Forum Topic

I am afraid Paul that is a non-answer or it is purposely avoiding providing an answer.The 1975 referendum happened 46 years ago.  The purpose of creating the EC was to ensure that trade prevailed and wars were avoided.  As far as history tells me, the UK was then the "Sick Man of Europe". But, we all know that things that happened in the past cannot be changed.  We can influence today and the future, but the past cannot be  changed.  Would it not be incredible if today we could go back and prevent the Kings Cross fire in 1987, for example?  So, using objections to the referendum of 1975 as a basis for the referendum of 2016 are, in all honesty, just as unacceptable as ridiculous.Yes, the 2016 referendum result was to leave - but the result was not conclusive enough - confirmed by Farage in the early hours of 24 June 2016; he said, and I quote:  "It was unfinished business."Since then, this country has been painfully divided and it is to this day that none of the people who voted for Leave can give an explanation of what the benefits would be, if any.  In the poll carried out by GOV.UK in December 2020, 85% of respondents indicated that leaving the EU was a mistake.  As for benefits about being in the EU, I invite you to check my reply of 16 January 2021 at 22:44hs under the posting entitled "From Suez to Brexit and back". Copy-pasting it here would make this message far too long.  It is not a question of "You do not like the Leave result, lump it".  That is a childish response if ever there was one.  I would invite you to read the articles about the children with epilepsy that can no longer obtain the cannabis-based medication they need from the Netherlands because it was omitted in the "life-changing" deal BoJo signed at the end of December 2020.  Life-threatening would apply in this case, verging on the criminal.Ask the fishermen who have lost thousands of pounds worth of fresh fish and seafood because they rotted in Dover due to the red tape badly introduced by this government when exporting to the continent.  They may have very happy British fish in British waters, perhaps flying the Union Jack and singing Rule Britannia?  But they cannot fish the happy British fish and their boats are in ports because they cannot trade competitively any more.  Congratulations!!!  That is a successful story!  And no, it is not teething problems, it is not people completing forms incorrectly, it is the inefficient, careless and ruthless government we have today.  I hope you enjoy it!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1897d

Ed. I can't speak on behalf of others but I'd note some views I have on the referendum and subsequent Brexit process. Firstly, the referendum legislation was only advisory and not legally binding so ultimate the power to make a decision rested with Parliament - and some may have supported the referendum on that basis. Secondly, one could argue that a major constitutional change such as leaving a union should probably set a target of 60% in favour of the change, as with the Scottish one concerning leaving the UK. Thirdly, the referendum option "Leave the EU" was poorly defined, although superficially "understandable" it could "mean" anything from joining the EEA to just trading under WTO terms, or anything in between.Had the government and Parliament decided that a marginal majority of just over 50% was not decisive enough to make such a momentous change that would, in my opinion, have been reasonable given the result was only advisory and the question was so imprecise. My basis for that is that one would expect our members of Parliament and the goverment to have a better knowledge and understanding of the facts on which to make such a major decision. (I agree one might question that of some MPs.) (Plus, I don't think the extent of Russian interference to cause political chaos has been explored. I can't prove that, just going on some analysis I've seen of various actions attributed to Russia around the time of the 2016 UK referendum and US election; I don't think Putin cared about the results, he ad others just wanted to cause confusion and division.)However, Cameron and his successor, May, decided to accept the result even though they both campaigned to remain. Interestingly, I'm not sure May was ever really a true Remainer rather than just following the Cameron's government line - after all she was at one time suggesting leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, now a prerequisite for EU membership. So having taken up the reigns of the leave movement it would have been the time for her to engage with Remainers, particularly the leader of the opposition - Corbyn - who had always had doubts about the EU. Instead we had the meaningless mantras of "Brexit means Brexit", " No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal", "Strong and Stable" and a rush to invoke Article 50 without any authority from Parliament (subsequently deemed illegal by the Supreme Court) and with no definition of what Brexit was. (There's a great TV programme - I think a Panorama one - where the EU negotiators note they were surprised that when Davis and his team arrived in Brussels the British had no clear idea what they were aiming for! No wonder the fishing industry lost out in the end.)Many of us who voted Remain realised that what the ERG wanted and were manipulating was a hard Brexit, there was going to be no consensus over what Brexit was (if I remember correctly May had as much trouble from the ERG as Remainers). Brexit was going to be as hard as possible. Up to that point there might have been compromise on a Norway style deal - I'm sure if he'd been asked Corbyn would probably have supported something like that (obviously I can't know for sure). However, many of us felt the public had been mislead about the aim of Brexiteers so a second referendum was the obvious solution. (Ms Greening came up with one good second referendum idea to help decide what Brexit meant.). I've skipped over a lot of detail but In essence following the result it was up to Brexiteers to approach Remainers; they didn't, instead they did their best to railroad through with minimal consultation as hard a deal as they could; hence we've ended up with the mess many of us predicted five years ago. Any project that's ill defined results in an unsatisfactory outcome, if not a compete failure ...In a way that's all becoming history, the real question is how do we get out of the mess? I guess now Johnson has his Pyrrhic victory of a deal it's down to the continuing negotiations. There's obviously the financial and other services agreements that are needed alongside rationalised travel for artists, performers and business people plus, hopefully, an EU ruling granting data privacy adequacy/equivalence in the next six months ... unfortunately I'm not sure what can be done about the increased costs, additional bureaucracy, delays and impracticable VAT rules that impede imports & exports; or the virtual border between Great Britain and Ireland ... Brexit isn't over yet, not for along time!

Michael Ixer ● 1899d

I was puzzled by #34 of the downsides because, as noted in this article, I thought short term visits to attend meetings, conferences, were included in the trade deal: https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Global/After-Brexit-Major-Restrictions-Hit-EU-UK-Business-Travel I suspect it might mean that if one attends to speak or demonstrate in a paid capacity at a conference or exhibition then a permit is required, but not if one visits to listen or view at one's own expense or if expenses are paid for by a UK based company; that is, not sponsored by an EU company to visit? The main problem with the trade deal is that for services the UK is now deemed a "third country" so there is not one rule but twenty seven of them! I've been trying to sort out the position for some non regulated services and the guidance available seems sparse. The more I look at it I can't believe the government was so reckless as to (one) exclude services from the agreement with the EU and (two) only give organisation three working days between agreeing and implementing an agreement. As Johnson said: F-business, he certainly did! I thought trade deals were supposed to make business easier for businesses by reducing bureaucracy and costs? I obviously did the wrong business course ... (It seems more complex than travelling on business to the US where I knew it was legal to visit one supplier in Seattle, WA then fly to another in Cupertino, CA provide my UK based employer and suupler were footing the bills, or visiting the US group HQ in San Diego provided I was employed and paid in the UK by its local London based subsidiary. Just had to remember I could stay no longer than six months on any one visit - if only,  think the longest was a week's visit! The new rules also reminds me of working in Norway mid 1970s where I had to wait at immigration while they counted up the number of days on my passport to check I hadn't exceeded the 20-30 odd days per year, or whatever it was, I was allowed to visit on business for - we seem to be regressing 😟)

Michael Ixer ● 1900d