The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[BrexitGuy 0]

1 minute ago, apelike said:

Err, no.. In an advisory referendum neither choice counts unless parliament says it does and is democratic in principle only as the electorate are only given a direct vote to answer a question and it was either to remain or leave. It just so happens in this case that the government made a promise to the electorate to uphold the result and parliament accepted it. 

 

Similar to a general election vote then? You get a piece of paper with several names on it representing several political parties. You choose one.

Are you saying that the general election vote is also advisory and could be discounted by parliament?

[Magilla 510]

18 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

You're spouting nonsense and clearly have no understanding  of  WTO Article 24.

And yet, I understand what it actually is!

 

Quote

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal then the UK doesn't need the consent of the EU27 to implement zero tariffs on any goods whether they are from the EU or any where else in the World.

They do if they want to use Article 24

 

Article 24 creates a "zero-for-zero interim tariff deal"..... There's a "zero" for *each* side 

 

If we unilaterally implement zero tariffs on any goods, then we have to do it for everyone else too (WTO MFN)......this is precisely what Article 24 would be used to avoid!

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Magilla

[apelike 10]

1 minute ago, Magilla said:

It was so clear that now we find outselves in a position that no-one campaigned for or, that we can say with any certainty, really voted for

As people on here are so fond of believing polls here is some information from the Electoral Commission public survey: 

 

Views on Information Provided in Advance of 2016 EU Referendum

"As part of its report on the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the Electoral Commission ran public opinion surveys
on the public’s view of the information available to inform their decision. It found:

Our public opinion survey explored whether voters had enough information about the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ arguments to be able to make an informed decision how to vote in the referendum. Sixty two percent of respondents agreed that they did compared to 28 percent who disagreed. There was a clear pattern by age group with those aged 18–34 least likely to agree they had enough information to make an informed decision (52 percent agreed), 35-–54 year olds more likely (63 percent agreed) and those aged 55+ most likely (70 percent agreed)...

 

Respondents were also asked, separately, whether they had enough information about what would happen in the event of a Remain vote and a Leave vote. Sixty five percent agreed that they had enough information about what would happen in the event of a Remain vote (26 percent disagreed) and 45 percent agreed that they had enough information about what would happen in the event of a Leave vote (46 percent disagreed)."

 

Taken from a House of Lords Briefing Paper titled "Referendums and Parliamentary Democracy Debate" dated 19 July 2018

 

[L00b 441]

27 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

You're spouting nonsense and clearly have no understanding  of  WTO Article 24.  If the UK leaves the EU without a deal then the UK doesn't need the consent of the EU27 to implement zero tariffs on any goods whether they are from the EU or any where else in the World.  

The poorest people will benefit the most from zero tariffs on all food.  I don't agree that only poor people go to Wetherspoons. 

Article 24 creates a Customs Union, within which those zero tariffs can be practiced without breaching basic WTO rules. 

 

There’s nothing to stop the U.K. unilaterally  practicing zero tariffs on imports, as you suggest.

 

But it must get the EU27’s approval, if that’s to be done reciprocally under Article 24, because you need 2 parties (at least) to create a CU.

 

Otherwise, the U.K. levies no tariffs on German cars, French wines and whatever else, whilst the EU27 happily levy tariffs on U.K.-made everything, from Minis, Nissans, Somerset sparkling wine, etc to Scotch Whisky, perfectly legally. And truly, they’d be dumb not to, when the U.K. serves them that competitive advantage on a plate with no risk, but on the contrary with max  economic benefit to their exporters (who are also their electors).

 

I’ll let you figure, how that scenario would work out for the U.K. (UK agrifood sector wiped out in less than 2 years, last I read).

Edited December 17, 2018 by L00b

[apelike 10]

11 minutes ago, BrexitGuy said:

Similar to a general election vote then? You get a piece of paper with several names on it representing several political parties. You choose one.

Are you saying that the general election vote is also advisory and could be discounted by parliament?

No because a GE is held when no parliament exists.

[Magilla 510]

4 minutes ago, apelike said:

As people on here are so fond of believing polls here is some information from the Electoral Commission public survey:

No link?

 

From the dates you provide in the text, this would have been long before "no-deal" was considered a serious possibility/eventuality, and thus well before anyone was calling for a vote on the terms of the deal (which incidentally, the majority now want).

 

A similar poll today might return entirely different results. I'm up for finding out.....

 

[Lockdoctor 10]

2 minutes ago, Magilla said:

And yet, I understand what it actually is!

 

They do if they want to use Article 24

 

Article 24 creates a "zero-for-zero interim tariff deal"..... There's a "zero" for *each* side

You've just proved you have no understanding of WTO Article 24.  The idea of Article 24 is a temporary arrangement (up to 10 years)  until a trade agreement is agreed. A zero for each side would mean some kind of temporary agreement has been arranged. There is nothing stopping the EU following the UK,  if we decide to use Article 24 to justify not implementing tariffs on goods coming from the EU.  The point you are missing is that the UK can use Article  24 to implement zero tariffs on all goods coming from the EU and still implement tariffs on the same goods imported from countries outside the EU, If we wish to do so.   Article 24 will give the UK time to decide what future trade arrangements we want and which countries we want  to negotiate trade deals with, without the expense and disadvantages  of the EU withdrawal agreement on offer.

[apelike 10]

23 minutes ago, Magilla said:

No link?

Its easy to find and is in PDF to download just do a search.

23 minutes ago, Magilla said:

From the dates you provide in the text, this would have been long before "no-deal" was considered a serious possibility/eventuality,

That does not matter as the findings are that people were well aware of what they were voting for and also the consequences. I think the Remain or Leave question was quite clear and stated just that.

23 minutes ago, Magilla said:

... and thus well before anyone was calling for a vote on the terms of the deal (which incidentally, the majority now want).

I think that its parliament that will decide and get a vote not the electorate and if you read the PDF you will understand why the possibility of the electorate deciding is very low. As for the majority wanting a vote, I think that is just the pro remain media and remain voters that want one as the majority have not been asked.

 

Just to add, have a read of the side note 3. Further Reading.

Edited December 17, 2018 by apelike

[nightrider 13]

43 minutes ago, apelike said:

Err, no.. In an advisory referendum neither choice counts unless parliament says it does and is democratic in principle only as the electorate are only given a direct vote to answer a question and it was either to remain or leave. It just so happens in this case that the government made a promise to the electorate to uphold the result and parliament accepted it. 

 

Its a moot point, the leader of that government resigned. In any case He had no mandate to speak for what parliament may or may not do with the result of an advisory referendum.

[ez8004 10]

16 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

You've just proved you have no understanding of WTO Article 24.  The idea of Article 24 is a temporary arrangement (up to 10 years)  until a trade agreement is agreed. A zero for each side would mean some kind of temporary agreement has been arranged. There is nothing stopping the EU following the UK,  if we decide to use Article 24 to justify not implementing tariffs on goods coming from the EU.  The point you are missing is that the UK can use Article  24 to implement zero tariffs on all goods coming from the EU and still implement tariffs on the same goods imported from countries outside the EU, If we wish to do so.   Article 24 will give the UK time to decide what future trade arrangements we want and which countries we want  to negotiate trade deals with, without the expense and disadvantages  of the EU withdrawal agreement on offer.

You are missing the very fundamental point that the UK cannot default on to WTO rules and expect others to follow when trading with us if we are not a member of the WTO as an independent member.  There is absolutely no certainty that we automatically become an independent member if we leave without a deal.  In fact, we likely to not be able to do so if there is no deal because we are so entangled with the EU.  We are only currently members of the WTO via the EU.  Your original statement that we are a founding country of the WTO as if it means something.  Well, newsflash so were 124 other nations in 1995.  We are not as important in this respect as you may like to think.

 

Still not told me how you are going to get around 20 nations blocking our fast track membership as an independent member, of which two of the countries are the US and China.  Want to answer this first?

Edited December 17, 2018 by ez8004

[Top Cats Hat 10]

17 minutes ago, apelike said:

19 minutes ago, apelike said:

Our public opinion survey explored whether voters had enough information about the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ arguments to be able to make an informed decision how to vote in the referendum.

That is a very strange survey.

 

There is an old saying which goes 'you don't know what you don't know.' If you polled people on how intelligent they thought they were, then put the answers on a graph  of their actual IQ scores, the line designating their own view of their intelligence would always  certainly be above that of their actual intelligence*.

 

People rarely admit to being dumb or gullible so maybe a simple survey asking basic questions about the issues would have been a more useful exercise. 

 

 

[Lockdoctor 10]

Just now, ez8004 said:

You are missing the very fundamental point that the UK cannot default on to WTO rules and expect others to follow when trading with us if we are not a member of the WTO as an independent member.  There is absolutely no certainty that we automatically become an independent member if we leave without a deal.  In fact, we likely to not be able to do so if there is no deal because we are so entangled with the EU.  We are only currently members of the WTO via the EU.  Your original statement that we are a founding country of the WTO as if it means something.  Well, newsflash so were 124 other nations in 1995.  We are not as important in this respect as you may like to think.

I am not missing any point. The fact is the WTO rules are the default position, if the UK leave the EU without a deal. Article 24  part of WTO rules/law.,

5 minutes ago, nightrider said:

Its a moot point, the leader of that government resigned. In any case He had no mandate to speak for what parliament may or may not do with the result of an advisory referendum.

Parliament passed legislation after David Cameron resigned  into law that the UK are leaving the EU.  It is now irrelevant whether the referendum result was advisory.