Nobody, when they originally voted, knew what kind of deal we would wind up with, and they still don't. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should get another vote when we know what Brexit actually means.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Nobody, when they originally voted, knew what kind of deal we would wind up with, and they still don't. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should get another vote when we know what Brexit actually means.
Here's an opposing view on WTO:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/01/27/post-brexit-trade-can-thrive-under-wto-rules/
I'm no expert on WTO. As I've said in previous posts on this thread, although I think it highly unlikely that the UK and the EU won't agree terms, since the fall back to WTO rules is at least a possibility and the government say they are making provision for this contingency, I think they could do more to share that with us. We all know it's not desirable for the UK - or indeed the EU's export market - but I'd like to hear more from David Davis
This is three months old, but it's not very encouraging is it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-leave-no-deal-select-committee-a7630626.html
But Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”
Go with the Norway model; keeping Single market, custom union and FoM but out of the EU.
UKIP can campaign for a second ref on that - but we should tell them "who do they think they are, Tim Farron?"
UKIP can campaign for a second ref on that - but we should tell them "who do they think they are, Tim Farron?"
Articles on a WTO future are all over the place, depending on whether the journalist is Remain or Leave. There must be some common ground that government and opposition can agree upon for the benefit of the public.
I don't think the journalist is taking any sides here, Goldie, he's just quoting what Davis said to the select committee.
As Tooting says, we should all agree on a Norway-based approach. There seems to be a growing consensus that trade and the economy are more important than getting immigration down.
I think the problem is that there appears to be an assumption that we can just trade under WTO rules if we don't get whet we want from the EU - those who advocate a hard Brexit don't seem concerned that we will have to apply.
Agreed, I'd love to hear more detail... it's the woolliness of the information we are getting that is most concerning.
I have to say this seems to be the most reasonable option - given the misinformation and 'mistakes' made during the Brexit campaign it's fair to say no-one, not even the politicians, actually knew (or even know now) whet Brexit will actually look like and what effect it will have on the nation.
Once the negotiations are settled and we know what we are actually voting for we should have the chance to decide whether we feel it is the right decision.
What is clear is that the politicians have as little understanding of what the final deal will look like as we do - it's a bit of a clusterfuck.
I had in mind the article that Seagull posted. I don't see a Tory government agreeing a Norway approach, uncontrolled immigration is a huge issue for many in this country. If Labour got in (looking less likely now a formal Tory/DUP deal has been signed) then who knows? McDonnell says we're out, Chakrabati says we could have freedom of movement, Labour are all over the place on the issue
But Norway seems to be what most of 'the people' want. This is why we should get to vote on it.
Are you basing your contention on the result of one poll?
Still think the Tory/DUP deal is an accident waiting to happen - I can't see how immigration will be dramatically affected by Brexit either - an enlightening Sky explanation of the 538,000 figures the other day - includes EU workers, students etc. which we would still need and/or allow if part of a trade deal. Indeed net migration is down and the trend is downward. The vast majority of non-EU immigrants are either coming to a job or arrive as international students
When it comes to lots of people's big concerns about asylum seekers etc., the figures are really actually quite small:
The latest ONS report says that for the year to may 2017:
A total of 9,634 people were granted asylum or an alternative form of protection in year ending (YE) March 2017, a grant rate of 32%. In addition, 5,453 people were granted humanitarian protection under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme in YE March 2017.
(It's all in here... link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ns/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2017)
I can't see that we will ever know what impact 'having control' over immigration from the EU will have on actual immigration. We have 'had control' over non EU and illegal
Immigration for years and failed to 'control' it. Current immigration is a third EU, a third non EU and a third illegal. If the economy is strong immigrants will come because we need them to come, and we will bend whatever rules to allow this to happen. If the economy is poor or uncertain the number of immigrants will drop (as at present) because we are a less attractive place to come. All that is certain is that governments seem unable to exercise 'control' even where they nominally have it. It seems to me that promising to control immigration is an extremely foolish thing to do, unless your plan is to wreck the economy to achieve it.....hang on a minute......
I agree that there has been a failure by successive governments to use current controls on non-EU immigration. The worst problem is the illegals running at 150,000 per year, who come in and use resources, live in the black economy and don't pay taxes. Most have come in legally, their visa expires and they disappear into the population. There are strong grounds for believing that council tenants in the Grenfell Tower were subletting to illegals, and thus some of the unfortunates that perished will never be known. There was a good article on this in the Sunday Times yesterday by Dominic Lawson. It was in fact Labour's Charles Clarke who tried to tackle illegal immigration around 2004 by seeking to introduce a national biometric ID card scheme - when Theresa May became Home Secretary in 2010 she abandoned the idea, which for me is a black mark against her, and the government needs to look again at ID cards.
As to legal immigration, we need control because with high levels of immigration running as they are and thus the strains on public services etc, the problem will only get worse. After Brexit, we invite in who we need - we don't give rights of entry to those we don't need.
A cheeky £1bn bung for Northern Ireland to keep May in power.
Tell me more about that Labour magic money tree.
Tell me more about that Labour magic money tree.
No, there have been others showing that many Leave voters would prefer to stay in the Single Market. I think that May will have to listen to her Chancellor and other Tory 'sensibles' who have said that the economy must take precedence over immigration, just as Corbyn and McDonnell have. There is a consensus to be found if she shows the humility that she promised us after the election.
Billy Bragg FB post...........
In response to Jeremy Corbyn's Glastonbury triumph, Theresa May makes a surprise appearance to introduce Brexit's Midnight Runners at The Kids Are All Right Festival. The audience chant "Come On Arlene"
In response to Jeremy Corbyn's Glastonbury triumph, Theresa May makes a surprise appearance to introduce Brexit's Midnight Runners at The Kids Are All Right Festival. The audience chant "Come On Arlene"
You must log in or register to see images
I'm interested in the 150,000 number - I haven't seen that before, where is it from?
Also "After Brexit, we invite in who we need - we don't give rights of entry to those we don't need" will surely very much depend on the deal that we agree, no?