Second referendum : am I missing something ? (45 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

And if the public reject the deal wevleave with no deal I assume?

You could just as easily assume that we won’t leave until a deal that Parliament and the public accept is available.

 

---

[Grendel]

That can’t be true. Anytime you say people didn’t know what they voted for they go ape shit.

We voted to leave Tony

 

[Grendel]

You could just as easily assume that we won’t leave until a deal that Parliament and the public accept is available.

Which could never happen. Well done Tony Brussels will be proud of that logic.

 

[skybluetony176]

We voted to leave Tony

That clears that up then. So you would be happy if we leave the EU and join the EEA then? That’s leave afterall.

 

[clint van damme]

Articles based on opinion or statistics do not necessarily reflect what WILL happen. Some will strive to produce data showing what they said, actually is happening post Brexit. But others will show the opposite.
Wasn't too long ago on the other thread some were posting links to falling consumer confidence & retail failures being the result of Brexit (before Brexit has happened even...due to lacking confidence/uncertainty). This week several articles show that consumer confidence is rising.

All these things are multi-factorial. Brexit will mean lots of tweaks here & there both sides of the channel. It will all even out given time...people WILL make things work

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

you're right, just because someone will say it will happen doesn't mean it won't. But you can make a reasonable prediction based on the available evidence. And if there was evidence it would be a success then I'm sure people would be making sure they were putting it out there. All I'm asking for is a link. Something to contradict the people I've been listening to give me a bit of balance.

Arch Brexiteer John Redwood advised his clients to move money away from the UK.
Another one, Rees Mogg has moved his investment fund to Dublin.
And Liam Fox has downgraded his prediction of signing dozens of trade deals the day after we leave to warning irrational positivity. Surely this sets the alarm bells ringing?

 

[Grendel]

That clears that up then. So you would be happy if we leave the EU and join the EEA then? That’s leave afterall.

It’s clear that the majority wanted to leave the EU

 

[skybluetony176]

Which could never happen. Well done Tony Brussels will be proud of that logic.

Why couldn’t it? It’s within the remit of article 50 and Parliament has a sovereign duty to vote any deal through including a hard brexit. In fact remaining until the right deal is on the table seems a more likely scenario all things considered. Either that or back to another referendum on the terms this time. Brussels has nothing to do with it. Nice pointless deflection though.

 

[skybluetony176]

It’s clear that the majority wanted to leave the EU

So you would accept EEA membership then. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Grendel]

Why couldn’t it? It’s within the remit of article 50 and Parliament has a sovereign duty to vote any deal through including a hard brexit. In fact remaining until the right deal is on the table seems a more likely scenario all things considered. Either that or back to another referendum on the terms this time. Brussels has nothing to do with it. Nice pointless deflection though.

It can’t happen Tony because if the current chequers proposal is presented to the public some will reject it because they will reject anything other than remain in Europe whereas others will reject us as they consider it will be too soft an option while others would say yes.

 

[Grendel]

So you would accept EEA membership then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I would have no choice if that was the deal they tried to negotiate - I’m hoping it will a far cleaner break than that.

 

[martcov]

I would have no choice if that was the deal they tried to negotiate - I’m hoping it will a far cleaner break than that.

Good. Now tell us what we gain from that clean break. Blue passports is a given, but what else?

 

[Grendel]

Good. Now tell us what we gain from that clean break. Blue passports is a given, but what else?

Why do you and Tony act like the chuckle brothers on these threads - rob has already given some answers and in addition there is the removal of any political and fiscal union with the Eu which would turn us into a federal state

 

[skybluetony176]

It can’t happen Tony because if the current chequers proposal is presented to the public some will reject it because they will reject anything other than remain in Europe whereas others will reject us as they consider it will be too soft an option while others would say yes.

Seems to me if there is a second (third) referendum the choice should be EEA membership (not a million miles away from the chequers plan) or a hard brexit followed by negotiations from a blank piece of paper. We’re not starting from a blank piece of paper which is why it’s such a mess. If people aren’t happy with EEA membership they can always keep campaigning for a clean break. Whatever that means.

 

[martcov]

Why do you and Tony act like the chuckle brothers on these threads - rob has already given some answers and in addition there is the removal of any political and fiscal union with the Eu which would turn us into a federal state

We are not in a fiscal union. I showed you the variations in corporation tax. I told you that there was a minimum VAT rate with exceptions which had been agreed upon, but no maximum. We are not in a political union, even if the curvature of bananas is regulated. We have a veto on these issues, except bananas, and our parliament is sovereign. Even though there was an advisory referendum.

 

[Grendel]

We are not in a fiscal union. I showed you the variations in corporation tax. I told you that there was a minimum VAT rate with exceptions which had been agreed upon, but no maximum. We are not in a political union, even if the curvature of bananas is regulated. We have a veto on these issues, except bananas, and our parliament is sovereign. Even though there was an advisory referendum.

Variations in corporation tax are set to an agreed minimum with punitive actions for offenders so yes we are. We can not control fully our own VAT rates so yes we are. I don’t want Brussels to have any say thanks. That’s what we elect governments for.

The whole ethos of the Eu is for greater and greater integration - it’s part of its core values.

The original concept we voted for was purely free trade not an erosion of powers from member states. It also wasn’t about letting poverty stricken states who offer no tangible benefits into the club funded by us.

 

[skybluetony176]

Variations in corporation tax are set to an agreed minimum with punitive actions for offenders so yes we are. We can not control fully our own VAT rates so yes we are. I don’t want Brussels to have any say thanks. That’s what we elect governments for.

The whole ethos of the Eu is for greater and greater integration - it’s part of its core values.

The original concept we voted for was purely free trade not an erosion of powers from member states. It also wasn’t about letting poverty stricken states who offer no tangible benefits into the club funded by us.

So if we leave and VAT rises to 50% you would be happy with that because EU membership meant we could only be charged a maximum of 25%?

 

[Grendel]

So if we leave and VAT rises to 50% you would be happy with that because EU membership meant we could only be charged a maximum of 25%?

Yes Tony because I know any political party that did this would have not had it in its manifesto and would never be elected again

However Brussels could in the future very easily alter our fiscal strategy and with a pro European Parliament we’d lose those rights to change such ghastly policies forever

 

[skybluetony176]

Yes Tony because I know any political party that did this would have not had it in its manifesto and would never be elected again

However Brussels could in the future very easily alter our fiscal strategy and with a pro European Parliament we’d lose those rights to change such ghastly policies forever

In the last 27 years VAT went up from 15% to 17.5% to 20%. Can’t ever remember them raises being in any manifesto. At that rate in another 27 years VAT in the U.K. is set to pass the EU threshold. I bet you it won’t be in any manifesto ever either.

 

[Sick Boy]

In the last 27 years VAT went up from 15% to 17.5% to 20%. Can’t ever remember them raises being in any manifesto. At that rate in another 27 years VAT in the U.K. is set to pass the EU threshold. I bet you it won’t be in any manifesto ever either.

Didn't it go down from 17.5% to 15% first?

 

[skybluetony176]

Didn't it go down from 17.5% to 15% first?

For about a year during Browns reign as PM. It was a cynical gimmick (think it was described as a VAT holiday at the time IIRC) ahead of his one and only general election as PM. Didn’t work though, Con/Lib Dem coalition ousted him.

 

[Grendel]

In the last 27 years VAT went up from 15% to 17.5% to 20%. Can’t ever remember them raises being in any manifesto. At that rate in another 27 years VAT in the U.K. is set to pass the EU threshold. I bet you it won’t be in any manifesto ever either.

Oh Tony don’t you remember it bought down the Major government?

Really even by your standards this is desperate stuff

 

[rob9872]

Is vat not a good thing to collect?

It's not on kids clothes, health and education equipment, so I thought you'd like it as it taxes out of disposable income.

The threshold of lower tax limits keeps being raised and yet everyone wants improved services, more police officers, more money for the NHS and it's staff. There is no magic pot or money tree, it needs to be collected and however it's chopped up, whoever pays for it, that amount of revenue needs to be collected. If that means vat increasing (often on items that we have a choice to buy or not to buy) then why is that a problem to you?

 

[fernandopartridge]

For about a year during Browns reign as PM. It was a cynical gimmick (think it was described as a VAT holiday at the time IIRC) ahead of his one and only general election as PM. Didn’t work though, Con/Lib Dem coalition ousted him.

Wonderful. Fair play to Brown actually doing something to benefit people, reducing the rate of VAT has most positive impact on the poorest.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Is vat not a good thing to collect?

It's not on kids clothes, health and education equipment, so I thought you'd like it as it taxes out of disposable income.

The threshold of lower tax limits keeps being raised and yet everyone wants improved services, more police officers, more money for the NHS and it's staff. There is no magic pot or money tree, it needs to be collected and however it's chopped up, whoever pays for it, that amount of revenue needs to be collected. If that means vat increasing (often on items that we have a choice to buy or not to buy) then why is that a problem to you?

I think it would be easier to abolish it and have a clearer flat rate income tax.

 

[rob9872]

I think it would be easier to abolish it and have a clearer flat rate income tax.

Possibly and I partly agree - particularly on things like fuel where it's confusing as tax on tax, but the point I was making is however it's collected the end pot needs to be the same or services will suffer.

 

[skybluetony176]

Wonderful. Fair play to Brown actually doing something to benefit people, reducing the rate of VAT has most positive feedback on the poorest.

True. But I don’t think they did it for charitable reasons. Not my memory of it anyway.

 

[Grendel]

I think it would be easier to abolish it and have a clearer flat rate income tax.

Which of course under EU rules we have no rights to do....

 

[skybluetony176]

Oh Tony don’t you remember it bought down the Major government?

Really even by your standards this is desperate stuff

Infighting and the rise of false prophet Blair brought down the Major government. I do remember it being suggested by the Major government that VAT on heating be at the higher rate of VAT but it never happened following a rebellion. Was it in their manifesto? Don’t recall it. My memory is it was something that happened mid term not in an election campaign.

 

[fernandopartridge]

True. But I don’t think they did it for charitable reasons. Not my memory of it anyway.

It was in 2008 and for a 12 month period, so two years before the election, it took place during the deepest recession we've had for years. I don't think it was a 'cynical gimmick' at all but a desperate attempt to boost consumer spending. If it was a 'cynical gimmick' it would be a bit stupid to end it 7 months before the election, wouldn't it?

 

[skybluetony176]

It was in 2008 and for a 12 month period, so two years before the election, it took place during the deepest recession we've had for years. I don't think it was a 'cynical gimmick' at all but a desperate attempt to boost consumer spending. If it was a 'cynical gimmick' it would be a bit stupid to end it 7 months before the election, wouldn't it?

Fair enough. I was going from memory.

 

[Grendel]

Infighting and the rise of false prophet Blair brought down the Major government. I do remember it being suggested by the Major government that VAT on heating be at the higher rate of VAT but it never happened following a rebellion. Was it in their manifesto? Don’t recall it. My memory is it was something that happened mid term not in an election campaign.

No Tony it wasn’t in the manifesto and that’s the point. It resulted in a humiliating defeat in parliament which was the beginning of the end. If it was in the manifesto they’d never have been elected

 

[SkyblueBazza]

you're right, just because someone will say it will happen doesn't mean it won't. But you can make a reasonable prediction based on the available evidence. And if there was evidence it would be a success then I'm sure people would be making sure they were putting it out there. All I'm asking for is a link. Something to contradict the people I've been listening to give me a bit of balance.

Arch Brexiteer John Redwood advised his clients to move money away from the UK.
Another one, Rees Mogg has moved his investment fund to Dublin.
And Liam Fox has downgraded his prediction of signing dozens of trade deals the day after we leave to warning irrational positivity. Surely this sets the alarm bells ringing?

No alarm bells for me. Rich money-grabbing bastards are doing what remain supporters are doing with the noise they make...Trying to protect their self-interest (hence NOT producing said articles that have little credibility on the actual outcomes)

I said along the very poor & very wealthy will be most affected. The former will probably have to sadly rely on charitable causes, the latter will have to risk devalued (or redistributed) accumulated wealth or work to protect it by finding & shifting it elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[rob9872]

I said along the very poor & very wealthy will be most affected.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I don't fall into either of those categories, so you agree that I was right to vote leave

 

[skybluetony176]

I think it would be easier to abolish it and have a clearer flat rate income tax.

Pretty sure the government could make a lot of things that aren’t VAT exempt, exempt. There isn’t a definitive hymn sheet that all countries sing from with no artistic license. Lots of things are VAT exempt in Scandinavian countries especially that aren’t here and I know Malta is does the absolute bare minimum in terms of obligation to EU membership and is reluctant to change. That’s before you even get into the argument that the government could cut VAT tomorrow to 15% should they wish. It is a very unfair disproportionate tax but the government could do a lot to reduce it now, not a good sign that it’s going to change anytime soon once we leave. Indeed if it was going to happen it would be the easiest most welcome good news brexit story ever but it isn’t even being whispered. Which is odd because it always comes up in brexit arguments that it’s the EU making us do it.

 

[rob9872]

Pretty sure the government could make a lot of things that aren’t VAT exempt, exempt. There isn’t a definitive hymn sheet that all countries sing from with no artistic license. Lots of things are VAT exempt in Scandinavian countries especially that aren’t here and I know Malta is does the absolute bare minimum in terms of obligation to EU membership and is reluctant to change. That’s before you even get into the argument that the government could cut VAT tomorrow to 15% should they wish. It is a very unfair disproportionate tax but the government could do a lot to reduce it now, not a good sign that it’s going to change anytime soon once we leave. Indeed if it was going to happen it would be the easiest most welcome good news brexit story ever but it isn’t even being whispered. Which is odd because it always comes up in brexit arguments that it’s the EU making us do it.

And without any Diane Abbott maths, what do you propose they do to collect the shortfall?