- Status
Wudang
BOFH
A reasonable point. However the government justified the simple majority for the EU referendum by insisting it was purely a consultative poll and not a binding one.
The UK doesn't do binding referendums, they're all consultative.
Wudang
BOFH
That is the theory. However the EU referendum is not being treated as such is it?
That's just the way referendums in the UK work - they're "advisory" in name but everyone knows they're binding in practice: the electorate knows it and the politicians know it. The politicians promise to honor the result and would most likely lose office in the next election if they reneged on their promise.
In any case, following the Brexit referendum, parliament (eventually) held a vote, and the politicians themselves voted in favor of Brexit with an overwhelming majority.
In any case, following the Brexit referendum, parliament (eventually) held a vote, and the politicians themselves voted in favor of Brexit with an overwhelming majority.
Up to another point. Scottish devolution referendum 1979.
In the referendum, on 1 March 1979, Scotland voted in favour of devolution by 52% to 48% - but only 32.9% of the electorate had joined the majority.
So the unionist minority of the ballot were declared winners.
This story IMO neatly encapsulates Brexit magical thinking, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said that leaving the EU with no deal will simply result in UK farmers growing more at home.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41627341
Whilst this may be true, it completely ignores the impact on consumers who, under such a situation would experience shortages and/or price rises. It also fails to address the likely shrinking of valuable EU export markets for British farmers. I also assumes that British farmers will be able to produce what we require and have it ready in time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41627341
Whilst this may be true, it completely ignores the impact on consumers who, under such a situation would experience shortages and/or price rises. It also fails to address the likely shrinking of valuable EU export markets for British farmers. I also assumes that British farmers will be able to produce what we require and have it ready in time.
If they can't, then we can have ration books for bacon and cheese and powdered eggs, like during the war. It'll be fun. We will fight on the beaches. We will never surrender to Johnnie Foreigner.
If they can't, then we can have ration books for bacon and cheese and powdered eggs, like during the war. It'll be fun. We will fight on the beaches. We will never surrender to Johnnie Foreigner.
Sadly, for some time I've had the suspicion that the government may be considering doing that, making Brexit so painful that the Blitz/Dunkirk spirit is engaged and instead of complaining bitterly about the situation we're in and seeking to reverse some poor decisions and punish the politicians who made them, we quietly buckle down and make the best of a bad job
Labour seems to be of that opinion. This from BBCSadly, for some time I've had the suspicion that the government may be considering doing that, making Brexit so painful that the Blitz/Dunkirk spirit is engaged and instead of complaining bitterly about the situation we're in and seeking to reverse some poor decisions and punish the politicians who made them, we quietly buckle down and make the best of a bad job
British farmers would produce more food themselves in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a trade deal, a cabinet minister has suggested.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was responding to industry claims that food prices could rise sharply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
If this happened, he said the UK would respond by "growing more here and buying more from around the world".
Labour said his comments amounted to telling people to "dig for no deal".
I wonder if that means that Corbyn and his cohorts will now seriously oppose this Brexit strategy.Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was responding to industry claims that food prices could rise sharply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
If this happened, he said the UK would respond by "growing more here and buying more from around the world".
Labour said his comments amounted to telling people to "dig for no deal".
Wudang
BOFH
Why do you think there would be 22% tariffs on food bought from non-EU countries to a post-Brexit Britain?
Even if there are tariffs, presumably they apply on trade in both directions? What do you think happens to the tariff payments? Presumably the money isn't put into rockets and fired off into space.
Even if there are tariffs, presumably they apply on trade in both directions? What do you think happens to the tariff payments? Presumably the money isn't put into rockets and fired off into space.
Until we have deals with those countries, we'll be operating under WTO terms. I know Liam Fox believes that the 40 or so countries and organisations who already have EU deals will simply roll them over to the UK - IMO he's living in cloud cuckooland.
Britain is a net importer of food, any tariffs we pay will vastly outweigh tariffs that we receive. It's clear that we import a lot of staple food. It would also be interesting to understand whether we export staples or might we be in a "double whammy" position where we have to continue to import a lot of staple food (and pay tariffs for doing so) but that a significant proportion of our exports are susceptible to replacement from elsewhere.
Or cannot grow what we want year-round. I note good availability of British produce during summer/autumn but less availability during winter/spring.
Maybe we'll end up back with my experience of the 1970s. For most people, most of the time, you eat what's locally available which means a lot of root vegetables but not a lot of fresh fruit in the winter
.Sadly Corbyn seems at least as keen on Brexit and IMO he's at least as confused about what he wants, and whether such a thing is possible. It's easy to say that "no deal is bad" but I'm not clear what the Labour alternative may be - not least because they too seem to be committed to removing freedom of movement.
So what does the exporting country do with the 22% tariffs they'll be raking in?
Maybe they'll spend some of that on farmer subsidies so as to make the food cheaper?
In any case, as long as the food is cheaper than what we currently pay the EU (including our EU payments of course) then we don't need to worry too much about how much of the payment is for the food versus how much is tariff.
Maybe they'll spend some of that on farmer subsidies so as to make the food cheaper?
In any case, as long as the food is cheaper than what we currently pay the EU (including our EU payments of course) then we don't need to worry too much about how much of the payment is for the food versus how much is tariff.
So what does the exporting country do with the 22% tariffs they'll be raking in?
Maybe they'll spend some of that on farmer subsidies so as to make the food cheaper?
In any case, as long as the food is cheaper than what we currently pay the EU (including our EU payments of course) then we don't need to worry too much about how much of the payment is for the food versus how much is tariff.
Really?
In 2015 we exported £18 billion in food to the EU and imported £39 billion so a net import of £21 billion. Our net contribution to the EU was over £8 billion.
If we only imported food from the EU then any contribution over £4.6 billion was the equivalent of a 22% tariff - but, of course, we imported other stuff besides food from the EU.
It's not as clear cut as the remain enthusiasts in this thread would have you believe - you need to consider the pros as well as the cons - something that most of them aren't prepared to do.
If we only imported food from the EU then any contribution over £4.6 billion was the equivalent of a 22% tariff - but, of course, we imported other stuff besides food from the EU.
It's not as clear cut as the remain enthusiasts in this thread would have you believe - you need to consider the pros as well as the cons - something that most of them aren't prepared to do.
- Status