Something that anyone who supported Leave either failed to realise or willfully decided to ignore.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I think the leavers' psyche about what being a solitary trading nation is like is gradually drifting from the misinformed optimism during the referendum, through much wishful thinking, to something beginning to look more akin to panic. It can be seen every day in the articles written by the leaver journalists of the Daily Telegraph. It's also driving some of the readers into sending in letters of panic dressed up as indignation about the EU not recognising that they desperately need the UK more than we need the EU. As the pound sinks and interest rates start to rise, dream on!
Still, not long now before even the most committed leavers realise that by their slim majority of 2.73% of the electorate, they have dug the nation into a hole which may take longer than a generation to climb out of.
adrock1976
Established Member
I cannot remember if I have mentioned this here in this thread or somewhere else online a while ago.
This was an extremely divisive referendum, which as the question presented to the electorate at the time was a fundamental constitutional change to how the government runs the UK. ideally, if David Cameron was clever enough, he should ideally have required a minimum 75% in favour of leaving the EU - that way, it would have been more clear cut than the 51%:49%. Also, various parts across the UK had strong Leave (Wales), with both Scotland and Northern Ireland being a strong Remain. A comparison with the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was also divisive, with 45% voting in favour of independence.
Perhaps future referenda for changes in the way the UK is run should have a minimum of 75% in favour of change - similar as when some organisations propose a constitutional amendment at annual conferences it has to be 2/3 majority or anything relating to company law as mentioned has to be 75% minimum.
Furthermore, regardless of whether we voted Leave or Remain, and regardless of each individual's reason for doing so, we, the electorate, should ideally come together and lobby the UK Government as to the type of Brexit we would like. Not Juncker's version of Brexit, not Nigel Farage's version of Brexit, not Boris Johnson's version of Brexit, not Gideon George Osborne's version of Brexit, and not even the Prime Minister Theresa May's version of Brexit. All of those versions would lead to an attack on worker's rights. It should be the People's Brexit that triumphs, perhaps led by the rank and file trade union members and community groups.
On a final point, there appears to have been very little consultation on Brexit around most of the UK, where the PM seems to be disregarding the views of both sides and seems to be doing it to please the hardline Euroskeptic backbenchers. This is a democratic deficit, especially in Scotland where it voted in favour of Remain. Another democratic deficit in Scotland is the government that ends up in Westminster from 1979 onwards differs from the voting patterns in Scotland.
The Scotland results for the General Election 1979 to present are summarised below:
1979 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives
1983 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives
1987 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives
1992 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a very late swing)
1997 - Predominantly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new at all, and were most certainly not Labour)
2001 - Predominantly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new at all, and were most certainly not Labour)
2005 - Predominantly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new at all, and were most certainly not Labour). This was the revision of constituency boundaries, which reduced the number of Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59. Also note my constituency Glasgow North East (the former Glasgow Springburn) is neutral, as that was held by the then Speaker of the Commons Michael Martin.
2010 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. Apart from Glasgow North East being a Labour gain from Speaker, all of the other 58 constituencies remained exactly the same as the 2005 General Election. This was a message to David Cameron that he had no mandate on imposing cuts on Scotland.
2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (56 out of 59 constituencies), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in polling methods)
2017 - Predominantly SNP (a huge drop, but remain Scotland's largest party in Westminster), got minority Conservatives with support (or bribery) from the DUP.
The above shows that from 1979 onwards in General Elections, Scotland has not got the government it has voted for. Although I do not subscribe to any form of nationalism, I can understand this being a factor for individuals in the pro-independence camp.
This was an extremely divisive referendum, which as the question presented to the electorate at the time was a fundamental constitutional change to how the government runs the UK. ideally, if David Cameron was clever enough, he should ideally have required a minimum 75% in favour of leaving the EU - that way, it would have been more clear cut than the 51%:49%. Also, various parts across the UK had strong Leave (Wales), with both Scotland and Northern Ireland being a strong Remain. A comparison with the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was also divisive, with 45% voting in favour of independence.
Perhaps future referenda for changes in the way the UK is run should have a minimum of 75% in favour of change - similar as when some organisations propose a constitutional amendment at annual conferences it has to be 2/3 majority or anything relating to company law as mentioned has to be 75% minimum.
Furthermore, regardless of whether we voted Leave or Remain, and regardless of each individual's reason for doing so, we, the electorate, should ideally come together and lobby the UK Government as to the type of Brexit we would like. Not Juncker's version of Brexit, not Nigel Farage's version of Brexit, not Boris Johnson's version of Brexit, not Gideon George Osborne's version of Brexit, and not even the Prime Minister Theresa May's version of Brexit. All of those versions would lead to an attack on worker's rights. It should be the People's Brexit that triumphs, perhaps led by the rank and file trade union members and community groups.
On a final point, there appears to have been very little consultation on Brexit around most of the UK, where the PM seems to be disregarding the views of both sides and seems to be doing it to please the hardline Euroskeptic backbenchers. This is a democratic deficit, especially in Scotland where it voted in favour of Remain. Another democratic deficit in Scotland is the government that ends up in Westminster from 1979 onwards differs from the voting patterns in Scotland.
The Scotland results for the General Election 1979 to present are summarised below:
1979 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives
1983 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives
1987 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives
1992 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a very late swing)
1997 - Predominantly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new at all, and were most certainly not Labour)
2001 - Predominantly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new at all, and were most certainly not Labour)
2005 - Predominantly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new at all, and were most certainly not Labour). This was the revision of constituency boundaries, which reduced the number of Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59. Also note my constituency Glasgow North East (the former Glasgow Springburn) is neutral, as that was held by the then Speaker of the Commons Michael Martin.
2010 - Predominantly Labour, got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. Apart from Glasgow North East being a Labour gain from Speaker, all of the other 58 constituencies remained exactly the same as the 2005 General Election. This was a message to David Cameron that he had no mandate on imposing cuts on Scotland.
2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (56 out of 59 constituencies), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in polling methods)
2017 - Predominantly SNP (a huge drop, but remain Scotland's largest party in Westminster), got minority Conservatives with support (or bribery) from the DUP.
The above shows that from 1979 onwards in General Elections, Scotland has not got the government it has voted for. Although I do not subscribe to any form of nationalism, I can understand this being a factor for individuals in the pro-independence camp.
adrock1976
Established Member
Deleted - duplicate post.
It is a problem, regardless of anything else. I would like to know how leaving the most successful international single market the world has ever seen is going to help that.
Last edited:
The point being, once again, and presumably to be wilfully ignored once again, is that it wasn't then and isn't now necessary to be subsumed into a proto-governmental geo-political supranational superstate to trade fairly and freely with continental Europe...
Meanwhile it becomes ever clearer with recent public pronouncements by the likes of Juncker and Macron and others that no-one in this country will ever have a chance to vote for or remove, that they are intent on taking the European Project in a direction that will never receive democratic consent in this country... A vote for Remain was never a vote for the status quo... it was a vote for more.. and more.. and more.. of the same..
It's a problem that has grown massively during our time in the EEC-Common Market/EU-Single Market... As 'trade with Europe' continues to be massively loss-making for UK-plc...
And from the position of the brass tacks of business and trade, it will clearly be significantly in their disbenefit to be belligerent in their approach... but that's the way it looks like they want to take it... oh well..
That has been clear from the day May formed her cabinet. The whole process is much more an attempt to keep the Tory right wing Brexiteers happy than any attempt to try to bring the country together after an ultra-divisive referendum or to end up with arrangements that are genuinely best for the country as a whole. As has by now often been said, no-one voted to be poorer.
The point which you seem to be willfully ignoring is that nobody has to trade with us. We have no god-given right to do business with any other country so if we can't come to an agreement (which means we will have to compromise) then we don't do trade.
There is nothing that the UK has which the EU can't get somewhere else (Arbroath smokies aside).
But the fact that we are as a nation economically in a worse position than 18 months ago through the market's instincts that things will get worse can't be ignored. When our new lone trading state situation starts to bite, it may be worse and those who didn't/don't believe it seem to be slowly realising the position that the referendum has put us in.
Of course the wealthier speculators in society will always survive, just as they do from any disaster, but that will be on the backs of those who have no effective financial choices, (the rump of the leave vote).
Ironically, as the demographic of the vote was so much skewed by age, it is likely that by 2019, with no changes in voting intentions, the same referendum would return a remain majority and that majority would increase further as time went on.
Despite that, however damaging to ordinary people's lives the result of current negotiations are, there will of course still be the shrill chorus of die hard leavers with their fingers in their own ears shouting that the 2016 referendum "was a democratic decision".
And you are wilfully ignoring that the UK is very obviously a significant market for the EU, unless you just haven't even noticed all of those BMWs and Mercedes and Audis and VWs on the roads, and Siemens trains on the network... 'Trade with the EU' seems to be significantly one way.. in their advantage... (not seems to be, it IS)... So once again for the wilfully ignorant... Why would they seek to erect artificial punitive barriers to trade (reciprocal in nature, obvs) where none currently exist, with such a valuable customer..?? Why would they deliberately jeopardise that trade..??
But you don't recognise that's only for GOODS!
We have a significant trade surplus in services, which makes up 79% of our economy.
It's easy to put your finger on lots of German cars driving around, but we have a service-based economy. That means banking, consulting, law, healthcare, digital services, design, media, etc etc etc.
Germany is not the only country in the EU and any negotiations about how much we pay for our cars will be conducted through the offices of the EU, - that's the way that they choose it to be. The position of the Brussels negotiators is that agreed by 27 national Governments, not AfD in Germany as some here would like it to be.
Perfectly happy to acknowledge your point... But everything we hear about these supposed barriers to trade that are supposedly suddenly set to go up, seem to be focussed on trade in physical goods... (Meanwhile, we also hear lots about how supposedly difficult it is to trade physical goods to potential new markets that now set to be opened up.. and you've just helpfully provided a list of non-physical services that can now be traded globally as well as within the EU..)..
Of course... just using those as examples... but yes the same applies for any number of businesses, across any of the EU states (former nations) we could choose to focus on instead... So will the EU side give consideration to the EU based businesses and their employees who are depended for a significant chunk of their business that is with the UK..? Or do we count them amongst the wilfully ignorant too..?
Because... (why are we having to explain this at this stage of the debate!?)...
Because... The whole point of a customs union is that the customs union sets the terms of trade both internally and externally for its constituent member states... And member states upon accession relinquish the freedom to negotiate mutually advantageous independent trade deals beyond the external boundaries of the customs union...
Note, the EU-Single Market, and the EEC-Common Market before it, is, by definition, a customs union, as opposed to a free trade area...
Last edited:
Okay, can you tell me what tariffs there are on, say, me procuring the services of a video designer in Pakistan to commission a video, today? Or if a company in Canada wants to engage me as a consultant?
There's a difference between services and goods.
Okay, so what barriers/tariffs/restrictions are suddenly going to be erected by the EU against our trade in those services..??
(Meanwhile.. whilst it has been made clear, not just by HM Govt, but by HM Opposition as well, that we are Leaving the EU-Single Market as a whole.. it might be helpful to the EU side if they at least show a willingness to go some way towards separating out their supposed '4 pillars'.. and separate out the free markets in goods, services, capital and labour, that nowhere else in the world are implicitly expected to be bundled together in order to conduct trade..)..
AndrewNewens
Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 52
Becasue we don't actually manufacture anything that other countries want to buy. Germany exports almost 10 times as much in manufactured goods to China as the UK does on exactly the same trade terms. As for services, the USA has very restrictive arrangements for foreign banks and financial services for foreign companies. British banks and insurance companies are simply not allowed to operate freely in the USA and that is never going to change, no matter how hard we try to get a good deal.
If we want to maintain free trade with other EU countries, we have to stay in the customs union as otherwise non tariff barriers (like customs checks etc) will make just in time deliveries and the cross border flow of part manufactured goods totally uneconomical. For example. the gearbox of a Mini car goes backwards and forwards accross the channel several times as it is manufactured. Slow that process down and we will be cut out of the loop an production will shift to another EU country.
The 27 other states have the upper hand in negotiations - we always knew that. The EU negotiators will put the interests of the EU states first. If the German car industry sees exports to the UK drop, is it really going to casue that much of a problem for them? Of course not. Leavers just don't seem to realise the UK simply isn't that important.
We are shooting ourselves in the foot, and if we do actually leave the EU, we will sink beneath the waves unless the proposed transition period arrangements are made permanent.
Well, funnily enough, I was just listening to The World at One on BBC R4 just before, and they were talking to port operators and their customers at both Southampton and Hull, discussing how they see the 'impact of Brexit'... So according to those spoken to at the port of Southampton, 95% of traffic they handle has nothing to do with the EU.. so all they can see is opportunity... And in Hull, rather more dependent on trade with the EU, they fully expect that frictionless trade with the EU will continue, with electronic checks on goods smoothing their customs transition.. I think Switzerland was mentioned by one of the transport operators as an example...
So not much like the bleak picture you present...
And meanwhile, both sides of negotiators were today sounding much more constructive and conciliatory and showing willingness to make proper meaningful progress towards some form of 'deal'...
So that's good and positive news for you isn't it...
Getting that way myself..!
Its actually extremely bleak. Vast amounts of our trade are with the EU. There are literally thousands of jobs that rely on the single market. As Brexit supporters are determined we leave the single market and customs union then it will require a new trade deal for business to trade in the single market in future. The EU have already made it clear we will not get the same perks from being in the EU without the rules that go with it. No deal with the EU is a very real possibility now. And this fantastic new trading future with the US has started with the US slapping a 220% import tariff on Bombardier jets jeopardising thousands of jobs. Yup everything is rosy.... not.
See post #7168
- Status