Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Omnis]

Yes! Bring back the 13th Century. Stone walls and moats. No shortage of stone and water.

Moats and masonry? No, insurance!

 

[Dotini]

Moats and masonry? No, insurance!

I have insurance. Insurance by Smith & Wesson.

 

[Highlandor]

I have insurance. Insurance by Smith & Wesson.

Haven't you seen Braveheart(?) - you won't need guns....

 

[TenEightyOne]

What kind of legal power would they have though, given they're only culturally divided, rather than being separate countries? It'd be like Yorkshire attempting to secede from the UK, rather than Scotland which its a country in its own right.

Basque and Catalonia are each autonomous regions in their own right with, to differing extents, their own parliaments, languages and judicial oversights. They're grouped under a single Kingdom (that of Spain), rather like Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England* are lumped under the United Kingdom.

*And Cornwall, and Ellan Vannin

 

[Dotini]

Haven't you seen Braveheart(?) - you won't need guns....

Braveheart was drawn and quartered, as I recall. He was good with a sword, but he that lives by the steel dies by the steel. Just for fun, I take lessons twice a week from a fencing master.

 

[Touring Mars]

Did she magically think these other countries with separatist elements would change their minds?

It would appear so.

The EU's stance on Scotland in 2014 was a key factor in the decision of many 'No' voters, because they (correctly) believed that a 'Yes' vote would spell the end of Scotland's EU membership. But now that Scots are faced with being ejected from the EU after voting not once but twice in favour of staying in, the SNP have (perhaps correctly) assumed that many previously 'No' voters will now switch and vote 'Yes' as a means to staying in the EU.

Unfortunately, despite 62% of the Scottish population voting in favour of staying in the EU, and despite being pro-Remain myself, there is a massive difference between 'staying in' and joining the EU in our case.

What kind of legal power would they have though, given they're only culturally divided, rather than being separate countries? It'd be like Yorkshire attempting to secede from the UK, rather than Scotland which its a country in its own right.

Scotland is a country - but it is not a sovereign state... so in terms of the way the EU can negotiate with Scotland, Scotland is effectively a region. I don't recommend saying this out loud if you are ever out drinking in Glasgow, by the way!

 

[tarnheld]

Speaking of autonomous regions: Has the Principality of Sealand expressed it's views about Brexit yet?

 

[Tired Tyres]

It would appear so.

The EU's stance on Scotland in 2014 was a key factor in the decision of many 'No' voters, because they (correctly) believed that a 'Yes' vote would spell the end of Scotland's EU membership. But now that Scots are faced with being ejected from the EU after voting not once but twice in favour of staying in, the SNP have (perhaps correctly) assumed that many previously 'No' voters will now switch and vote 'Yes' as a means to staying in the EU.

Unfortunately, despite 62% of the Scottish population voting in favour of staying in the EU, and despite being pro-Remain myself, there is a massive difference between 'staying in' and joining the EU in our case.


Scotland is a country - but it is not a sovereign state... so in terms of the way the EU can negotiate with Scotland, Scotland is effectively a region. I don't recommend saying this out loud if you are ever out drinking in Glasgow, by the way!

Mostly agreed but 62% didn't vote to stay in the EU. 67% turnout makes it 41.5%. Same as it wasn't 52% vs 48% overall. 72% turnout makes it 37% out, 35% in and 28% with something more important than voting to do. Given the assumption that people that don't vote don't want change that means 37% voted out and 63% didn't. In Scotland's case that's 25.5% voted out and 74.5% didn't. In neither case is that anywhere near enough to justify such a massive change to the nature of our country.

 

[Omnis]

Speaking of autonomous regions: Has the Principality of Sealand expressed it's views about Brexit yet?

#Sexit

 

[Touring Mars]

Mostly agreed but 62% didn't vote to stay in the EU. 67% turnout makes it 41.5%. Same as it wasn't 52% vs 48% overall. 72% turnout makes it 37% out, 35% in and 28% with something more important than voting to do. Given the assumption that people that don't vote don't want change that means 37% voted out and 63% didn't. In Scotland's case that's 25.5% voted out and 74.5% didn't. In neither case is that anywhere near enough to justify such a massive change to the nature of our country.

You can't make that assumption though - you simply cannot count not voting as equivalent to voting one way or another.

I'm a bit confused though - on one hand you are saying that less than 62% of Scots actually voted to stay in, then you say that effectively 75% voted to stay in, and that's not enough to justify change?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Yes that is an assumption on my part, but as for voting it's that X % vote to leave the rest don't. So I'm not saying they vote.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes that is an assumption on my part, but as for voting it's that X % vote to leave the rest don't. So I'm not saying they vote.

Sure, but in terms of the signficance, you appeared to say that 'Scotland voted 62% to stay in, but in reality only 41.5% of Scots actually cast a vote to stay in...' (which is true), but then go on to say that if you assume that not voting is the equivalent to voting for the status quo (e.g. staying in), then 75% of Scots want to stay in - but that is not significant?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Didn't see this posted here yet. Got it by email, don't know who the author is, and had to make it AUP acceptable before posting. A funny read:

Right. **** this. We're ALL up dermot creek and we need a paddle. Now, not in three months.

Fellow Remain voters: Enough already. Yes, we're all pissed off but navel gazing ain't gonna help. Not all 17 million Leave voters can possibly be racist northern pensioners without an O level to their name. Maybe they have a point about this quitting the EU thing? Maybe not. Whatever, we are where we are and no amount a whinging is gonna change that. Allegedly we're the intelligent ones, so get your thinking caps on.

Leave voters. Well done. Good game. We hear you. Now you need to get stuck in to the aftermath and not just piss off back to Wetherspoons. (Just banter, *****!). And the first person to say they "want their country back" gets deported to effing Gibraltar. OK?

Politicians.

David. Eff off. Shut the door behind you. Now.

George. You may be a **** but you're our ****. Plus you know the passwords for our Junior Savers account. Get your calculator. Drop the face-like-a-slapped-ass routine. You're on.

Boris. Sorry mate. That photo of you abseiling by your scrotum over the London Olympics while waving a Union Jack can't ever be un-taken. Plus, you'll never be able to appear on Question Time again without some sturdy Glaswegian nurse asking where the **** her 350 million quid is. Not only will she have a very good point, she'll be wearing a T shirt that shows you gurning in front of that effing bus! No captains hat for you I'm afraid.

Theresa. You're in charge love. Get the biggest shoulder pads you've got. We need Ming The Merciless in drag and you'll scare the dermot out of 'em.

Nicola. Yep. Fair cop. You probably could get us on a technicality, as could London. But we effing love shortbread. And oil. And to be honest you're probably the best politician we've got, so we need you on side. Sort your lot out and we promise never to mention that Jimmy Krankie thing again (although it is pretty uncanny) and we'll make you a Dame once we're sorted. Bring Ruth Davidson. She kicks ass.

Opposition party. We'll need one. Someone take Jeremy and John back to the British Legion Club where you found them. Take Nigel as well. Give back their sandals, buy them a pint, then go to Heathrow and collect David Milliband. **** it. Lets gets Ed Balls as well. He keeps George on his toes. I think he works on the lottery kiosk at Morrisons now?

Oh. And Mark Carney. Give him a knighthood and tell him to keep that dermot coming. We definitely need more of that good dermot!

Everyone set? Right. Hold the Easyjet. We're going to Brussels and this ain't no hen party.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Everyone set? Right. Hold the Easyjet. We're going to Brussels and this ain't no hen party.

Ryan Air, actually, post-EU there won't be the same compensation guarantees on Easyjet

 

[Tired Tyres]

Sure, but in terms of the signficance, you appeared to say that 'Scotland voted 62% to stay in, but in reality only 41.5% of Scots actually cast a vote to stay in...' (which is true), but then go on to say that if you assume that not voting is the equivalent to voting for the status quo (e.g. staying in), then 75% of Scots want to stay in - but that is not significant?

Yes it is as in 63% overall in the UK didn't vote leave. It just makes the result look more realistic. Especially if you're a politician working out how to get out of exiting the EU without also exiting their own career in the process.

 

[x3ra]

Sorry when was the whole of our democratic system lost?

Oh and you can cut out the personal digs as well.

I would never include you in a statement with the word we in it. It was a reference to myself and others like me who voted for out.

When was the democratic edit: system/process lost? Excellent question, but not for this thread.
I could argue that it was. But I ain't justifying what someone else said.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/goto/post?id=11445308#post-11445308

Mostly agreed but 62% didn't vote to stay in the EU. 67% turnout makes it 41.5%. Same as it wasn't 52% vs 48% overall. 72% turnout makes it 37% out, 35% in and 28% with something more important than voting to do. Given the assumption that people that don't vote don't want change that means 37% voted out and 63% didn't. In Scotland's case that's 25.5% voted out and 74.5% didn't. In neither case is that anywhere near enough to justify such a massive change to the nature of our country.

So how much would justify a massive change? Rules is rules. Best out of three? Best out of five? Until you get the result you want. If there's another referendum, which there won't be, then that would be the end of the democratic system, would it not?

 

[x3ra]

DP

 

[Tired Tyres]

I would never include you in a statement with the word we in it. It was a reference to myself and others like me who voted for out.

When was the democratic edit: system/process lost? Excellent question, but not for this thread.
I could argue that it was. But I ain't justifying what someone else said.

So how much would justify a massive change? Rules is rules. Best out of three? Best out of five? Until you get the result you want. If there's another referendum, which there won't be, then that would be the end of the democratic system, would it not?

A 1% advantage is enough for something like electing an MP or a Government as these things don't last. For something this big and permanent you either get a real big majority in favour or you have a big problem in acceptance.

 

[Highlandor]

Ummmm, help please.

David Cameron was leading the remain campaign, he was also the leader of the party which has been accused of being arrogant and elitist. It was him who said we'd have the referendum.

Cameron then lost the referendum, but now it's the opposition party which is in self destruct to the point of capitulation (i.e. back to were they started before Corbyn took over). Even though their leader was voted in by a huge majority because he was seen as someone who can be a voice for those people the elitist and arrogant politicans ignored (the same ones who lost the referendum..).

I'm confused... I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, so can someone explain what's happened...



[EDIT] Shouldn't it be Cameron who's up **** creek without a paddle with the opposition party ripping him to shreds, not their own leader; who is not just their best chance at recouping what they lost in the last election, but to also get themselves re-elected as Government...?

 

[Touring Mars]

Good question... I think the knives were out for JC a long time ago - popular with the general membership, but not popular among MPs (evidently!). He was or at least has been fairly critical of the EU in the past, and his lack of enthusiasm until near the end of the campaign is seen as treacherous by the vastly pro-EU Labour MPs. Worse still is the accusation that Corbyn's team had deliberately neglected mentioning immigration in their campaign bumpf - a wee bit of a mistake in hindsight. But yeh - it's weird... ironically, the Tories seem to have emerged from the whole debacle relatively unscathed - almost in a win-win situation bizarrely enough... while the good ship Labour, already flagging from hitting an iceberg or two in the last few years has somehow managed to torpedo itself 👍 Peter Mandelson must be spinning in his grave/Dracula coffin (or wherever he sleeps).

 

[Highlandor]

Good question... I think the knives were out for JC a long time ago - popular with the general membership, but not popular among MPs (evidently!). He was or at least has been fairly critical of the EU in the past, and his lack of enthusiasm until near the end of the campaign is seen as treacherous by the vastly pro-EU Labour MPs. Worse still is the accusation that Corbyn's team had deliberately neglected mentioning immigration in their campaign bumpf - a wee bit of a mistake in hindsight. But yeh - it's weird... ironically, the Tories and Cameron seem to have emerged from the whole debacle relatively unscathed - almost in a win-win situation bizarrely enough... while the good ship Labour, already flagging from hitting an iceberg or two in the last few years has somehow managed to torpedo itself 👍 Peter Mandleson must be spinning in his grave/Dracula coffin (or wherever he sleeps).

I understand that Corbyn is not Mr popular with members of his own party, but aren't they supposed to do what's best for their party, and Corbyn is someone who connects to the people, and values, the party was made for.

During the Blair era it felt like the Labour and Conservatives were peas from the same pod, then Corbyn arrived and showed they weren't even the same vegetable. But I'm now back to square one and more sure than ever they might aswell be the same....

 

[Tired Tyres]

Corbyn is too big a risk for election. He doesn't fit the voting public (Middle Class). It's just a hope from the Labour party that he can somehow get the poor and working class non voters to become voters.

 

[Highlandor]

Corbyn is too big a risk for election. He doesn't fit the voting public (Middle Class). It's just a hope from the Labour party that he can somehow get the poor and working class non voters to become voters.

Yes, I see what you mean about his 'image'.

But I can't help but feel that there are alot of people who wouldn't normally vote, who have been awakened to the fact that their vote can actually make a difference (i.e. all those pople who said on camera they didn't think their vote would 'count' i.e. change anything), and Corbyn would be the man who could sway them to vote for him next election.

Combined with the people he drew back to the party (who walked away after the Blair / Miliband nightmare), wouldn't that be quite a strong backing in a country where such a low % can get a party elected as Government?

 

[Fgame]

I understand that Corbyn is not Mr popular with members of his own party, but aren't they supposed to do what's best for their party, and Corbyn is someone who connects to the people, and values, the party was made for.

During the Blair era it felt like the Labour and Conservatives were peas from the same pod, then Corbyn arrived and showed they weren't even the same vegetable. But I'm now back to square one and more sure than ever they might aswell be the same....

Corbyn is very popular with his party membership, it's the minority who find him undesirable, the MPs.

 

[Robin]

Corbyn is very popular with his party membership, it's the minority who find him undesirable, the MPs.

I would say he is disproportionately supported by the younger, slightly more activist angled members of the party and although he finds great popularity in that segment it is ironically one of the weakest voting demographics of the general public. He certainly doesn't have universal popularity among them.

 

[Fgame]

Regarding general public that is a separate matter, the membership should decide who represents what the party stands for and how it is run. The rebel MPs seem more concerned about trying to win rather than what the party actually means.
Polls are terrible I know, but the latest yougov poll for the general public gives Corbyn a majority vote of support of just over 50%.

 

[Biggles]

So I was sitting here scratching my head as to why I got this kind of response. We're not even talking about anything important really, just whether or not charging sales tax an a previously completed sale which was done entirely out of the country, and for which sales tax was already paid, should actually be called an import tax - not important at all. So where does this "Danoff's an idiot" sentiment come from? Why the need to take such a strong stand on the issue. Then I remembered the very previous post.




So here, Biggles was totally 100% factually incorrect about the lack of need to pay sales tax on interstate purchases when he said this:



Now suddenly it's clear. The need to demonstrate my complete lack of understanding in this area (in which I do not have a complete lack of understanding, only really a partial lack of understanding) is motivated by a previously established complete lack of understanding on his part. Basically, it looks like he's trying to get me back.

This is not a competition. Nobody here should be trying to score points, or settle a score with a follow-up. We're just talking about taxes and finances. There's basically a right answer, and it's cool if we gyrate for a while trying to find it. In fact, I've come into this thread with nothing but confusion over what the EU offered financially and have been trying to work it out ever since. Let's not sling mud, we're just a group of folks sitting around an imaginary table trying to understand our differences and get to the bottom of these issues.

I want to have a friendly discussion here. At the very least, if you're going to claim that I'm clueless on a particular issue (which happens often enough), feel free to acknowledge that you were dead wrong in the previous post so that it doesn't come off as sour grapes.

Not at all dear Danoff. Not trying to get you back because I was "dead wrong" - just exasperated with having to repeatedly explain what is really quite straightforward. I actually find it a fascinating bit of information (if true) that interstate purchases do require the payment of sales tax ... to the state in which you reside, or the goods were shipped to. But it begs the question: does anyone actually do this?

VAT is designed to make avoiding tax in this way or (theoretically) any other way, impossible, as the seller, at each & every stage of the manufacturing, distribution & retail process has to collect the tax on the amount of the sale & remit it to the government.

"charging sales tax an a previously completed sale which was done entirely out of the country, and for which sales tax was already paid, should actually be called an import tax"

On the question of whether the tax is a "sales tax" or an "import tax": you need to be aware of the fact that a Canadian ordering goods from the US to be shipped into Canada would not be charged sales tax by the seller. He would be charged VAT by Canada Customs when the goods enter the country - at exactly the same rate he would pay if he bought the goods within Canada. ... ie. it is a sales tax.

In effect, it is exactly the same thing as the sales tax owing (apparently) on interstate sales in the US except that, unlike in interstate trade in the US, Canada Customs will ensure that this money is collected before they release the goods.

As a matter of interest: VAT (called GST or HST in Canada) ranges from 5% to 15% according to the province, but in the EU the VAT rate is typically around 20% & as high as 27%. You can imagine the impact a 20% universal, federally imposed sales tax would have in the US.

 

[DK]

So...about that "no more bowing down to the unelected" thing...

 

[PzR Slim]

Corbyn is very popular with his party membership, it's the minority who find him undesirable, the MPs.

I agree, however, what political parties need to understand is that being very appealing to party members is all a bit of a waste of time. You've got their vote no matter what. It's people like me you have to appeal to. I don't have any affinity with any particular party. I've voted for all major political parties at points in my voting life. I vote for which party and which manifesto I think is best for the country at any given time. And that changes depending on the situation the world and country is in. Corbyn does absolutely nothing for me and I'm sure plenty of other floating voters like me feel exactly the same. And it's the floating voters that make the difference and it's those voters that political parties need to go after.

I want to see an effective opposition as that's the only way to hold the government to account. With Corbyn at the helm I don't see Labour being effective and think the Tories will walk the next GE. And if Johnson is at the helm and the Tories walk the next GE I worry very much what that will mean for our country.

 

[Touring Mars]

So...about that "no more bowing down to the unelected" thing...

Sarah Gove?

Didn't she hear Wayne Rooney's warning about WAGs keeping a low profile during the contest?