What precedent? That a non binding advisory referendum has to go for a vote by MPs we elected to represent us in a representative democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceTheSweeper
Printable View
What precedent? That a non binding advisory referendum has to go for a vote by MPs we elected to represent us in a representative democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceTheSweeper
Referendums are appropriate on constitutional matters and there is precedent E.g. we've had them on devolution questions and the AV electoral system proposal. We've also had one on the EU before in 1975.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
On what basis are MPs better qualified? Many of them have never had a proper job in their life. If Parliament had made the decision on the euro at the time (rather than Gordon Brown vetoing it out of spite for Tony Blair) we would almost certainly have joined. It would have been a calamitous decision.
Having said all that, I do agree with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. This was the basis of the Leave argument after all. However on most issues there hasn't been a referendum to determine the outcome of an issue. In this case there was following a vote in parliament by 6 to 1 to grant it. To then go against the decision of the electorate would be a scandal.
Yes I agree, all the project fear scaremongering by the Remain camp was a bit dishonest but thankfully the electorate saw through it and still voted to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
As one of the brexit voters i'm not too bothered, honestly. The key position amongst remainers has always been that they will not accept this result and will fight to reverse it. As a brexiter i can't be arsed to sink to their level if indeed the decision to leave is overturned, i'll just accept it and walk away.
Thing is MrB, it's not your average Joe Remain voter that you need to be bothered about.
It's your MP you need to worry about!
Looks like the 2 teams have returned back down the tunnel to their dressing rooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by molehill
Surely neither of the two main parties would risk vetoing the decision of the electorate. It's still a done deal.
Depends what you mean by Brexit tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
But lets face facts, my only real concern is that youve overtaken my post count ya big baw bag
And so they should - they had no idea what game they were meant to be playing, under what rules, whether they were at the right ground, nor indeed whether they should have brought football boots, tennis rackets, or hockey sticks.Quote:
Originally Posted by molehill
I think more fuss in being made of the court decision than is necessary. If I was PM I wouldn't even bother with the appeal.
Table a vote on Article 50. Article 50 is not he process, as Moley alluded to, they haven't even got on the pitch yet and Article 50 is just the starting whistle.
The Labour MPs, such as Nandy last night on QT, have said they respect the referendum result and will not block article 50.
To continue the analogy, Parliament can discuss how the negotiation is going somewhere in early 2018 at the half-time whistle and if they don't like it, consider a substitution and/or a change of formation(General Election).
I am 100% sure that the EU will not give a running commentary. The Council will negotiate and only when completed will the sovereign parliaments of Belgium, Denmark, Latvia...... be told what the deal is and get a chance to vote on it.
If the PM does trigger an article 50 vote and Parliament blocks it, then she will have a gloves of Election and a re-shaped Parliament. It would delay the process a few months at best.
I kind of like the idea of an election. Theresa May would have the same problems though - to win votes, she'd have to explain what the f*ck 'brexit means brexit' means. Either way now, with a bit of luck and with or without an election, we won't just launch into brexit without some sort of strategy and broad intention being revealed to a reasonable extent. People keep bashing on about the referendum giving a 'true' democratic decision on leaving the EU and, yep, even though it was only a 17:16:13 win (the 13 being ambivalent non-voters), I agree that its right that we follow through (although its a ridiculously small minded and stupid thing to do :) ). But those thinking that brexit was just a simple on-off light switch had/have their heads in cloud cuckoo land; its much more of a dimmer switch where we all have to agree a balanced amount of light required (haha crap analogy stretched to its limit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Shouldn't you be off up PYG shortly :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
It could be simpler Stolly.
We could just declare article 50 and say we don't want anything from the EU and just focus on WTO trade terms and keep it simple.
There is a chance it will be that anyway.
That way we avoid any of the extended horse trading that will inevitably follow and two years of the Commons taking mock umbrage.
What it will do then is give clean starting position for a future Govt to work with the EU on issues that can be put in to manifestos.
But lots of stated brexit voters, let alone remainers, didn't even vote for that! Boris Johnson's (original) reasons for becoming a brexiteer were all about the sovereignty of parliament for instance and he thought we'd be able to remain in the European Free Trade Association like Norway. (Equally lots of brexit voters didn't know what the heck they were doing but that's another story ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
What are the chances of Nissan coming out of their meeting with smiles being down to a guarantee of WTO rules?
Added to that 44% of our exports (and 60% of the car industry's exports) are to the EU. Whereas each individual EU country's exports to us are much lower - Germany's is about 7% for example but most are lower than this (Ireland excepted). So if we go with WTO rules and say 10% tariffs, who's exports will suffer most? And who has the bigger task finding new export markets? And if it was easy to find new markets, wouldn't we have done it already?
Tariffs will also add to inflation, already on the up because of the mullered value of sterling. As an aside I've just seen that VW have announced a 3%+ increase in the price of their California camper vans for next year and, with tariffs, this will only go up further (fortunately we've already ordered ours :) )
Still, do you have anything on the potential impact on tariffs relating to where we import goods to produce goods for exports?
This really only relates to EU imports.
Still = Stolly
For once you've hit the nail on the head. Mrs May is still aiming for some sort of open access to the market without accepting all the rules of the club. Oh to be a fly on the wall in those discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Nissan could increase trade and margin with WTO tariffs in place. I put this together pre vote and we have seen the £ drop and Nissan decide to invest so perhaps I was making valid points.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
International Trade for Dummies.
During the referendum discussions, the subject of international trade has often come up and many claims have been made by both sides. My experience of international trade is limited to a few product groups that I have worked in but the principles of the tariff system are the same unless distorted by artificial factors such as the Common Agricultural Policy. I have seen what I believe to be misleading assumptions from both sides, even from supposedly expert people and bodies.
One of the points often made and presented as a fact is that if the UK were to leave the single market, the UK would be hit as the UK would lose access to a market of 500 million people. UK Car manufacturing has been identified as a key industry that would be hit. It has been suggested that tariffs would almost certainly be introduced and that is bound to hit our exports of UK made cars.
So below I will examine this assertion going through a few simple points and calculations based on moving to a situation where the UK and EU introduce trade tariffs to cars following a Brexit.
Firstly, excessive tariffs are not good for trade. But under WTO terms over recent decades tariffs have reduced gradually to their lowest levels, unless anti-dumping measures are in place or perhaps sanctions to apply pressure on rogue states. The UK, EU and RoW operate quite happily under the WTO regime for the majority of international trade and the trend is for continually lower tariff levels and inter-country trade deals to offer even lower barriers to international trade going forward.
UK Car Manufacturing and our Imports and Exports
Table 1 figures are 1st quarter 2016 and are from HMRC trade info figures for Chapter 87 Products (Vehicles). Amounts are £s Billions.
Table 1
EU Imports = 11.9 UK Exports to EU = 4.3
RoW Imports = 2.3 UK Exports to RoW = 4.4
UK Sales in UK = 2.6
Ttl UK Market = 16.8 Ttl UK Manufactured = 11.3
So Table 1 is the current state of affairs in Billions and these are the figures I’m going to use as a base for my example.
Let’s assume we leave. How does that impact in these figures? Initially it won’t as the UK and EU will enter a period of negotiation to sort out the formalities. This is scheduled for two years but could take longer. So any effect is likely to be gradual rather than sudden.
However, a time will come when we may have to accept a WTO tariff regime so let’s look at a WTO level 10% trade tariff on the trade in vehicles between EU and UK.
A 10% tariff means that when a UK car is sold in to the EU a 10% import duty is charged at the EU border. That duty is payable by the importer (eg it could be Honda France if a Civic made in Swindon) and the duty collected goes to the EU, with the collecting nation retaining a small proportion to cover administration costs.
The duty is calculated on the landed cost, which in basic terms is the manufacturer selling price + carriage.
So again in simple terms, the EU forecourt price of UK manufactured cars will increase by 10%.
That will have an impact on sales. How much is debatable and no one knows, but for this example I am assuming that for every 1% move in price there will be a 2% move in sales.
So the 10% duty applied to the UK made cars would mean a drop of 20% in EU sales from the current £4.3 Billion to a figure of around £3.4 Billion. This is equivalent to about 8% of the total UK manufactured cars.
In the EU people will still want cars and so the EU manufacturers and RoW manufacturers will pick up this £0.9 Billion of business and share it between them.
That doesn’t look good. An 8% drop in UK manufacturing could put UK jobs at stake and jeopardise the viability of the plants here in the UK.
However, there is a balancing effect of these duties.
EU Cars coming in to the UK would also be subject to a 10% duty and would have a similar effect ie a drop of 20%. EU made car imports would fall from £11.9 Billion to £9.5 Billion. That’s a drop of £2.4 Billion and of course the UK would still need it’s cars and the £2.4 Billion would be split between UK and RoW Manufacturers.
For example, assuming a 50/50 split then the UK would pick up £1.2 Billion of additional business here in the UK.
In summary the UK could actually increase total sales by replacing the lost EU sales by even more sales in the UK market and from the current Table 1 base the UK would see an increase in UK Car sales and production by around £0.3 Billion. The biggest gainers would be the RoW who would pick up sales in both markets as they already have the 10% duty in place. The net losers would be the EU producers and that is because when tariffs are introduced they almost always hit the side with the trade surplus.
Without trying to over complicate things though, there is another important factor and that is exchange rate.
It’s perhaps fair to say that Sterling may drop against other international currencies after a vote to leave the EU. Whilst international markets may see a UK leave as a concern, whether justified or not, they may also see it as a concern for the EU. So Sterling (and the Euro) may fall when compared to the US$ and Yen, the other main international currencies.
But for this exercise let’s just keep it simple and look at Sterling and consider a 5% drop in the value of Sterling. After all, a drop in Sterling has been identified as one of the “risks” of leaving.
What this would do is make imports 5% more expensive and exports 5% cheaper. So following the imposition of 10% tariffs a 5% drop in Sterling would:
• Halve the effect of the 10% tariff on our sales to the EU to feel like 5%.
• Exaggerate the effect of the tariff on the EU Sales in to the UK, making it feel like 15%.
• Make the UK made cars 5% more competitive in RoW.
• Make the RoW cars 5% more expensive in the UK.
So the effect on the UK Car Manufacturers when faced with 10% duty and a 5% drop in the value of Sterling would give us a breakdown looking something like this.
Table 2
EU Imports = 8.6 UK Exports to EU = 3.7
RoW Imports = 3.6 UK Exports to RoW = 4.8
UK Sales in UK = 4.6
Ttl UK Market = 16.8 Ttl UK Manufactured = 13.1
So the UK loses £0.4B to the EU, but gains that back selling to RoW and gains £1.8B Net from the increase in the domestic market.
Are you with me so far?
Tariffs reduce trade both ways. The higher the rate, the greater the effect and it affects the party in trade surplus proportionately more.
When a nations currency falls, its exports become cheaper and its imports become more expensive.
These principles are irrefutable and I have applied them to the above established HMRC trade figures for 1st Quarter 2016 set out in Table 1.
You may seek to discredit this by drawing attention to some of my assumptions such as for every 1% increase in tariff or price, there is a commensurate 2% drop in sales.
Fair enough. But there will be a drop in sales. Whether it is 1%, 2%.... 5% it really doesn’t matter as all it does is increase or reduce the effect.
The effect is still the same.
My assumption that the RoW and UK made cars will split the loss of EU made sales 50/50 is of course open to challenge. Currently the UK sells £2.6B and the RoW £2.3B in the UK market and so you can see they are currently fairly even players and so a 50/50 share is a fair and realistic assumption. Faced with a more expensive Peugeot, buyers may opt for a Kia or a Yaris.
Just one final point and that is about the actual import duty.
Currently, duty on products entering the EU goes to the EU. If the UK decides to leave the EU and tariffs are applied between the UK and EU, then the EU will keep the duty on our exports to the EU and the UK Government will keep the duty on EU imports to the UK.
(RoW duty is almost neutral as it is already there now)
So let’s look at the effect of that.
Based on Table 1, the current trade figures, the EU would receive £430 Million in duty and the UK would receive £1.19 Billion is duty ie 10% of the goods coming in to the respective market.
That’s unrealistic though as if tariffs were imposed, Table 2 would be more reflective of the position.
Table 2 figures would yield £370 Million to the EU and £860 Million to the UK.
So there would be a flow of money from the EU to the UK HMRC in the region of £0.5 Billion per quarter or £2 Billion a year.
Surprised?
Tariffs are used to protect the domestic supply base whether in goods or services. We’ve recently seen the discussion on steel and how using anti-dumping measures (short-term increases in duty) can and is being used to reduce the volume of steel coming in to the EU from RoW.
So following a leave, any tariffs introduced will reduce the volume of trade going in each direction and if more is coming from one side, it will hit that side a little more.
So to summarise, if the UK leaves the EU and we have trade tariffs on cars:
• The UK Manufactured cars would likely see total worldwide sales rise.
• A fall in the value of Sterling would further boost exports to EU and RoW.
• The UK would see a net gain through duty receipts that could be as much as £2 Billion per year.
• This illustration does not have any allowance for any improved trade to RoW as a result of new trade deals, which will further boost sale to RoW.
These principles apply to all 99 International Trade Chapters and are, in my opinion, a good reason why we shouldn’t be afraid of leaving the EU.
Brexit could provide a real boost to our exports and prospects in world trade overall.
Richard Taylor
12/06/16
But isn't most of the UK's GDP - 75-80% - based on services? Demand for these will fall - one source says by 60% - once Brexit has happened - it would take a huge increase in goods exported to make up for this - it will not happen.
The problem for trade, is that business likes stability. Currency fluctuations and brexit cause uncertainty. Big companies can mitigate against this, to a point, but it eats away at confidence. Smaller companies often cannot.
Does big business react to the global economy or does it control it?
It's a slim possibility, but we can't rule it out. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
What source is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
https://www.ft.com/content/bfe51444-...5-4e36b35c3550Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Well why have MPs at all? Because they do have access to expertise, they are accountable, and their decisions are scrutinised by the upper house, as much as I dislike the fact that it is non-elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
It is important to remember that 62.5% of people did not vote for Brexit, and that with natural wastage, within a very short period of time, remainers will outnumber leavers.
The Beeb jump on the punk bandwagon (only 39yrs late) and serenade, little Englander, Andrew Rossindale :p
https://youtu.be/WwsQ_5Wm4oo
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Although some of the time I think I could do a better job of managing the country than the clowns we elect.
And for the rest of the time I know that I could!;)
We have MP's because we have a representative democracy and generally this works reasonably well. But it works less well on constitutional matters that cut across party lines. No mainstream party has advocated leaving the EU in the last few decades so unless you wanted to vote for UKIP (which I didn't) then you were disenfranchised on the issue. Parliament voted by 6 to 1 to give the vote to the people, and they gave their verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
As for your 62.5% statistic, you can just as easily say 65.5% did not vote to stay in the EU.
Good point - though it seems innate that change should need a threshold % voting for it - and rather more than 37.5% - you will of course say that I would say that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Yeh, but where does that leave the percentage of those that voted leave? ;-)Quote:
As for your 62.5% statistic, you can just as easily say 65.5% did not vote to stay in the EU.
Anyway..... about politicians being the main threat to fulfilling the demands of the electorate that actually bothered to vote (or at least decide which way to vote).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7400266.html
Quote:
The opposition will join forces with Tory Remain supporters and other parties to prevent Article 50 from being triggered if this trade access is not assured, the Labour leader told the Sunday Mirror.
It is a bit like religion - most religious people believe that most other religious people - and the agnostics and the atheists - are wrong.
I think this is a huge assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Back in 1975 the UK held a referendum to join the Common Market and it voted 67%/33% to join.
The people who voted back then in 1975 (more or less the over 60s now) who also voted now in 2016 have swung almost to the opposite as the research shows that more of the older generation voted to Leave.
Firstly that is quite a damning indictment on the EU from huge numbers of the population that were very much in favour 40 years ago.
Secondly, it demonstrates that peoples voting patterns and political opinions can change. Life experience is key to most peoples voting and what you may believe is the right path when you are a 20 year old Uni student, may well change when you are a 35 year old with a job, a mortgage, a partner, 2 kids and another 15 years of life experience behind you.
Finally, I think you also have to consider the lower turnout in the younger age groups which show it was only around 60% in the 18-24 year olds.
I'd suggest that mostly the university educated have voted and as this age group gets older, the 40% will become more engaged in the system and will also have an affect on the voting patterns of this group as they age.
Overall it's a very complex picture that can't be assessed so simply.
I agree with this to a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrt
In my business, which has been mostly in footwear manufacturing and importing which was my industry from 1983 to 2012 ish, there have been a few "shocks" which have had quite dramatic effects on the footwear industry in the UK.
We've seen a few currency shocks and mostly they are managed.
The ones that my industry finds it hardest to adjust to are the EU trade measures.
Anti-dumping duty up to 98% on some products from the Far East and some ADD has been in place at varying levels since 1998 to date.
Quota - works a bit like fishing quota - importers only allowed to bring in a certain number of some product groups.
Mostly these measures have been politically motivated and create huge issues for companies.
I once visited a factory in Fuzhou in around 2003. They had worked with the company (a German footwear company I worked for)since the early 90s. They met all the audit requirements and the Germans were making good progress in terms of helping the factory to continually improve.
In 1998 however, at 24 hours notice, the EU introduced 98% ADD and 7-8 years of a partnership was brought to an end.
The factory would have been finished, but for a large South American business that came in to work with it.
The German company moved it's orders to Vietnam which was largely unaffected by the trade maeasures in this product group.
So the measures didn't stop Far East shoes coming in to the EU, they really were pointless and only caused harm.
There seems little doubt that people drift to the right politically as they age - personally I do not think this will happen with opinions about Brexit - but - again - I would say that wouldn't I!
I do like this quote from Wiki about Kurt Schumacher - I do realise that once you mention the Nazis you have lost the argument, but it is too good to leave out:
Kurt Schumacher was staunchly anti-Nazi. In a Reichstag speech on 23 February 1932, he excoriated Nazism as "a continuous appeal to the inner swine in human beings" and stated the movement had been uniquely successful in "ceaselessly mobilizing human stupidity."
I think the tabloids are successfully mobilising human stupidity - it applies even more to the USA than here.
The EU trolls Brexit voters...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7405196.html
When the UK voted by 52% to leave the EU those that were on the "Leave" side never expected to win. Not because they did not believe in what they voted for and not because they did not understand what they were voting for but because - most people in the UK do not get listened to above the roar of the experts and those who have self appointed themselves as knowing best. Their voices are quietened throughout life. Giving us, the British people a chance to finally put their heads over that wall and take a peek at what could be possible was exciting and life giving. We looked at a Britain we could have and wanted. We don't know how the UK will look outside of the EU but the people who voted to leave did know what it looked like for them in it. No one on the "Remain" side gave them a glimpse of a life any different for them by staying within the EU. Saying we have now ruined the future for our children to work and live in the EU is a total non starter as for the vast majority of children in the UK this is not ever going to happen. They do not live in that World and probably never will. Some do not ever want to live in that World either. Saying that the voter's that voted to Leave are racist, uneducated, aged, xenophobic thugs is frankly unacceptable and it leads me to wonder who exactly are the "Bigots". "Who are these people that voted leave?" With the hate directed at those that voted leave is it any wonder that instead of standing up and saying "it was me" they are just hoping that their voices will be heard and not once again squashed by those that believe they know best. They dare not believe that their voices finally matter. There are still those that are trying their best to overturn the vote. Sadly they have the money to keep trying. The BBC is so bias that it is a total waste of time watching the main news hours as so much is cut out we do not get a balanced view. The Nissan assurance was great news but there are those that want to scupper it. If Nissan had pulled out of Sunderland the "remainers" would of been thrilled to say "see, what you have done! This is your fault". However, it's great news. They so did not want that! We have 650 members of Parliament. If you want to know both sides of the debate then watch "Parliament" or the news as it happens. There is a site that tells you what is being debated and when. Watch it or record it and hear both sides instead of getting your so called "facts, figures & clipped sound bites" from a news hour, bias media (both ways), social media snippets & Winnie the Pooh! On Monday Parliament sat and shouted at each other in a packed, standing room only house relating to the "ruling" on Friday. The clipped news did show some of the arguments but once again very bias. On Tuesday the debate was on "Grammar and all faith schools and the Governments plan to expand them. There were 23 MPs' in the house. 23 on an issue that will affect all of our children not just the select few. This was not show on the news at all that evening. I haven't taken anyone's sound-bites on this. I have observed, thought about, actively looked for full debates on issues and listened to them. For those that have your heads just looking over that wall, stand proud that no matter what the future holds you had your voice heard and no one will ever forget that lesson. Peace and tolerance to all
TLDR
Can you summarise please? :p
That is the summary :pQuote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Summary: Most of the time, the 'Chattering Classes', the media and the politicos believe what they are doing is righteous because the silent majority is just that....silent. But when the silent majority feels it has been pushed too far it will, given the opportunity, push back. The referendum provided that opportunity.
Leavers and remainers are groups containing bigots, idiots, rascists and thugs as well as considerate, thoughtful, peaceful and kind people because the groups are a cross section of the population, not drawn from skewed pools.
RaceThe Sweeper is right....peace and tolerance is the best way.