Second referendum

it really amazes me how after the 1975 referendum we 'entrusted' future governments to act on our behalf,even tho most of the stuff that has gone on with europe has done so under the stewardship of the tories , a party many on here would not trust running a tombola , they are simply a law unto themselves usually.

the signing of the maastricht treaty was the biggest constitutional change to this countries democracy for centuries and john major sold us own the river,even thatcher,who had previously done negotiations with the eu,publically slated major for the acceptance of the treaty, she also called the eu liars because they had gone against assurances (regarding further integration and handing over of sovereign powers) that nothing like this would happen,the whole episode nearly cost the tories their term in office and ALL the major parties promised a future referendum as they argued that our mp's did not have the power to ratify what had gone on.

this treaty alone was enough to warrant a referendum

 

Much of what you mention is discussed in the latest Moggcast.

 

I said food options. I'm talking if certain parts of the country who are used to acquiring a certain brand or type of food or consumer good that may well be subjected to a tariff. Remember, if the backstop is enacted, which I fully expect it to be just because we have no idea how to actually negotiate properly, then NI will be classed as party of the EU customs union ad we'll effectively be a third country to them. I'd be very surprised if there isn't a push to change that, but then you're in the realms of giving the UK a competitive edge without being in the EU... so that ain't going to happen either.

My point was, BMW et al will still sell their marquee brands into the British market, because the demographic that buy those cars are able to afford them. But anyway, if you want to sensationalise a comment into something it isn't, feel free.

 

Sorry, I stopped reading when I saw "the sun" in the URL

 

A good chuckle, despite it being such a serious issue. Its a well used filibuster by the leave side. Anything of sense urging caution and scrutiny can be explained away by bluster, incredulity and a nebulous statement about fear something or other.

 

Never heard of him so have no idea why an Australian (who have a history of a rivalrly with UK, especially England) that lives in the tax haven of Switzerland is getting involved with British politics so much. Our island is divided enough without those not from here trying to get their agendas across.

 

i'm sensationalising nothing,not really sure what you are on about to be honest, you say certain parts of the country not being able to acquire a certain brand,wtf are you waffling on about,what exactly, is this 'food' that is so special that makes leaving the eu so terrible?

As for cars,not all european cars are high end kit where the purchaser wouldnt be too fussed about extra tarrifs(tho this depends on the size of tarrifs),,vw fiat renault skoda peugeot as well as the german marques all make cars where the buyer would be put off with a few extra grand,possibly more if a trade war ensues/,having said this and like i've said before i think the powerful german lobby will not allow this to be the case.

the eu is deliberately using Ni to cause more problems for brexit,the eu has said if we leave we cannot be part of the single market yet the backstop will keep a part of the uk in the single market,the eu are cherry pickin' what is in their favour,ie,they are doing their damnedest to keep us tied in,The EU justifies this by pointing to Northern Ireland’s small size. But Northern Ireland’s population is bigger than Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, and just a shade smaller than that of Latvia and Slovenia.So this small size argument is codswallop,

 

aussie like to have their say on brexit

RegisterLog in
FEATURES

Tony Abbott: How to save Brexit
Britain has nothing to fear from no deal
Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott

27 October 2018

9:00 AM

READ ON

Brexit: The final deal?
Spectator Events

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?


A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.



Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

 

You know full well there are many branded products that are known well in the UK market and seen as British but are not made in mainland Europe. In a no deal scenario, there would be checks to process the goods into our area, and tariffs would be applied (I've yet to hear or see anything which allows a UK subsid to import goods from within its parent group from a European location and avoid such tariffs being applied, something very important in the scheme of things). If there is any govt guidance on this it would be fantastically helpful to see. Kraft being an obvious example who now make product in Poland under the Mondelez banner with the Bourneville plant just about mothballed.

The EU isn't using anything as an excuse at all. The Uk govt, and its media were full of bluster to try and waft away anything that was an issue as "project fear". The simple fact is that Ireland has the good friday agreement where a hard border cannot be returned to the island of Ireland. if we're not in the EU, we obviously have the issue that Ireland still is, while NI aren't. I've not seen anyone find a rational solution to this yet, and it highlights the lack of substance by the leave media and campaigners that this wasn't even flagged as an issue pre the vote.

As for cars. I'm not too sure European car manufacturers will be that bothered about the cheap end of the UK market. Yes, it will see some loss. But with trade deals with Canada, Japan and Vietnam with others seemingly in the pipeline, I think little old England will just have to put up or shut up with the price increase.

 

i'm not sure of its validity but i read an article that the Mondelez move to poland was part funded by an eu grant

you obviously know more than the german lobby,i doff my cap to you sir

the EU originally proposed a backstop that would mean Northern Ireland staying in the EU customs union, large parts of the single market and the EU VAT system.

Its chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, continually emphasised that this backstop could only apply to Northern Ireland.

Under the backstop compromise, Northern Ireland would remain in a deep customs union with the bloc, applying the union’s full “customs code” and following single market regulations for goods and agri-food products.

the above is a quote from an article in the FT

 

pro brexit waffle from someone who has nothing to do with the eu,i'd say its no more waffle than any other aussie putting their two penneth in, I also trust the opinions of an ex prime minister over someone on a footy forum.

 

You do know a business has to apply for funding. That same business also assured they would continue full production at Bourneville and that no jobs would be lost. That company also said they would not change formulas and ingredients and preserve the long history of Cadbury. So politicians waived through the merger which really should have been blocked. The destruction of tax avoiding Cadbury is firmly at the foot of UK MP's and bodies failure. How you think the EU is at fault here just shows your blinkered prejudice.

Business makes decision. EU give support to generate jobs in member country. Maybe you want to blame banks supporting business through loans next?

I'm fully aware of the backstop scenario and the application of "a" customs union and NI's position into "the" customs union and the impact that would have should the backstop become live, how NI is effectively annexed from the UK. That's in May's deal. You're advocating May's deal now?

It shows the complexities and direct contradiction of the NI border issue with the GFA and the position May set with her red lines. The circle can't be squared and this is the only fudge that works for now. I completely disagree with it and it shows the absolute folly of Brexit to me and how difficult it is to navigate.

 

aye,all three ex british prime minister that all promised us a referendum on the eu after major signed us up to maastricht

 

I'd suggest with the disintegration that's occurred since 2016, they were more than justified in the stance they took.