Brexit's policies

[gasbanni]

Senior Tories publish six laws to take back power from the EU http://dailym.ai/1YpPKj1 via http://dailym.ai/android
OH Yes !

http://dailym.ai/1YpPKj1

 

[peterchichester]

Largely fantasy. I don't believe the £100 million for one second. And apparently WTO rules are pretty much the last thing we want. Not that they are the government but I can't imagine anyone wanting Johnson, Gove and Grayling. Grayling is particularly obnoxious and Gove wants to replace the NHS with an insurance scheme. I cannot imagine why anyone would elect them to anything

 

[JohnD]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3748166e-3151-11e6-ad39-3fee5ffe5b5b.html

"Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London with one eye on Mr Cameron’s job, invokes a newfound freedom without the pettifogging rules of the single market. With one bound, Britain would become the Venice of the 21st century. In the real world, Britain would have to redefine fundamentally its relationship with the EU. An arrangement akin to Norway’s would require paying into the EU budget and accepting free movement of labour. Switzerland’s deal is even more cumbersome. Mr Gove invokes a model closer to Albania, Bosnia, Serbia and Ukraine, to deserved derision. The fallback — relying on World Trade Organisation rules — would involve tariffs on UK goods, a poor deal on services (vital for the City of London) and years of fraught negotiations. Britain would end up a rule-taker, not a rule-maker.

Britain’s seat at the table has allowed it to win big arguments in Brussels: on free trade, liberalisation of air travel and telecoms, and EU enlargement to central and eastern Europe. The UK has shaped membership to its needs, securing opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen agreement abolishing border controls. It retains control of income tax and corporate taxation. Education, skills and a skewed housing market hold the UK economy back, not a Brussels bureaucracy the size of Birmingham city council. "

"In a multi-speed, multi-tiered EU, the European superstate is a chimera. Brexiters such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party, see British withdrawal as a handy act of sabotage, hastening the disintegration of the EU. To what end? In or out, Britain would pay a heavy cost. Brexit would reintroduce a border between north and south in Ireland. It would put the territorial integrity of the UK at risk, especially if an independent-minded Scotland overwhelmingly votes to stay. It would trigger a political crisis in the UK — Mr Cameron would surely go — and reawaken the ghosts of nationalism in Europe.

The positive case for Britain in the EU is easily made. To abandon the cause of constructive reform of an admittedly imperfect EU would be more than defeatist. It would be a gratuitous act of self-harm. Business leaders have a duty to spell out the cost of leaving before it is too late."

 

[EFLImpudence]

Was there an effective border between Britain and The Republic before the EU?

Why would Scotland get a vote to stay? They voted to remain part of the UK. That's it.

 

[Foxtrot Oscar]

Why have the Remainians got it into their heads that we would need to pay the EU anything to trade with them?.... Perhaps we should charge them for access to our market.

 

[Foxtrot Oscar]

Was there an effective border between Britain and The Republic before the EU?

Why would Scotland get a vote to stay? They voted to remain part of the UK. That's it.

No the border between NI and the Republic has always been reasonably open and will remain so.

Wee Jimmy Crankey can whinge for another Referendum if she likes but I suspect that the Scots people are bored of such things now.. It is interesting to note that Mr Salmond didn't nearly win the referendum but the " Better together" brigade almost threw Scotland away with their uber negative campaign... A similar style campaign to the one being run by the remainiacs now..

 

[Gerrydelasel]

An arrangement akin to Norway’s would require paying into the EU budget and accepting free movement of labour.

But it would mean paying less than we do now for the same benefits, and we will simply refuse Schengen. We'd be the EU's biggest export market so we have the upper hand in bargaining.

Britain’s seat at the table has allowed it to win big arguments in Brussels:

We've voted against 72 EU regulations since the 1980s and we've been voted down every time. We have no power to reform or repeal those regulations once made (neither does anyone else).

The UK has shaped membership to its needs, securing opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen agreement abolishing border controls. It retains control of income tax and corporate taxation.

So basically we've been back-pedalling against the EU's core principles ever since we joined. That tells you everything. Time to cut the last apron string.

Brussels bureaucracy the size of Birmingham city council.

You've just underestimated the size of Brussels bearacracy by several hundred.

Brexit would reintroduce a border between north and south in Ireland.

But you just said we'd have to accept free movement. Make up your mind. In any case, so what? A puny 500km border is no reason to stay in the EU.

To abandon the cause of constructive reform of an admittedly imperfect EU would be more than defeatist

Yes, it would be realist. The EU has proved itself unreformable at every opportunity.

Business leaders have a duty to spell out the cost of leaving before it is too late.

They have. Corporations and NGOs love the EU because it profits them, but for the vast majority of businesses it is a burden. Big businesses tell you to Remain, SMEs tell you to leave. SMEs are the ones that count.

 

[Nozzle]

What winds me up about Brexit "policy" (keep in mind that "Brexit" is not a political party and will not form a government on June 24th) is that they want to squander the money saved on the NHS. Which is a wasters policy if ever I heard it. Chucking money at the health of people today is not forward looking. Funds should also be ploughed in to research, medical, techinical, agricultural, ecological research to address the problems we face today and tomorrow. Doing stomach pumps on drunkards and gastric bands on fat b@stards is a VERY poor investment indeed.

All of that said, I'm still voting Brexit. On balance, we're better off out than in, neither side of the debate has everything for it which is whate makes the political choice so important. It's a shame the trading union ended up a political union, and it comes as no surprise that Merkel and the German media are so concerned about the Brexit possibility, as it'll be Germany and France left over as the big players who are net contributors. That is the impact of the ever-closer-union policy, and democracy at work.

Nozzle

 

[Gerrydelasel]

What winds me up about Brexit "policy" is that they want to squander the money saved on the NHS.

Agreed. They seem to have latched onto the NHS as a populist cause, maybe because of the whole "we could build a hospital every week!" quip. In reality it wouldn't all be spent on the NHS of course, the money would simply be absorbed into everything.

 

[JohnD]

we've been voted down every time. We have no power to reform or repeal those regulations once made (neither does anyone else).

That's another lie from the Resigners. It's cropped up before and been shown untrue. Why do you keep recirculating this nonsense?

In the vast majority of cases, the UK has voted on the "winning" side.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I am puzzled that the Brexiters think ANY money saved would be spent directly on 'us' by Osborne.

Ok we may have a better chance with McDonnell but when is that going to happen?

 

[ajstoneservices]

What winds me up about Brexit "policy" (keep in mind that "Brexit" is not a political party and will not form a government on June 24th)

Nozzle

It's funny that the remain brigade would have us believe that they (Boris, Nigel and Michael) will be forming the next government. Brown was at it again this morning.
Having formed the next government they will give the post of chancellor of the exchequer to Armagidiot Oddbourne who will be called upon to sniff more coke and produce an emergency budget.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

That's another lie from the Resigners. It's cropped up before and been shown untrue. Why do you keep recirculating this nonsense?

OK maybe the number is 56, but "between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009. That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time."
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

This is just further indication of both our declining influence and our increasing disinclination to adopt EU policy, and therefore why we should just dump it altogther. When Remainers say we need to stay 'at the table' to maintain our influence, what they mean is our ability to say 'no'. That's like saying a woman should not leave her abusive husband because 'at least while married she can say no to him'.

 

[JohnD]

That's like saying a woman should not leave her abusive husband because 'at least while married she can say no to him'.

No, it isn't anything like that.

It's like saying "if you want to help set the rules of your village Leek Growing Club, you should continue to be a member and vote at the AGM."

If you leave, you lose your voice.

As your link says:

The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

Your link also says:

"Votes are only the tip of the iceberg

First, EU laws pass through several stages of negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament.

So the UK government’s ability to influence policies doesn’t only occur through voting—which is a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ situation—but also in negotiations over the actual text of a draft law.

Many accounts have shown that the UK diplomatic service has—at least historically—been very skilled in such negotiations over important laws.

Second, the records only relate to votes on proposed laws that eventually pass.

So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, or failed to get things it wanted, as these are not mentioned in the official figures."

 

[Gerrydelasel]

It's like saying "if you want to help set the rules of your village Leek Growing Club, you should continue to be a member and vote at the AGM."
If you leave, you lose your voice.

Except, using your analogy, every single village in the entire country has to adopt those same Leek Growing rules set by one village.
Leave the EU and only the tiny fraction of businesses that actually trade with the EU now have to swallow its rules without influence. And most of them never had any influence in the rules in the first place, so no change for them.