To do a straw poll on whether you're happy with where Brexit is heading?

[Bearbehind]

This isn't about the whys and wherefores of how we got here but, since no one I speak to IRL is happy with the path Brexit is leading us down and I've just seen a poll in the Metro strongly in favour of abandoning Brexit it got me wondering how wide spread it is.

This isn't supposed to be an argument thread or even how you voted, just Are you happy heading towards a hard Brexit

Yes or No

"Either you are too stupid to understand or continual to peddle myths to mislead people, it does not help your arguments at all."

The EU did allow the reduction of sanitary products and if you look a little bit further into my link it shows that there are proposals being prepared to give member states further control of VAT setting.

"No it wasn't. There was a sort of informal agreement that Britain would be exempted from this."

fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-it-legally-binding/

"The main legal text is called the Decision of the Heads of State or Government.

This includes the promises to exempt the UK from “ever closer union” by changing EU treaties and to give national parliaments a ‘red card’ to challenge proposed EU laws.

"It’s not EU law as such; it’s international law. It’s not an act of the European Council, which is the EU institution consisting of heads of state or government, but rather of the heads of state and government acting in their own name.

That distinction might sound pedantic, but it has legal consequences.

The government intends to register the Decision as an international treaty.

Making a deal between member countries using an international treaty isn’t new to the EU. It was done in 1992, to encourage Danes to ratify the Maastricht Treaty, and in 2009, to encourage Irish people to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

When European leaders declare it “legally binding”, they mean it’s legally binding under international law, not EU law."

Appears you're incorrect.

As is Carol on the EU not changing. Thanks for implying I'm stupid btw, that link I provided explained that the EU was looking at further changes to VAT setting, btw it makes it clear that the EU doesn't enforce this: " "EU VAT rules are not imposed by the European Commission. They are decided on and agreed unanimously by member states."

So thanks for calling me thick when its blatantly obvious that you haven't understood it, or a mendaciously misrepresenting what was actually agreed.

Trade between the UK and the ex-dominions used to be huge. So despite them being smaller markets the trade may actually have been comparable. Find a picture of an NZ street in the 1960s, and it will be full of Minis, Morris Minors and Hillmans.

So the Mini is made by BMW - who being German might pull out. The workers have been told nothing has been planned yet, but it will be kept under review. Hillman was eventually bought by Peugeot, and its UK factory closed about ten years ago. The Morris Minor ceased production more than 42 years ago. I have fond memories of my first car, a Morris 1000, built in 1966.

So....... which of these cars will we be able to sell to New Zealand now? The Mini, if BMW pulls out will be made, where? The Peugeot - made in France? No help to the UK.

The people who voted for brexit are largely working class and older and live in 'fogotten' communities.

Lots of comfortably off S-East Tories voted for Brexit. I will grant that they are mostly going to be older, but they don't live in 'forgotten communities'.

Agree, most of the Brexiteers I know are pretty well off, and don't need to work anymore, not necessarily through age. Also a lot of the local landowners used their plots to promote the leave campaign vehemently.

"Trade between the UK and the ex-dominions used to be huge. So despite them being smaller markets the trade may actually have been comparable. Find a picture of an NZ street in the 1960s, and it will be full of Minis, Morris Minors and Hillmans."

Operative word being used to be.

They currently make up less than 5% of our trade and buy their cars from Japan, Germany and the US subsidiaries they have in Aus. We won't be exporting them cars because if we come out hard brexit our bulk car manufacturers will leave. We won't be selling financial services because Sydney does that well already.

You can talk about trade all you like, but unless you tell me what we are going to trade then I'd very much doubt it will happen.

Oh and in terms of a place for export for Australia, whilst we are the largest in the EU, the rest of the EU is still larger, and therefore more important.

Further as a total trade partner, we're behind Singapore, New Zeland, Korea, Japan, the US and China in terms of importance.

So we're shooting ourselves in the foot to strike better deals with low volume traders ( AUS$ exports to the UK worth $8 bn) in favour of an organisation through which we make 59% of our trade.

Sounds fucking fantastic.

smallfox So sanitary products are now zero rated? is there are date when they will be? is it up to the UK govt to implement a date?

smallfox Please stop lying and admit you are wrong on this issue.

Back to the straw poll- no and 1000 times no. It's a huge crock of shit. I see no gain. Can someone enlighten me - what do we gain from Brexitting?

No I'm not happy

I'm not wrong

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tampon-tax-david-cameron-announces-end-to-vat-on-sanitary-products-in-house-of-commons-a6944371.html

www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products

The deal was agreed, just because it hasn't come into force yet doesn't mean it wasn't agreed or isn't happening. Seems the treasury agree with me.

When will it come into force?

"The legislation will come into force on a day appointed by HM Treasury regulations. The Government intends to make these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent."

Stop "lying"? Well I've provided evidence for my point, what have you got to back yours?

smallfox2002

I quote from your link:

In brief: The EU deal has lots of different parts. Assuming politicians agree on it, it’ll all be legally binding in one way or another. There could still be challenges to some parts, such as the proposed laws aimed at cutting immigration, in the EU court.

So in short it was all subject to agreement. Saying that's legally binding is just pure propaganda.

Also see this, also from your link. I quote the relevant bits.

Removal of "ever closer union" obligaton from UK:

• not legally binding at international law
• would require new EU treaty to fulfil promise.

I'm dismayed that anyone would be so misleading as to say that the UK was promised anything that was legally binding. That promise could have evaporated after a Remain vote with no consequence whatsoever.

The foundation of EU member state obligations is the various treaties. They have "ever closer union" written into them. Political union was the purpose of those treaties right from the start: unfortunately McMillan and Heath decided to keep that bit quiet from the public. It is simply ridiculous to suggest Britain could have been exempted from that obligation, with all the practical implications that involves, by some sort of 'heads of agreement' with some other member states.

Same with denying benefits from EU migrants. OK, some heads of state might have said that they'd allow the UK to do it, but the legality of that is ultimately a matter not for them but the ECJ. Once again, I suspect the agreement was just a fig leaf to help shore up Cameron's political gamble that there would be a remain vote.

I note that Germany's welfare system is going to deny EU migrants certain benefits; I'm told that the reason why Britain's couldn't is because Germany's system is insurance-based unlike the UK's. Will be interesting to see how that goes.

Re trade with ex-dominions.
I'm not quite sure what your beef is, to be honest. I was quite explicit in saying that I didn't think revival of trade with ex-dominions would make up for loss of EU trade.

I'm not here to advocate for one side or the other: simply to point out things that I think are relevant.

Re sanitary products: my understanding is that EU rules prevented sales tax (e.g. VAT) being dropped below a certain level, but didn't prevent them from being exempt from sales tax entirely. Ireland made them exempt some while back for precisely this reason, so I'm told.

Seems a bit odd, but there it is.

That particular point you have linked to is the start and covers all of the bits that Cameron got agreements too.

The ever closer union point WAS agreed by all the countries, to change it would require all the countries to unanimously agree – and the UK would clearly not consent to this. These parts cannot be challenged by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as long as they do not conflict with current EU legislation. They will eventually be enacted as treaty changes requiring the ratification of the consenting parties.

So basically the agreement between the leaders is legally binding, to reverse this agreement would need all parties to agree, the UK wouldn't so it would get enacted into law.

Even the link you provided says that it is binding, not reversable by other countries, and not by the ECJ so the exemption from ever closer union IS legally binding.

I really don't understand how you can say that I'm being misleading!

Further on ever closer union:

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7230

!I'm dismayed that anyone would be so misleading as to say that the UK was promised anything that was legally binding. That promise could have evaporated after a Remain vote with no consequence whatsoever"

No this couldn't have happened, essentially anything agreed by the heads of government and declared legally binding, which they did do, is legally binding under international law and all of the heads of government have to agree to rescind it. It will take time to be worked into treaties, but it can't be reneged on.

Otherwise every single time something was agreed at a meeting between heads of government as legally binding it would be subject to changes of leadership/national government before deals can be fully set up legally.

From the actual document its self, showing that it was declared:

Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that the matters of concern to the United Kingdom as expressed in the letter of 10 November 2015 have been addressed;
(ii) the content of the Decision is fully compatible with the Treaties;
(iii) this Decision is legally binding, and may be amended or repealed only by common accord of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union;
(iv) this Decision will take effect on the date the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.

So yeah, not misleading at all. Accurate and correct.

So it seems that you now disagree with your first link, which states that the agreement was .. err.. subject to agreement.

As for the rest:.

The ever closer union point WAS agreed by all the countries, to change it would require all the countries to unanimously agree – and the UK would clearly not consent to this. These parts cannot be challenged by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as long as they do not conflict with current EU legislation.

How does this work given that the ECJ has jurisdiction over interpretation of EU legislation and also the treaties?

Because the agreement of heads of state is under international law, not EU law, also I don't think you've read the first link properly.

So I'll quote directly from European Council (18-19 February 2016)

• Draft conclusions whichshows that the heads of state agreed it was legally binding.

"this Decision is legally binding, and may be amended or repealed only by common accord of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union "

So if you go back and look at my original link, its said that:

"When European leaders declare it “legally binding”, they mean it’s legally binding under international law, not EU law."

Thanks.

Nope, and I worry for my kids future

Hey there, you, you with the proof and all that. Stop lying and read my documents that completely back up what you're saying. And whilst you're at it, stop actually understanding the small print and eu/international law

Yes thank you.

I really can't comprehend why you think taxation is such a big issue carol

As talk said, even under UK control there will not be massive changes.

Arguing about whether there's tax on tampons or not whilst inflation is about to rocket on the back of the plummeting pound is rather like your leg being on fire and you only being worried your shoelace is undone.

Bear People who voted Brexit are not commenting their reasons for voting - 1. Because the reasons they voted have nothing to do with you and 2. Because you are obviously so entrenched in thinking Brexit is a bad thing that you will NEVER understand other peoples reasoning.

I'd be interested to know what good has come out of it fluffy lots of banks relocating and taking loads of jobs with them doesn't sound like great news to me? Would love to hear some good news though if you have any?

Fluffy - if you don't want to share your views and opinions this is a pretty odd place to be.
I voted remain, I won't change my mind but I would very much like to understand why we are where we are. If someone could give me some tangible well thought out reason I might be less depressed by the whole issue.

I lurk on these threads hoping for some clarity and some insight. Unfortunately most Brexiters seem to exist (not all of you) on rhetoric.

I'd be interested to know what good has come out of it fluffy lots of banks relocating and taking loads of jobs with them doesn't sound like great news to me? Would love to hear some good news though if you have any?

Do you have a somewhat, believable link to this?