The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
It's a disgrace...if it were true. EEC membership was Conservative party policy for about ten years before 1970 & we organise ourselves via a representative democracy. People knew what they were getting if they cared to find out.
A second referendum was part of the libdems agenda this year,remainders could have got what they wanted if they cared to find out.turbobloke said:
If there had been a mention of the UK taking its place within a future EU, with all that that entailed, they may have received a different response. Plans were afoot but the public was kept in the dark.
Well there was & I've posted the proof several times. Moreover, I'm digging the wibble factor of the idea that a trans national body should somehow set in aspic at the point of joining.Nothingtoseehere said:
A second referendum was part of the libdems agenda this year,remainders could have got what they wanted if they cared to find out.
Right, so we agree then that remainers largely don't want to overturn Brexit, as evidenced by the Lib Dem election result. Cool, making progress.Eddie Strohacker said:
I really don't think the Conservatives were ever hiding their intent. As I said, we operate a representative democracy, vote Tory, get Europe. It was a clear choice.
Nope. it was a clear case of don't vote tory, then you will get labour, and for the majority of ordinary UK voters, the biggest threat to the UK and its prosperity was, and always will be the labour party. This assumes that people are able to work out what labour actually stands for.It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
Eddie Strohacker said:
turbobloke said:
If there had been a mention of the UK taking its place within a future EU, with all that that entailed, they may have received a different response. Plans were afoot but the public was kept in the dark.
Well there was & I've posted the proof several times. Once more won't hurt. We got full details of the horrors of the EU? Go for it.
fido said:
"The SMMT’s report said a WTO tariff on imported car parts of between 2.5% and 4.5% would cost the average car owner an extra £21 a year for replacement components."
How much?! £21! The horror ...
Also, it assumes your car bits are from the EU. As both my cars are Jap, it might be10-20% cheaper.
WTO will see lots of little increases across the board, and the Government could cover that buy reducing VAT. I appreciate VAT doesn't apply to food.How much?! £21! The horror ...
Also, it assumes your car bits are from the EU. As both my cars are Jap, it might be10-20% cheaper.
Whether anything comes down has yet to be seen.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Nope. it was a clear case of don't vote tory, then you will get labour, and for the majority of ordinary UK voters, the biggest threat to the UK and its prosperity was, and always will be the labour party. This assumes that people are able to work out what labour actually stands for.
It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
Mate... Those quotes are from 1964. 1966 & 1970 respectively. I honestly don't think I can help you any further.It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Nope. it was a clear case of don't vote tory, then you will get labour, and for the majority of ordinary UK voters, the biggest threat to the UK and its prosperity was, and always will be the labour party. This assumes that people are able to work out what labour actually stands for.
It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Nope. it was a clear case of don't vote tory, then you will get labour, and for the majority of ordinary UK voters, the biggest threat to the UK and its prosperity was, and always will be the labour party. This assumes that people are able to work out what labour actually stands for.
It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
Mate... Those quotes are from 1964. 1966 & 1970 respectively. I honestly don't think I can help you any further.It cannot be for the worker, since just about everyone from the person who sweeps the factory yard, to the factory director is a worker. At which point between the two does one become `not' a worker.
It cannot be for those who are for or against Brexit since Corbyn changes his mind on the subject more times than he changes his socks.
Fat chance!Eddie Strohacker said:
turbobloke said:
Because full details of the EU nightmare weren't revealed, and others weren't known, so of course you can't help it.
Which isn't the subject of the contention. turbobloke said:
Which political Party should people have voted for to not continue 'on course' within the EU project, and when exactly?
Definitely the Tories during the Blair years. Howard and Hague (despite the latter seen as too Europhile for many) both led much more Eurosceptic parties than Blair.The Tories have been in various states of civil war over Europe since long as I can remember (so Major).
It was, ironically, Camerons attempt to end this infighting once and for all that has led us to this point of leaving with the shreds of a government.
glazbagun said:
It was, ironically, Camerons attempt to end this infighting once and for all that has led us to this point of leaving with the shreds of a government.
Agreed, but it was late in the day and not really an opportunity to renegotiate where the EU was going, that's non-negotiable as we saw in his sham negotiations prior to the referendum. The Referendum Act was a reluctant step on CMD's part which he thought would bury any descendents of Major's 'barstewards' but like other political leaders he had misjudged the mood of the nation on this issue, a mood which had set in some time ago for reasons are mainly the EU's own fault..Eddie Strohacker said:
Mate... Those quotes are from 1964. 1966 & 1970 respectively. I honestly don't think I can help you any further.
I know,You can start by detailing the EEC charter, including what the UK actually signed up for,
Then chronologically, you can list the dates and signatories to the various treaties since 1973 that turned the 'economic community' agreement we signed up to, into the 'economic union' we have recently voted to leave.
I know that its true that you obviously know absolutely everything about the subject in hand so a quick list should be coffee time effort for you.
1973
1974
etc.
etc.
2016
TIA.
Mandalore said:
I know,
You can start by detailing the EEC charter, including what the UK actually signed up for,
Then chronologically, you can list the dates and signatories to the various treaties since 1973 that turned the 'economic community' agreement we signed up to, into the 'economic union' we have recently voted to leave.
I know that its true that you obviously know absolutely everything about the subject in hand so a quick list should be coffee time effort for you.
1973
1974
etc.
etc.
2016
TIA.
"Use google,Im not your lackey you dimwit,Ive got better things to do than research for some thicko on the internet,chortle"You can start by detailing the EEC charter, including what the UK actually signed up for,
Then chronologically, you can list the dates and signatories to the various treaties since 1973 that turned the 'economic community' agreement we signed up to, into the 'economic union' we have recently voted to leave.
I know that its true that you obviously know absolutely everything about the subject in hand so a quick list should be coffee time effort for you.
1973
1974
etc.
etc.
2016
TIA.
Love Eddie.
Mandalore said:
I know,
You can start by detailing the EEC charter, including what the UK actually signed up for,
Then chronologically, you can list the dates and signatories to the various treaties since 1973 that turned the 'economic community' agreement we signed up to, into the 'economic union' we have recently voted to leave.
I know that its true that you obviously know absolutely everything about the subject in hand so a quick list should be coffee time effort for you.
1973
1974
etc.
etc.
2016
TIA.
I'll get right on it, keep pressing F5.You can start by detailing the EEC charter, including what the UK actually signed up for,
Then chronologically, you can list the dates and signatories to the various treaties since 1973 that turned the 'economic community' agreement we signed up to, into the 'economic union' we have recently voted to leave.
I know that its true that you obviously know absolutely everything about the subject in hand so a quick list should be coffee time effort for you.
1973
1974
etc.
etc.
2016
TIA.
Tony Benn on the Treaty of Maastricht said:
“Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors; They believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view. Others believe that the change is inevitable, and that the common currency will protect us from inflation and will provide a wage policy. They believe that it will control speculation and that Britain cannot survive alone. None of those arguments persuade me because the argument has never been about sovereignty.
I do not know what a sovereign is, apart from the one that used to be in gold and the Pope who is sovereign in the Vatican. We are talking about democracy. No nation – not even the great United States which could, for all I know, be destroyed by a nuclear weapon from a third-world country – has the power to impose its will on other countries. We are discussing whether the British people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under which they are governed. The argument is nothing to do with whether we should get more maternity leave from Madame Papandreou [a European Commissioner] than from Madame Thatcher.
That is not the issue. I recognize that when the members of the three Front Benches agree, I am in a minority. My next job therefore is to explain to the people of Chesterfield what we have decided. I will say first, ‘My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people whom you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but you cannot remove them.’ I know that it sounds negative but I have always thought it as positive to say that the important thing about democracy is that we can remove without bloodshed the people who govern us.
British Influence - Choosing a Good King over a Bad Parliament
British Influence – Choosing a good king over a bad parliament
We can get rid of a Callaghan, a Wilson or even a Right Hon. Lady by internal processes. We can get rid of a Right Hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Major). But that cannot be done in the structure that is proposed. Even if one likes the policies of the people in Europe one cannot get rid of them. Secondly, we say to my favourite friends, the Chartists and suffragettes, ‘All your struggles to get control of the ballot box were a waste of time. We shall be run in future by a few white persons, as in 1832.’ The instrument, I might add, is the Royal Prerogative of treaty making. For the first time since 1649 the Crown makes the laws – advised, I admit, by the Prime Minister.
We must ask what will happen when people realize what we have done. We have had a marvellous debate about Europe, but none of us has discussed our relationship with the people who sent us here. Hon. Members have expressed views on Albania and the Baltic states. I have been dazzled by the knowledge of the continent of which we are all part. NO one has spoken about how he or she got here and what we were sent here to do.
If people lose the power to sack their Government one of several things happens. First, people may just slope off. Apathy could destroy democracy. When the turnout drops below 50 per cent, we are in danger… The second thing that people can do is to riot. Riot is an old-fashioned method for drawing the attention of the Government to what is wrong. It is difficult for an elected person to admit it, but the riot at Strangeways produced some prison reforms. Riot has historically played a much larger part in British politics than we are ever allowed to know. Thirdly, nationalism can arise. Instead of blaming the Treaty of Rome, people say, ‘It is those Germans’ or ‘It is the French’. Nationalism is built out of frustration that people feel when they cannot get their way through the ballot box. With nationalism comes repression.
I hope that it is not pessimistic – in my view it is not – to say that democracy hangs by a thread in every country of the world. Unless we can offer people a peaceful route to the resolution of injustices through the ballot box they will not listen to a House that has blocked off that route. There are many alternatives open to us. One Hon. Member said that he was young and had not fought in the war. He looked at a new Europe. But there have been five Europes this century.
There was one run by the King, the Kaiser and the Tsar – they were all cousins so that was very comfortable. They were all Queen Victoria’s grandsons. And there was no nonsense about human rights when Queen Victoria’s grandsons repressed people. Then there was the Russian revolution. Then there was the inter-war period. Then there was the Anglo-Soviet alliance. Then there was the cold war. Now we have a Boris Yeltsin who has joined the Monday Club. There have been so many Europes. This is not the only Europe on offer.
Another way would be to have a looser, wider Europe. I have an idea for a Commonwealth of Europe. I am introducing a bill on the subject. Europe would be rather like the British Common-wealth. We would work by consent with people. Or we could accept this ghastly proposal, which is clumsy, secretive, centralized, bureaucratic and divisive. That is how I regard the Treaty of Rome. I was born a European and I will die one. But I have never put my alliance behind the Treaty of Rome. I object to it. I hate being called an anti-European. How can one be anti-European when one is born in Europe? It is like saying that one is anti-British if one does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a lot of nonsense it is. I ask myself why the House is ready to contemplate abandoning its duties, as I fear that it is. I was elected forty-one years ago this month. This Chamber has lost confidence in democracy. It believes that it must be governed by someone else. It is afraid to use the powers entrusted to it by its constituents.
It has traded power for status. One gets asked to go on the telly if one is a Member of Parliament. The Chamber does not want to use its power. It has accepted the role of a spectator and joined what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution, leaving the Crown, under the control of the Prime Minister, to be the Executive part. If democracy is destroyed in Britain it will be not the communists, Trotskyists or subversives but this House which threw it away. The rights that are entrusted to us are not for us to give away.
Even if I agree with everything that is proposed, I cannot hand away powers lent to me for five years by the people of Chesterfield. I just could not do it. It would be theft of public rights. Therefore, there is only one answer. If people are determined to submit themselves to Jacques Delors, Madame Papandreou and the Council of Ministers, we must tell the people what is planned. If people vote for that, they will all have capitulated. Julius Caesar said, ‘We are just merging our sovereignty.’ So did William the Conqueror.
It is not possible to support the Government’s motion. I have told the Chief Whip that I cannot support the Labour motion. I invite the House to vote against the Government’s motion and not to support a motion which purports to take us faster into a Community which cannot reflect the aspirations of those who put us here. That is not a nationalist argument nor is it about sovereignty. It is a democratic argument and it should be decisive in a democratic Chamber.“
I do not know what a sovereign is, apart from the one that used to be in gold and the Pope who is sovereign in the Vatican. We are talking about democracy. No nation – not even the great United States which could, for all I know, be destroyed by a nuclear weapon from a third-world country – has the power to impose its will on other countries. We are discussing whether the British people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under which they are governed. The argument is nothing to do with whether we should get more maternity leave from Madame Papandreou [a European Commissioner] than from Madame Thatcher.
That is not the issue. I recognize that when the members of the three Front Benches agree, I am in a minority. My next job therefore is to explain to the people of Chesterfield what we have decided. I will say first, ‘My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people whom you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but you cannot remove them.’ I know that it sounds negative but I have always thought it as positive to say that the important thing about democracy is that we can remove without bloodshed the people who govern us.
British Influence - Choosing a Good King over a Bad Parliament
British Influence – Choosing a good king over a bad parliament
We can get rid of a Callaghan, a Wilson or even a Right Hon. Lady by internal processes. We can get rid of a Right Hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Major). But that cannot be done in the structure that is proposed. Even if one likes the policies of the people in Europe one cannot get rid of them. Secondly, we say to my favourite friends, the Chartists and suffragettes, ‘All your struggles to get control of the ballot box were a waste of time. We shall be run in future by a few white persons, as in 1832.’ The instrument, I might add, is the Royal Prerogative of treaty making. For the first time since 1649 the Crown makes the laws – advised, I admit, by the Prime Minister.
We must ask what will happen when people realize what we have done. We have had a marvellous debate about Europe, but none of us has discussed our relationship with the people who sent us here. Hon. Members have expressed views on Albania and the Baltic states. I have been dazzled by the knowledge of the continent of which we are all part. NO one has spoken about how he or she got here and what we were sent here to do.
If people lose the power to sack their Government one of several things happens. First, people may just slope off. Apathy could destroy democracy. When the turnout drops below 50 per cent, we are in danger… The second thing that people can do is to riot. Riot is an old-fashioned method for drawing the attention of the Government to what is wrong. It is difficult for an elected person to admit it, but the riot at Strangeways produced some prison reforms. Riot has historically played a much larger part in British politics than we are ever allowed to know. Thirdly, nationalism can arise. Instead of blaming the Treaty of Rome, people say, ‘It is those Germans’ or ‘It is the French’. Nationalism is built out of frustration that people feel when they cannot get their way through the ballot box. With nationalism comes repression.
I hope that it is not pessimistic – in my view it is not – to say that democracy hangs by a thread in every country of the world. Unless we can offer people a peaceful route to the resolution of injustices through the ballot box they will not listen to a House that has blocked off that route. There are many alternatives open to us. One Hon. Member said that he was young and had not fought in the war. He looked at a new Europe. But there have been five Europes this century.
There was one run by the King, the Kaiser and the Tsar – they were all cousins so that was very comfortable. They were all Queen Victoria’s grandsons. And there was no nonsense about human rights when Queen Victoria’s grandsons repressed people. Then there was the Russian revolution. Then there was the inter-war period. Then there was the Anglo-Soviet alliance. Then there was the cold war. Now we have a Boris Yeltsin who has joined the Monday Club. There have been so many Europes. This is not the only Europe on offer.
Another way would be to have a looser, wider Europe. I have an idea for a Commonwealth of Europe. I am introducing a bill on the subject. Europe would be rather like the British Common-wealth. We would work by consent with people. Or we could accept this ghastly proposal, which is clumsy, secretive, centralized, bureaucratic and divisive. That is how I regard the Treaty of Rome. I was born a European and I will die one. But I have never put my alliance behind the Treaty of Rome. I object to it. I hate being called an anti-European. How can one be anti-European when one is born in Europe? It is like saying that one is anti-British if one does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a lot of nonsense it is. I ask myself why the House is ready to contemplate abandoning its duties, as I fear that it is. I was elected forty-one years ago this month. This Chamber has lost confidence in democracy. It believes that it must be governed by someone else. It is afraid to use the powers entrusted to it by its constituents.
It has traded power for status. One gets asked to go on the telly if one is a Member of Parliament. The Chamber does not want to use its power. It has accepted the role of a spectator and joined what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution, leaving the Crown, under the control of the Prime Minister, to be the Executive part. If democracy is destroyed in Britain it will be not the communists, Trotskyists or subversives but this House which threw it away. The rights that are entrusted to us are not for us to give away.
Even if I agree with everything that is proposed, I cannot hand away powers lent to me for five years by the people of Chesterfield. I just could not do it. It would be theft of public rights. Therefore, there is only one answer. If people are determined to submit themselves to Jacques Delors, Madame Papandreou and the Council of Ministers, we must tell the people what is planned. If people vote for that, they will all have capitulated. Julius Caesar said, ‘We are just merging our sovereignty.’ So did William the Conqueror.
It is not possible to support the Government’s motion. I have told the Chief Whip that I cannot support the Labour motion. I invite the House to vote against the Government’s motion and not to support a motion which purports to take us faster into a Community which cannot reflect the aspirations of those who put us here. That is not a nationalist argument nor is it about sovereignty. It is a democratic argument and it should be decisive in a democratic Chamber.“
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff