Brexit matters

[birchesgreen]

So, arrogance or incompetence? Possible, but is it such a stretch to say that surely he wasn't that stupid?

Maybe, though i suspect him winning the IndyRef made him overconfident.

 

[edwin_m]

So, arrogance or incompetence? Possible, but is it such a stretch to say that surely he wasn't that stupid?

Maybe, though i suspect him winning the IndyRef made him overconfident.

And probably didn't anticipate the sort of lies and dirty tricks the Leave campaign would sink to.

 

[MattRat]

Maybe, though i suspect him winning the IndyRef made him overconfident.

But it was made out to be so simple, something you could do in your sleep.

 

[najaB]

And probably didn't anticipate the sort of lies and dirty tricks the Leave campaign would sink to.

More likely made the mistake of underestimating how much our enemies would interfere in the process - we still haven't seen the report into Russian influence on the Leave campaign.

 

[MattRat]

More likely made the mistake of underestimating how much our enemies would interfere in the process - we still haven't seen the report into Russian influence on the Leave campaign.

Probably because they couldn't find anything.

 

[AM9]

Probably because they couldn't find anything.

If they couldn't find anything then the current lot would be only too quick to point that out, - especially as they have been looking for anything that diverts attention away from the current No. 10 problems.

 

[MattRat]

If they couldn't find anything then the current lot would be only too quick to point that out, - especially as they have been looking for anything that diverts attention away from the current No. 10 problems.

But if they found something, the media would be all over it.

 

[Doppelganger]

But if they found something, the media would be all over it.

Difficult to find something if you're not looking though, isn't it?

 

[MattRat]

Difficult to find something if you're not looking though, isn't it?

And the media wouldn't dig themselves becuase?

 

[najaB]

Difficult to find something if you're not looking though, isn't it?

Exactly! To quote what we have been allowed to see:

The inquiry did not seek to assess the impact of Russia’s alleged attempts to influence the 2016 EU referendum, and the report explains that it would be “difficult – if not impossible” to do so. It says: “However, it is important to establish whether a hostile state took deliberate action with the aim of influencing a UK democratic process, irrespective of whether it was successful or not.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...the-uk-russia-report-say-key-points-explained

That's what's been shared with the public. It's been rumoured that the intelligence services found that the Russians and Chinese were very successful in their attempts to undermine our democracy and continue to be so, but that the Government has suppressed that information.

 

[AlterEgo]

The European Commission and Parliament make laws for and on behalf of sovereign states that have chosen to give the Commission and Parliament the power to do so. It's absurd to characterise it the way you have.

It is about six years too late to admit that a country’s membership of the EU essentially cedes, voluntarily, some of its sovereign powers. The sovereignty debate was outright intellectually dishonest.

 

[najaB]

The sovereignty debate was outright intellectually dishonest.

I agree. Way to much weight was placed on a non-issue. Membership of any political bloc will necessarily impact on sovereignty.

If the UK does join CTPP we'll have to surrender much more than we ever did to the EU, for much less benefit. But that's a good thing, apparently.

 

[bspahh]

The Government has published a 108 page document on the Benefits of Brexit. This is from page 76-77.

Rail

Simpler, better, customer-focussed railways.

EU rail law has had a significant impact on how the rail industry in the UK is organised, promoting a model which fragments the railway between those who operate the trains and those who run the tracks. The EU focus on interoperability through EU-wide technical standards also reduced flexibility and injected complexity into rail. There are key opportunities to take advantage of our new freedoms to create a railway that works better for passengers and freight and to create simpler, better customer-focussed railways.
Ultimately, this will lead to better use of the railways’ capacity to deliver journeys that customers and communities want to see and reliability will be improved for passengers and freight as we are better able to deal with problems when something goes wrong.
We will undertake a root and branch reform of our railways—through the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail and will use our additional freedom to set out technical standards to meet UK needs and deliver for UK passengers.

How we will achieve our vision

A simpler, better railway.
We will increase accountability and collaboration and ensure a joined-up approach to rail. Through the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail we have a major opportunity to reform our railway, creating accountability, collaboration and a more joined-up approach, where previously there was fragmentation and confusion. We are now working, through the implementation of the Plan to maximise the opportunities for a more integrated, customer focussed railway, with a new organisation, Great British Railways, at its heart. Legislative proposals are being developed and we are currently working closely with the industry to create this simpler, better railway.

Technical standards that work for the UK.
There is a significant opportunity to streamline and improve the regulations that govern the setting of rail standards in Great Britain, many of which derive from EU legislation. Given the international nature of many markets, standardisation can have benefits, so we will take the time needed to get this right. We are currently completing a post-implementation review of the current framework for the setting of technical standards, which we expect to complete early this year. We intend to develop a consultation on options for changing the existing regulations, with the aim of reducing the time and cost involved in applying standards. In the meantime, we are working with the rail industry to develop improved guidance and to improve the operation of the existing regulations. We are already seeing the benefits of our new regulatory independence. For instance not having to comply with EU standards, HS2 platforms can be designed to be as passenger friendly as possible, with level, step-free access to promote accessibility.

I didn't realise it was the EU who forced the Major government to fragment the UK rail industry.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Government has published a 108 page document on the Benefits of Brexit. This is from page 76-77.


I didn't realise it was the EU who forced the Major government to fragment the UK rail industry.

it wasn’t!

 

[brad465]

So much for getting Brexit done:

NI Protocol: Irish Sea border checks ordered to end at midnight

NI Agriculture Minister Edwin Poots says he has taken the decision after receiving legal advice.

www.bbc.co.uk

DUP minister Edwin Poots has ordered his officials to halt Irish Sea border checks from midnight.
He had been threatening to act, as part of the DUP's ongoing opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Mr Poots said he had taken legal advice which meant he could direct the checks to stop in the absence of executive approval for them.
The protocol was agreed by the UK and EU to ensure free movement of trade across the Irish border after Brexit.
But unionist politicians have been critical of the arrangements, saying they are damaging Northern Ireland's place in the UK.
Under the deal, checks on goods from Great Britain must take place at Northern Ireland's ports to make sure they comply with EU laws.

But Mr Poots believes the checks are unlawful and cannot continue without approval from the Stormont Executive.
Last week, his bid to force an executive rethink on the issue was blocked by Sinn Féin.
Mr Poots had sought executive support for the checks continuing, ahead of a legal challenge by loyalist blogger Jamie Bryson.
He argued the challenge made clear that checks must be approved by all ministers as they are controversial and cut across various departments.

He said legal advice he had received on Wednesday confirmed that the implementation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) checks required approval from the Stormont Executive.
Mr Poots said that meant he was able to direct the checks to cease, and he had issued a formal instruction to his department's permanent secretary to halt all checks not in place on 31 December 2020 as of midnight tonight.
BBC News NI has contacted the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland Office for a response.
The minister added that he would prepare a further paper for the executive seeking approval for the measures in due course.
Sinn Féin maintains that Stormont has a legal obligation to enforce the checks, and that the executive agreed in May 2020 to designate Mr Poots' department to perform the controls.

 

[najaB]

So much for getting Brexit done:

NI Protocol: Irish Sea border checks ordered to end at midnight

NI Agriculture Minister Edwin Poots says he has taken the decision after receiving legal advice.

www.bbc.co.uk

Was just about to post the same. Well done the DUP for lighting the blue touch paper. Now to see if anyone can put it out before it's too late...

 

[brad465]

Was just about to post the same. Well done the DUP for lighting the blue touch paper. Now to see if anyone can put it out before it's too late...

In an ideal world the DUP will be at best the third largest party in the Assembly elections this spring, with SF and either the UUP or Alliance making up the power sharing parties. Recent opinion polling has suggested SF will be the largest party, but the DUP are still 2nd despite the UUP and Alliance not being much further behind.

 

[SouthernR]

Why do I get the impression that the government is ignoring its policies described in The Benefits of Brexit, if it has any?
For example -

"We want to make the UK border the most effective in the world."
I can guess what "most effective" means. There's no mention of Ireland in the section on the UK border (p95).

"Support open societies and defend human rights"
"Standing for freedom, democracy and free enterprise."
For party friends only. (p100/101)

"Embracing modern methods of construction. New technology and innovation can help housebuilders deliver good-quality, energy-efficient, new-build homes more quickly."
Unless, of course, this turns out to be more expensive (p79).

"Taking back control over where local growth funding is spent."
Central government will decide (p80).

 

[davetheguard]

Was just about to post the same. Well done the DUP for lighting the blue touch paper. Now to see if anyone can put it out before it's too late...

Indeed, this is crazy potentially dangerous stuff.

Dangerous to to the UK's Brexit deal, dangerous to the Northern Ireland Good Friday peace deal. That's what happens when the UK Government thinks it can break international treaties with impunity.

 

[najaB]

That's what happens when the UK Government thinks it can break international treaties with impunity.

Oh, but just in very specific and limited ways...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed, this is crazy potentially dangerous stuff.

Dangerous to to the UK's Brexit deal, dangerous to the Northern Ireland Good Friday peace deal. That's what happens when the UK Government thinks it can break international treaties with impunity.

Exactly which political party took the decision to carry out the recent threat. Was it the DUP or the Conservative Party?

 

[najaB]

Was it the DUP or the Conservative Party?

It was the DUP, but the point being made was that if the Conservatives break international law in "very specific and limited" ways, is there any surprise that other parties of similar ideology will do the same.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It was the DUP, but the point being made was that if the Conservatives break international law in "very specific and limited" ways, is there any surprise that other parties of similar ideology will do the same.

Will those referred-to parties be those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who have a degree of autonomy. In the matter of Northern Ireland, it that province still part of any EC area ruling to which the rest of the country is not subject to now?

 

[najaB]

In the matter of Northern Ireland, it that province still part of any EC area ruling to which the rest of the country is not subject to now?

The EC hasn't existed since 2009, so I suspect not.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The EC hasn't existed since 2009, so I suspect not.

Many thanks for your kind response. When you get to my age, confusion sometimes runs rife, Time that I retired from asking questions...

 

[najaB]

Many thanks for your kind response. When you get to my age, confusion sometimes runs rife, Time that I retired from asking questions...

NI is, however, still in the EU Common Market and Customs Union. Of course, such an enviable position does require that they follow the club rules.

 

[daodao]

Yet another example of Bojo putting his foot in it:

Boris Johnson has been criticised for comparing the struggle of Ukrainians fighting Russia's invasion to people in Britain voting for Brexit.

Ukraine war: Boris Johnson sparks fury after comparison to Brexit

But chancellor Rishi Sunak says it was "general observations about freedom", not a direct comparison.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is ironic, given that one trigger for the current conflict is the desire of some Ukrainians to join the EU, that led to President Yanukovich's overthrow (encouraged by the EU) in the February 2014 coup.

 

[dgl]

Yet another example of Bojo putting his foot in it:

Ukraine war: Boris Johnson sparks fury after comparison to Brexit

But chancellor Rishi Sunak says it was "general observations about freedom", not a direct comparison.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is ironic, given that one trigger for the current conflict is the desire of some Ukrainians to join the EU, that led to President Yanukovich's overthrow (encouraged by the EU) in the February 2014 coup.

And it was people like Putin that were all for Brexit and did what they could to try and make it happen.

Donald Tusk put up a good tweet on the matter,

Boris Johnson likens Ukrainians’ fight to British people voting for Brexit. I can still remember the enthusiasm of Putin and Trump after the referendum. Boris, your words offend Ukrainians, the British and common sense.

 

[nw1]

Ok, here's another example. Wanting a second referendum when the first didn't go their way....

To be fair, that was the majority of politicians, not just labour, but I wouldn't call them freedom loving. Accepting the public's votes is part of democracy, which is a part of freedom.

Except only 37% of adult British citizens actually voted for Brexit, given a number of people did not vote. You don't make radical changes based on what 37% of people wanted on a random day in June 2016, though I will say that was Cameron's fault in designing the referendum in such a simple-minded way. Also, EU citizens, who are most effected by Brexit, were denied the vote which in my view makes the whole referendum invalid. Radical changes to the UK's relationship with its neighbours should require a very substantial majority, not 13 for vs 12 against which is basically a tie. The Scottish independence referendum was designed in a much more intelligent way because it did require a substantial majority to pass.

And even if you do accept that Brexit must happen because 37% of adult British citizens wanted it, the referendum did not actually ask people whether they wanted to stop EU citizens emigrating here. This was purely something the Tories - May and Johnson - decided to do unilaterally afterwards. Many of us resent this deeply - the Conservative Party have not only taken away EU citizens' right to live here, they have taken away our automatic right to live in EU countries, a right we have had for around 30 years.

And if we're talking about "what the people want" - did we want the poll tax? Did we want the early 2010s austerity? Did we want the harsh monetarist policies of the early 80s? Conduct referenda on those issues and I suspect that the Tories would have lost heavily. But unlike Brexit, it did not suit the Tories' interest to run referenda on those things.

It could be argued that having a referendum which changes something significant on a pure 50%+1 majority is likely to lead to problems.

Exactly, that, together with the substantially less-than-100% turnout (only 37% actually voted for Brexit) and the denial of the vote to EU citizens, who are the ones most affected by it, means that I have never accepted the actions performed by the Tories following the result. And that's before we start questioning some of the blatant lies ('EU citizens' rights will not be affected' - if that's the case why did they require 'settled status') of the Leave campaign.

Though, if there had been a softer Brexit which retained freedom of movement and the customs union, I would accept it and wouldn't be moaning in threads like this And that would be much more reflective of the result than the anti-immigration hard Brexit that has been the outcome so far.

Flip the result to 13 people voting remain for every 12 voting Brexit. Would that be a mandate for the UK to have an even closer relationship with the EU and join the euro, for example? I doubt it. Brexiters need to consider that when attempting to justify the hard Brexit that May and Johnson implemented.

As it's always going to be an uphill struggle to get the other near 50% to agree to the change.

Whichever way the Brexit vote went it was going to cause problems, unless it was a much larger percentage one way or the other.

Potentially the most suitable outcome would have to have said that if the vote was close than (say) 60:40 that another vote would be scheduled for (say) 4 years time.

I'd have take the Scottish referendum approach and stipulated that to pass, Brexit must have at least 60% of the vote OR at least 50% of ALL British adult residents (not just those who voted) - citizens or otherwise - voting for it. Only then would there be a clear mandate for it.

Conversely with a close result it could have been a strong argument for the EU to look at where things could be changed to reduce the level of division across the EU (as the Brexit vote strengthened those who wanted out of the EU elsewhere).

That does make sense, yes.

It would have been interesting to see the outcome, as I suspect that the result would have shifted a little towards remaining with the potential of a future vote if it's close.

However it could have also given more time for the EU and the UK to discuss the potential ramifications if it were to leave. For instance working out how Northern Ireland/UK/Republic of Ireland would operate.

This was not considered enough, there was too much of a rush to "get Brexit done" by some arbitrary date.

One thing I will say is that the anti-immigration aspects of Brexit should not have been unilaterally decided by the Tories. Maybe this should have been asked in a further referendum.

The anti-immigration policy and lack of customs union are what I resent most about Brexit. As I said above, if we were in a Norway-style arrangement I would accept the result and never whinge about it again...

 

[pemma]

Flip the result to 13 people voting remain for every 12 voting Brexit. Would that be a mandate for the UK to have an even closer relationship with the EU and join the euro, for example? I doubt it. Brexiters need to consider that when attempting to justify the hard Brexit that May and Johnson implemented.

One thing I will say is that the anti-immigration aspects of Brexit should not have been unilaterally decided by the Tories. Maybe this should have been asked in a further referendum.

One thing that gets overlooked all the time is there was no option for everything remaining as it was on the ballot paper for the referendum. David Cameron's government had negotiated a few reforms with the EU, primarily ones they hoped would get some of the anti-EU Tories on side, like not allowing EU nationals to come here and claim unemployment benefits from day 1. Remaining would have seen those reforms implemented. As Cameron wanted other pro-EU parties campaigning alongside them, the reforms should have been cross-party and addressed what the British public thought was the biggest problems with the EU. Opting to leave meant the EU didn't have to implement the reforms, which meant ironically the things which most annoyed the Tory Brexiteers remained in place for longer than they would have done if we had remained. That's probably part of the reason they wanted a reckless Brexit bulldozed through.