The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[TrafficEng]

The only people governments remove rights and freedoms from are criminals??

I would respond, with tongue firmly in cheek, that the EU have removed my right to buy a vacuum cleaner of unrestricted power consumption. Should I conclude they regard me as a criminal? Or is it for the benefit of the environment and my bank balance, as I was informed in a range of publicity material?

Slightly more seriously, in the post you were replying to, jfollows seems to believe their right to travel anywhere in the EU is being taken away. I was unaware that any of the EU27 had announced they intend to ban visits by UK citizens. The right - which is not unconditional - might well be withdrawn from someone who is a criminal, but I'm sure your post wasn't intended to imply any such thing.

The only circumstances where I could see any of the EU27 imposing an outright ban on UK citizens visiting them would be if that country was taken over by some kind of despotic regime with a phobia of tourists (of N. Korea ilk).

But since that form of regime is incompatible with EU membership we have to assume expulsion of that member state would rapidly occur. Therefore any touristic benefit derived through the retention of an individual's EU rights would surely be null and void.

Thinking about it, why would anybody want to visit a country (as a tourist) where the regime had made it clear visitors were not welcome?

 

[43066]

A pithy quote from Mark Francois sums things up very well indeed:

https://brexitcentral.com/mark-francois-mp-appalling-handling-lisbon-treaty-sowed-seeds-brexit/

The British people were essentially told that they were assenting to a free trade area – a common market – and that is what they endorsed in 1975. The further we move from that position, the greater the risk that we shall exhaust their patience with all things European. We are an historically tolerant people, and we are willing to negotiate and co-operate, but we will not be subsumed by a foreign superstate that ignores our traditions and undermines our laws.”(Hansard, 4 July 2001, col 308).

The main subject of the article, the passage of the Lisbon treaty, shows how arrogant and out of touch the EU has become.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would respond, with tongue firmly in cheek, that the EU have removed my right to buy a vacuum cleaner of unrestricted power consumption. Should I conclude they regard me as a criminal? Or is it for the benefit of the environment and my bank balance, as I was informed in a range of publicity material?

I must admit I find this one both bizarre and ridiculous. Domestic vacuum cleaners are used for only a tiny amount of time overall, and if the power is reduced they will be less effective than the same design with a higher power, and so will need to be used for longer.

I understand similarly that they were looking to restrict the wattage of kettles, which is similarly stupid - it will just make them take longer to boil. If you were going to legislate anything about kettles, what would make sense would be to require them to have thick insulation so the water stays warm between boils.

Many of the EU's interventions make sense, but I just can't see any sense at all in this one.

 

[Howardh]

Thinking about it, why would anybody want to visit a country (as a tourist) where the regime had made it clear visitors were not welcome?

Now I can name one country like that - with the intention of forcing would-be visitors to have passports rather than the more usual ID cards, and to go through strict profiling as well; thus giving the impression it really doesn't want EU visitors at all rather than laying out a red carpet and saying "please come, we want your money"!!
And the "freedom of movement" isn't about tourism - it's about the ability to go and live, study or retire in a country of your choice without restrictions, particulary financial restrictions; there has been no guarantee YET that UK's choosing to live in the EU won't have their pensions frozen, that's if they pass the capital tests in the first place. Those countries can also now place health restrictions on us, meaning I may well not be allowed to retire to Spain if my up heart scan next year shows something serious.
In planning my retirement that wasn't an issue.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I would respond, with tongue firmly in cheek, that the EU have removed my right to buy a vacuum cleaner of unrestricted power consumption......

With tongue somewhat less in cheek.......whilst I get that effectively forcing manufacturers to produce more efficient devices (with vacuum cleaners being an example - as long as they remain as effective), I recall a little while back the suggestion that electric kettles were to be subject to similar restrictions. I don't think it has happened (yet). But if there is any truth in the suggestion, right there is an example of sheer lunacy. An electric kettle is extremely efficient regardless of its kW consumption. Almost all of the energy consumed is used in raising the water temperature inside. Put simply, a kettle using half as much power per minute will take about twice as long (and hence use the same total amount of power) to boil a given volume of water.

 

[TrafficEng]

The main subject of the article, the passage of the Lisbon treaty, shows how arrogant and out of touch the EU has become.

In defence of the EU, or rather of the EEC, the lies told to the British public by the 'Remain' campaign in 1975 were not the EEC's fault. What the EEC was to become was written down in the treaties. It was just that Heath and Wilson didn't believe they could win without lying.

Now, since it has been established that any lying during a referendum campaign is sufficient grounds to nullify the result of that referendum, could we now all please agree that the UK has been illegally kept in the EEC/EU since 1975 and that all agreements and treaties signed after that date are null and void? [/Irony].

 

[Howardh]

I must admit I find this one both bizarre and ridiculous. Domestic vacuum cleaners are used for only a tiny amount of time overall, and if the power is reduced they will be less effective than the same design with a higher power, and so will need to be used for longer.
I understand similarly that they were looking to restrict the wattage of kettles, which is similarly stupid - it will just make them take longer to boil. If you were going to legislate anything about kettles, what would make sense would be to require them to have thick insulation so the water stays warm between boils.
Many of the EU's interventions make sense, but I just can't see any sense at all in this one.

I do tend to agree with you on that one, I suppose one could argue that it's 10 mins per day multiplied by 500m people and it adds up*. The issue over light bulbs I do support as it saves people's money, electricity and are no less affective.
Anyway, if anyone wants an ultra-powerful cleaner they aren't banned from import (??)- can't they just import one from China?

*I suppose there is the situation where someone moving from the UK to EU and taking their powerful cleaner with them could plug it in and blow the fuse over there thus a safety hazard, but straws and clutching springs to mind!!!

 

[Mag_seven]

Domestic vacuum cleaners are used for only a tiny amount of time overall

That's certainly the case in my house.

 

[Howardh]

With tongue somewhat less in cheek.......whilst I get that effectively forcing manufacturers to produce more efficient devices (with vacuum cleaners being an example - as long as they remain as effective), I recall a little while back the suggestion that electric kettles were to be subject to similar restrictions. I don't think it has happened (yet). But if there is any truth in the suggestion, right there is an example of sheer lunacy. An electric kettle is extremely efficient regardless of its kW consumption. Almost all of the energy consumed is used in raising the water temperature inside. Put simply, a kettle using half as much power per minute will take about twice as long (and hence use the same total amount of power) to boil a given volume of water.

Tell you what - nothing to do with the EU/UK...I just love my vacumn kettle as it stores unused hot water; as people - mainly carers - are in and out of the house all day needing hot water for various tasks and never having the right amount in (etc etc) it really has made a difference to my 'leccy bill. I reccommend one to those in a similar situation, or works/rail canteens

 

[Howardh]

That's certainly the case in my house.

Wondered who would be the first with "what's a vacumn cleaner?"!!

Wouldn't the UK have had a veto anyway? Thinking the UK government helped to form these rules and if they didn't veto then we would have adopted them anyway inside the EU or not.

What will happen now is the EU will make rules which we have no say in whatsoever yet will have to comply with if we are to trade back and forth. Ten you have the situation where the USA insists on one rule, the EU another, we have no say over either and put ourselves in a right pickle!

 

[greyman42]

I think the possible way out on this is to tell Sturgeon she needs to develop a fully worked out and costed plan for Scottish independence, including preliminary discussion with the UK Government and EU over issues such as border controls, currency, debt and EU accession.

Sturgeon simply wants independence from England. Regarding the rest, it is a case of we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

[Enthusiast]

The only people governments remove rights and freedoms from are criminals?? Anyhow, it will be fun when we have to dole out freedom of movement with all the countries we will be begging to do trade with as part of those deals. Be even more fun if one of the first was Turkey.

How many trade agreements are you aware of (outside the EU) which insist on freedom of movement as a requirement for the signatories to undertake sensible and mutually beneficial trading? Many agreements provide for visa free travel or rights to work for certain trades or professions. Others allow preferential visiting arrangements or exemptions for employers. None that I know of provide for an unconditional right to settle and work (or not work) in participant countries. Why is there this myth that a free trade agreement necessarily must incorporate the freedom of movement that goes with the EU's Single Market?

 

[Journeyman]

To what percentage of the UK population is free movement "absolutely critical"?

Those who have chosen to use it - a good couple of million.

 

[Starmill]

I think the crux of the vacuum cleaner point is that the marginally less powerful vacuum cleaners do not actually do any less good of a job at their output (which is cleaning, not just suction) than the more powerful ones that came before. It is still the case that several more expensive vacuum cleaners achieve the best results for domestic use, and Which? have confirmed this.

We’ve been closely monitoring the impact on cleaning performance since 2014, using our historic vacuum cleaner test data. Our research shows that core cleaning performance has remained relatively stable, despite the cut in motor size, and that overall motor size isn’t a good indicator of cleaning ability.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2017/10/has-the-eu-ban-made-vacuum-cleaners-worse/
So overall, the policy was sensible and proportionate. It results in the saving of energy and the downsides are only very minor (if people are vacuuming up oversized pieces of debris). The UK should stick with it, as indeed we may be obliged to by the trade deal the Prime Minister intends to sign up to.

 

[TrafficEng]

I sincerely regret mentioning vacuum cleaners. Please accept my apologies for doing so.

But I am heartened to hear Remainers being somewhat more critical of these EU initiatives than I would be. I can see the logic of the intention - even the kettles - but profoundly disagree with the method of implementation.

My last addition to the subject would be to note that incandescent light bulbs can still be purchased if you know where to buy them, and the fundamental flaw in that policy initiative was to introduce it at a time where the principal alternative were (mercury containing) CFLs and the eminently more efficient and sensible LEDs were not quite ready for mass market.

I am sure if it had been a UK Government led initiative rather than an EU one, the political backlash would have been sufficient to delay the 'ban' until LEDs were widely available. And the money spent on giving away free CFLs might have been spent more productively on bringing LEDs to mass market that bit quicker. The problem we had was the UK Government was able to blame the EU, rather than being accountable to the people voting for them.

 

[furnessvale]

Those who have chosen to use it - a good couple of million.

So about 3% then. I wonder how many of them will ACTUALLY be disadvantaged when the final deal is arrived at?

 

[43066]

Both campaigns telling lies is an argument for having a 2nd referendum, not against.

Secondly, predictions turning out to be incorrect are not the same as outright lies.


(Yes. This is probably pointless. The UK will now leave the EU.)

By that line of reasoning, you presumably reject every election/referendum result that has ever been returned. Politicians of all hues lie and bend the truth, that’s just the way it is. The remain campaign had a fair crack of the whip at making their case in 2016, and the vote went the way it did.

A second referendum, before the result of the first has been implemented, is a nonsensical idea for the following reasons:

1. Shock horror, leave might just win again. As a leaver, I have no faith that this result would be respected by the remain side any more than the first.

2. If remain were to win, why should leave voters accept this result any more than remainers did the first? Farage et al could quite legitimately declare the result null and void and require a “best of three”.

Where does it end?!

 

[EM2]

That was one lie but IMO not the biggest. To me that was the idea that a vote for remain was a vote for the "status quo" with a clear implication that the status quo meant no change. This is patently untrue as the EU itself states its objective is ever closer union.

Which Cameron negotiated an exemption from.
“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

 

[edwin_m]

On the contrary, it was "Trying to move on". Happy to re-engage when this has been achieved. In the meantime there is very little point in going over the same ground yet again.

What needs moving on from is the arguments about whether Brexit should have happened - we're never going to agree on that.

What is still important is the form of trade deal with the EU. Unless Johnson faces down the ultra-Brexiters and keeps the trade agreement close to the EU, all the other consequences for his other policies will be that much worse and indeed we could be back to the no deal cliff edge in a year's time. For those who say he wouldn't do that, remember he only got to this deal by agreeing to something he'd previously voted against and count how many he's betrayed over the years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It severely affects our lives. We lose free movement. That is absolutely critical.

Is it critical? For you (and for me), it is certainly beneficial and important. However, there's many people who just don't see it as critical or important. If you're living in a community in the UK's deindustrialised rust belt, so you don't travel abroad and only see low wage Eastern Europeans coming here to take the few jobs available, you just don't feel that way.

I know you're a keen europhile (as am I) and that this will profoundly affect you. However, for a lot of people, the removal of freedom of movement barely impacts them directly.

 

[JamesT]

I'm not interested in working abroad. I just want to retire. You would have thought there would be fewer restrictions on that, as you won't be taking jobs from locals, but most countries don't offer that or only offer it to people with previous ties to the country.

Freedom of Movement within the EU is primarily concerned with workers. https://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/disable/freedom_en.htm mentions that economically inactive will need to show they have enough resources not to be a burden on their new country and apply for a residence permit. I’d suggest this is not that dissimilar to the visa process a non-EU citizen would have to go through.

 

[43066]

What needs moving on from is the arguments about whether Brexit should have happened - we're never going to agree on that.

Agreed. We need to move on. What sticks in the craw a little is how so many remainers have failed to accept that the result went the way it did.

As stated earlier in the thread, democracy requires losers’ consent in order to function. That has been notable by its absence over the last three years.

What is still important is the form of trade deal with the EU. Unless Johnson faces down the ultra-Brexiters and keeps the trade agreement close to the EU, all the other consequences for his other policies will be that much worse and indeed we could be back to the no deal cliff edge in a year's time. For those who say he wouldn't do that, remember he only got to this deal by agreeing to something he'd previously voted against and count how many he's betrayed over the years.

Personally I’m not convinced that no deal would be anything like the disaster that has been painted by project fear. The option of no deal needs to be kept on the table, and used, if the EU refuses to play ball and negotiate sensibly.

The EU has had no incentive whatsoever to negotiate a favourable deal with the U.K. since TM’s disastrous 2017 election result - that position has now fundamentally changed.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What needs moving on from is the arguments about whether Brexit should have happened - we're never going to agree on that.

What is still important is the form of trade deal with the EU. Unless Johnson faces down the ultra-Brexiters and keeps the trade agreement close to the EU, all the other consequences for his other policies will be that much worse and indeed we could be back to the no deal cliff edge in a year's time. For those who say he wouldn't do that, remember he only got to this deal by agreeing to something he'd previously voted against and count how many he's betrayed over the years.

You're absolutely right. Brexit is going to happen - the election has confirmed that and it's going to happen quickly in terms of our leaving. What the issue then is how we forge a new relationship with the EU and that we avoid the nightmare of a no deal Brexit. However, no longer in hock to the ERG or the DUP, Johnson is perhaps now freer to negotiate than before.... that's the hope anyway.

 

[TrafficEng]

Now I can name one country like that - with the intention of forcing would-be visitors to have passports rather than the more usual ID cards, and to go through strict profiling as well; thus giving the impression it really doesn't want EU visitors at all rather than laying out a red carpet and saying "please come, we want your money"!!

This argument might have more force if it included a call for citizens of the other 178('ish) states to be able to enter the CTA at any time by doing nothing more than waving a National ID card.

As it happens, there are people who have resided in the UK for decades who would need a visa (as well as a passport) to travel to certain other parts of the CTA. So this freedom to wander isn't quite as universal as sometimes believed.

And the "freedom of movement" isn't about tourism - it's about the ability to go and live, study or retire in a country of your choice without restrictions, particulary financial restrictions...

Indeed, I'm well aware. The quoted phrase was "right to travel" [anywhere in the EU]. And as I pointed out, the FoM right is not without restrictions. Criminals, and the unemployed, may not be welcome.

 

[furnessvale]

Which Cameron negotiated an exemption from.
“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

With policy ever more directed to the benefit of "good compliant EU members", how long will it take of the EU getting ever closer, with the UK on the sidelines, before we might as well have left anyway?

 

[EM2]

With policy ever more directed to the benefit of "good compliant EU members", how long will it take of the EU getting ever closer, with the UK on the sidelines, before we might as well have left anyway?

That's not something that we will ever know now.
But do you still aver that this was a lie told by the Remain side?

 

[TrafficEng]

Which Cameron negotiated an exemption from.
“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

"is not committed to" =/= "will take no part in"

You can read "is not committed to" as simply stating the blinking obvious that the UK has never been fully committed to the EEC/EU project. "the specific situation it has under the Treaties" is recognition we have always been the awkward partner trying to take a different path.

This is not an 'exemption'. It is an acknowledgement of the facts, and of the pre-existing rights of member states to opt out of (or veto) initiatives that develop during their membership.

Similar wording might be classed as an 'exemption' if a non-member state were able to negotiate this as part of their accession. For example, if they were exempted from the requirement to join the Euro. But that doesn't apply in our case.

Cameron came back with a similar piece of paper that Chamberlain did in 1938. Warm words, not much substance.

 

[43066]

In defence of the EU, or rather of the EEC, the lies told to the British public by the 'Remain' campaign in 1975 were not the EEC's fault. What the EEC was to become was written down in the treaties. It was just that Heath and Wilson didn't believe they could win without lying.

Now, since it has been established that any lying during a referendum campaign is sufficient grounds to nullify the result of that referendum, could we now all please agree that the UK has been illegally kept in the EEC/EU since 1975 and that all agreements and treaties signed after that date are null and void? [/Irony].

Yes indeed.

I’m too young to remember the 1975 referendum but the received wisdom from people who were around at the time seems to be that the economic benefits of the project were sold to the public, but little mention was made of the federalist aspect - which has always been a key part of the EU’s mission.

The public were basically duped.

Which Cameron negotiated an exemption from.
“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

Given the stated direction of travel of the EU, and it’s “interesting” approach to democracy, I have absolutely no faith that exemptions of this type would last in the long term.

Quite simply David Cameron failed to achieve anything substantive in his “renegotiation”. Had he done so I might have voted remain!

But we are at risk of rerunning arguments that should have been put to bed years ago.

Time to move on, as Thursday’s result indicates.

 

[Journeyman]

I accept that Brexit is going to happen now. However, I'm never going to agree with it making any sense at all. It will make us worse off, remove many rights we've enjoyed for decades, diminish our influence and make many everyday things more difficult and expensive. It's really, really screwed up the functioning of the UK as well, and makes Scottish independence more likely, something I'm strongly opposed to (I live near Edinburgh).

To all those who were willing to be made poorer on a point of principle regarding sovereignty - personally, this is something I don't give a toss about, and I resent the negative effects I'm going to have to deal with over some issue that won't make a blind bit of difference to about 99.999999% of the population.

Yes, some decisions are made at EU level, but the UK has had plenty of influence over them, and the economic benefit of membership has been enormous.

 

[Journeyman]

Time to move on, as Thursday’s result indicates.

Leavers haven't shut up for over 40 years, so don't get your hopes up.