit-with-donald-trump-becoming-president-a3339761.html

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-eu-intelligence-security-sharing-will-be-badly-hit-post-brexit-warns-europol-strategy-head-1580289

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/brexit-2-why-uk-s-human-rights-act-should-not-be-repealed-1.2784054

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/city-london-could-suffer-serious-backlash-if-britain-leaves-single-market-1580283

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/09/08/brexit-the-case-for-a-parliamentary-vote/

https://www.lbc.co.uk/brexit-to-cause-15-years-of-economic-pain---former-eu-lawyer-136652

These should keep you going for a while...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Parliamentary debate of the petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 took place at London's Westmoinster Hall (HoC's second chamber) and a video recording of it and a copy of its transcript in Hansard may respectively be seen/heard and read by clicking the appropriate links on this page.

The sponsor, an SNP MP, got it off to so bad a start that its chair, also a Scot, felt obliged eventually to shut him up and force him to remain seated and ask others to resume it. Although I am a Scot (albeit not a mamber of SNP) and did not disagree with much of what this MP said in his opening remarks, that MP insisted on harping on about Scotland, how Brexit and the referendum impacts upon Scotland and the rest instread of sticking to the specific subject of the debate. Some others who followed did the same in wandering off the exact subject matter and, although some good points were made, the overall impression was not good and I am accordingly unsurprised that no decision was taken after it.

A second referendum - undertaken as a re-run of the first one but with more stringent majority and turnout requirements (as called for in the petition) - was never going to be on the cards in any case, not least because
(a) the terms of that first one cannot be changed retrospectively
(b) the issue should never have been put to referendum in the first place and
(c) there was no justifiable reason even for that issue to be subjected to Parliamentary debate, since the impetus for holding it was based solely on Tory fears of the risk of defections to UKIP from within its party's midst (which is why it was the only party to promise it in its 2015 General Election manifesto).

However, as a prelude to the various legal challenges, it was quite useful insofar as it helped to focus attention on the facts that
(a) the outcome of the opinion poll is not legally binding upon Parliament
(b) the conduct of said poll might be found to have been illegal and
(c) said outcome might be amenable to being legally overturned even after Article 50 has been invoked (if indeed it is so);
after all, its signatory tally is equivalent to almost 10% of the entire UK electorate (and more than 12% of the number of people who voted) which, if nothing else, demonstrates the extent of abiding public concern about it.

Many a slip, indeed...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is all sour grapes and will come to nothing.

Anyway, I will answer all of your question in one small sentence. "let's wait and see what happens".

I believe you have used the same yourself.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

after all, its signatory tally is equivalent to almost 10% of the entire UK electorate (and more than 12% of the number of people who voted) which, if nothing else, demonstrates the extent of abiding public concern about it.

And nowhere near the number that voted to leave, which demonstrates the extent of public concern about it.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is all sour grapes and will come to nothing.

Judges and High / Supreme Court time and facilities are not customarily pressed into service for the purpose of selling mere sour grapes; no judge would try nor Court accept for trial a case that was transparently vexatious or otherwise had no possible merit. If any of them are won, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. No one can predict the outcome of any of those cases until they have been tried and gone to appeal if necessary; were it possible to do so, there would be no point in holding the trials in the first place.

Anyway, I will answer all of your question in one small sentence. "let's wait and see what happens".

I believe you have used the same yourself.

I have indeed and so we are on the same page in this respect at the very least.

That said, it is not necessary for us to wait and see what happens in order for you to have and to express an opinion as to whether you would wish to see Brexit ditched if negotiations in respect of it (should they occur) result in deals that would leave UK worse off than it is now and its government accordingly decided, in the best interests of UK's citizens, to abandon it.

Likewise, it is not necessary for us to wait and see what happens in order for you to explain how you believe that UK would ever be "freed from" the remainder of EU given that, as you yourself wrote, it will continue to trade with those other member states (as well as to have many EU citizens living there as well as many of its own citizens living in those other EU member states) post-Brexit, should Brexit occur.

In regard to the first of these, it is important to remember that, even if the negotiations begin and eventually reach completion, the UK government of the day (be it Ms May's or that of her successor) is not obliged to accept and abide by their results if they would not serve UK's interests; it would in such circumstances have the alternative of abandining Brexit and restoring the status quo. Whilst doing that might raise quite a few eyebrows and revive long memories, I doubt that many, whether or not they'd supported Brexit in the referendum, would wish it to be ratified under such conditions, so the once much-vaunted so-called "will of the people" will come to acquire a quite different complexion.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

And nowhere near the number that voted to leave, which demonstrates the extent of public concern about it.

The number of signatories to that petition continues to increase even though it has been debated and it runs until 25 November 2016. The total vote for Brexit was 17,410,742 and that of petition signatories 4,146,524 and rising; this means that almost 24% of the number of people who voted for UK to leave EU have to date signed the petition.

Given that the petition was merely about the unfair terms under which the referendum was held, rather than whether UK should remain or leave, whether the matter should have been subjected to referendum rather than Parliamentary debate/vote and whether there was even any legitimate reason to address it in the first place, the number of signatories is very significant indeed as a demonstration of the extent of public concern about it.

Another question that you consistently evade answering is why you believe that the UK/EU in/out matter is suitable to be subjected to referendum treatment when almost no other legislative issue is so; you sensibly agree that referenda cannot be used in respect of all or even the majority of pieces of legislation, but you have so far declined to reveal why you think that a referendum was nevertheless the right or the best way to address this one rather than have the professionals whom we elect and for whom we pay to do so on our behalf as the would usually do.

If you visit https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/ you will see detail of all referenda that have been held in UK over the past 4 decades or so; the reasons for handling any of the issues that they addressed by this means rather than by customary Parliamentary debate/vote is not mentioned, let alone explained and accordingly remains open to question. By their very nature, referenda might risk undermining Parliamentary sovereignty but for the fact that, in UK, they are fortunately merely advisory and not legally binding upon Parliament.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There was nothing wrong with the referendum. The piblic were asked a very simple question and there were only 2 possible answers.

These silly court cases will only earn huge sums of money for the legal proffesion, as they always do.

Thal

[ahinton]

There was nothing wrong with the referendum.

There was a great deal wrong with it.

You wrote "The piblic[sic] were[sic] asked a very simple question and there were only 2 possible answers"; "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is another very simple question with only two possible answers. Does that make it right to ask either?

What you yet again omit to address here is why that particular question was asked of the public in a referendum when almost any other legislative one would instead be debated and voted on in Parliament.

Asking the public to vote on something because just one UK political party was scared of the risk of defections to UKIP from within it was undoubtedly wrong, both morally and legally, for this was no excuse whatsoever to raise the subject of UK's continued EU membership, especially when that very issue had already been subjected to referendum once before (albeit 41 years ago).

What was also wrong - though not specifically with the referendum itself or in principle - was the manner in which it was conducted by both sides. How dare the government not only take sides in it but charge citizens an almost 8-figure sum for marketing in favour of Remain? That in itself makes a mockery of its calling of a referendum. The lies, damned lies and speculations paraded as statistics sullied the entire procedure, particularly as most voters who could already not be expected to know enough about the pros and cons would inevitably be swayed by them.

Another thing that was wrong - or at the very least most unfortunate but possibly nevertheless to some degree predictable - was the divisiveness to which it gave rise, given the difference in support not only between the UK's four nations but also between its city dwellers and its non-city dwellers (and possibly to some degree also between different age groups).

That it helped to foster some increase in racist hate crime may not necessarily have been "wrong" with it but it was certain far worse than a mere misfortune.

Lastly, it was wrong of the government of the day to try as it did to conceal from the electorate that the referendum was not legally binding; had all those who voted in it been notified of this at the outset of what was to become the shoddiest campaign in living memory, I suspect that most would have abstained.

These silly court cases will only earn huge sums of money for the legal proffesion, as they always do.

The fact that you regard them as silly expresses your opinion of them in advance of their being held but does not make them so; you regard them as such solely because you disapprove of anything that might risk undermining Brexit or interfering with its progress.

All legal cases earn sums of money for the legal profession as well as for the judicial profession; how "huge" those sums will be in the cases concerned will depend upon their complexities as well as the level of fees charged by the lawyers, barristers, judges, court staff et al and whether any of them might go to appeal, but that's no different to any other Court case.

If the government of the day were to consider the possibility of restoring the death penalty in UK (horresco referens!), would you expect it to subject the issue to referendum?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What you fail to recognise is that the referendum was considered so important by the public that far more voted than in a general election. You therefore cannot turn round and say, "sorry it was only advisory as you lot are too stupid".

Neiether side or any politicain in my hearing said it was only advisory and if they did, i doubt if a fraction of those who did vote, would have.

If the remainers had won, none of ths nonsense would be happening.

Thal

[ahinton]

What you fail to recognise is that the referendum was considered so important by the public that far more voted than in a general election.

I do not fail to recognise that at all; the turnout was quite good, although the narrowness f the majority and the inconsistencies of the outcome between the four constituent nations of UK is quite another matter.

That said, if it was so important to the public (which again I do not for one moment deny), one would have thought that the government of the day that instigated it would have recognised and appreciated that fact and made it unequivocally clear before the campiagn was launched that its outcome would not be legally binding upon Parliament and I believe that its failre to do this was just one of the ways in which that government let the electorate down; had it not failed in this regard, do you suppose that anything like as many people would have voted in it either way?

You therefore cannot turn round and say, "sorry it was only advisory as you lot are too stupid".

Indeed not - and I do not say that; the fact that it was only advisory has nothing whatsoever to do with the intelligence and knowledgeability (or otherwise) of the electorate and everything to do with the fact that all UK referenda are advisory only; that is a Parliamentary decision and, were it not the case, Parliamentary sovereignty could risk being undermined.

Neiether side or any politicain in my hearing said it was only advisory and if they did, i doubt if a fraction of those who did vote, would have.

None did to me either and, as I stated above, I share your doubt that many people would have voted for either side had this salient fact been clarified in advance.

That, however, raises the question as to why the Tories still thought that it was OK to deal with the matter via referendum when they must have been well aware in advance of the need to keep quiet about its non-legally binding status otherwise its credibility wth the electorate would have flow out of the window.

This was just one example of the lies, misleading and the rest that characterised this referendum.

If the remainers had won, none of ths nonsense would be happening.

To the extent that a vote to Remain would have meant maintenance of the status quo rather than the fundamental and far-reaching overturn that would come in the wake of Brexit, perhaps so, yet I still suspect that, had the voting percentages been around the same only the other way around (i.e. a tiny margin in favour of Remain instead of Leave), I suspect that some of it would indeed be happening, except that the protests would be coming more from the Leave side than from the Remain side.

Still a question or three for you to answer, Thal, old chap!...

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

You guys are going in circles...give it a rest already.

[ahinton]

You guys are going in circles...give it a rest already.

Not at all; the only ones that seem to be doing that are those charged with doing something or nothing about Brexit!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That, however, raises the question as to why the Tories still thought that it was OK to deal with the matter via referendum when they must have been well aware in advance of the need to keep quiet about its non-legally binding status otherwise its credibility wth the electorate would have flow out of the window.

If it had been widely known that it was only advisory, i don't think anyone would have bothered voting. You keep mentioning the Tories, but i do not recall any other party, TV programme or newspaper or internet article mentioning this.

It would have been reasonably pointless to do so since there is no precedent for overturning or ignoring a referendum and to do so now would be political suicide.

Thal

[ahinton]

If it had been widely known that it was only advisory, i don't think anyone would have bothered voting.

I've already broadly agreed with you on that, but do you see this surely deliberate omission as in any was excusable?

You keep mentioning the Tories, but i do not recall any other party, TV programme or newspaper or internet article mentioning this.

I mention them purely because they were the only party that promised and then launched this referendum and charged the taxpayer almost £10m for a marketing project in support of Remain, which was clearly biased; had they believed that to Remain was the right course of action, they should either have done nothing to address it or had it debated and voted on in both Houses of Parliament.

You're quite right; I don't think that any other party or media channel of any koind mentioned it either. Again, however, that was quite inexcusable.

It would have been reasonably pointless to do so since there is no precedent for overturning or ignoring a referendum and to do so now would be political suicide.

It would not have been pointless; after all, precedents for anything are never set until they are set for the first time.

There is considerable resentment that no one made an issue of the non-binding aspect of the referendum until after it had been held, by which time it was too late.

Now, I'll repeat a still unanswered question but rephrase it in the hope that it might elicit an answer; should the government of the day decide to consider the banning of all banjos in UK, ought that issue to be subjected to referendum or should it be debated and voted on in Parliament?

Best,

Alistair