Can people/Remainers explain what they are tying to achieve with Revoke?

[EggAndButter]

I initially wanted to post on AIBU but I didn’t have the guts and thought it wouod just be moved anyway...

I’m getting tired of Brexit.
Tired of the lies and dreams of the Leave side.
But just as tired of the dreams and wishful thinking of the Remain side.

So I am asking Remainers on here

What do you expect to achieve with Revoke?

How are you planning to deal with the Leave side being left down?
How will you deal with the inevitable instability coming with Revoke? There will a lot of very angry People around.... people who will be feeling left down. People in the north who have always being feeling that the South and London never listens to them and that this is another proof they don’t. And being sure that you have the ‘right’ solution isn’t going to be enough.

I have the same questions for Leavers btw. It’s just that the answer seems to always be ‘that’s the will of the people. Just suck it up’ :(

As we are going deeper and deeper into this brexit mess, it’s clear that there is one way to go back to what the U.K. has. That ship has well and truly sailed.
It’s also clear that No Deal will be a nightmare.

So the only way out I can see is a deal. A deal that will worse for the U.K. than being in the EU. A deal that both sides ‘will just have to suck it up’.
A deal where no one will be truly happy because the other solutions (No Deal or Revoke) just aren’t possible. But the only way out until the U.K. can sort itself out, its political system that has more or less collapsed, its priorities in the middle of a climate crisis, social issues, poverty and economic downturn, its press. (Whilst crossing fingers that whilst it’s doing that, no one will use that opportunity to take power -Trump style for example)

Not feeling very positive about it all. But even less so when I see both sides just sticking to their mantra and refusing to accept that, basically, they have both lost the game.

what "Leaver posturing?" I was asked what outcomes I would want in a "post revoke" scenario, i.e. when leaving doesn't happen.

@LouiseCollins28 , this NATO stuff is just a silly distraction. WA or not? If it's "not", it's No Deal or Revoke.

which is the point of the list, thanks Misti. Its supposed to be in a "post revoke" scenario.

Fair enough. Most could be done now. But first you've got to persuade the roughly 60% of the population who have voted Tory or UKIP in recent years that higher taxes on unearned income are required.

Sorry Misti, maybe I wasn't clear in my follow up post. Our current key military alliance is NATO, I want this to remain the case.

Baffled why you think it wouldn't be so within the EU, where the U.K. would have a veto and/or opt out.

I've already said, I favour WA as currently drawn up over No Deal.

The problem is far more the obligation to carry a card.

The law could be written to say that carrying it was not compulsory and that the Police couldn't just stop people to ask for it. This is how they got abolished post war.

Would the database necessarily be wrong? Are the DVLA's records so hopelessly wrong as to be nearly unusable?

And higher taxes on unearned income are perfectly acceptable within the EU. Here in France I pay tax on capital gains at my marginal rate with no allowance. I earned about €15k in capital gains last year and I'll pay 5k to the French taxman on that. Which is right and proper.

In the U.K. I'd pay no tax at all on those capital gains. Zero.

Then we are in agreement @LouiseCollins28 . The rest is just waffles and fantasy until WA is done. And it's no nearer being done .

No it isn't, I was asked a question of what I'd want in a situation where there is no WA, no "no deal", no nothing because we revoke and don't Leave. I have tried to give an answer.

The law could be written to say that carrying it was not compulsory and that the Police couldn't just stop people to ask for it. This is how they got abolished post war.

It could, but it wouldn't. At the risk of being snarky, we can all find ID if we need to, so why an extra card ? It can only be because that way you can be compelled to carry it, and the police can stop you to make damn sure you are.

Would the database necessarily be wrong? Are the DVLA's records so hopelessly wrong as to be nearly unusable?

Any non trivial database is wrong. Moreover it can never be correct. Unless you can freeze time.

I've seen a 90% accurate database of 6,000,000 records taken to 95% with the input of tens of thousands of pounds and a week input freeze. Within 6 weeks it was .... 90% accurate again.

Anyway, surely I don't need to convince anyone of the UKs staggering incompetence when it comes to large scale IT projects. So why would an ID card database be any different ?

That's before we get into what the likes of Amazon would do with that data (because it will be hosted in the US by our New Best Friends).

Probably a lot better to drop the ID card nonsense. It would only end up enabling and excusing things like Windrush.

Inclined to agree with your analysis of ID cards @DGRossetti . It's still better than No Deal in my view and if it would shut Leavers up or give them something different to moan about, I'm also inclined to accept them. That's how bad things are.

I could take ID cards too. Mainly because I know it would be impossible of a project that size to ever work well enough to be a threat to civil liberties. Out police are already running at 120% anyway (when they aren't chasing up non-offences and non-offenders). Adding a few thousand ID stops a day to their workload seems unlikely to produce a positive outcome.

I'm thinking that persuading people to accept higher taxes on unearned income if the taxes on their earned income fall, will not be so difficult.

How can people expect tax cuts when already there isn't enough money to provide public services?

I'm thinking that persuading people to accept higher taxes on unearned income if the taxes on their earned income fall, will not be so difficult.

Inheritance tax ? Look what happened last time anyone went near that.

then the problem may not be one of the level of taxation is it. it could is how much is being spent on the services and what they are being asked to do. FWIW I proposed increasing spend on various services. Spending on other things would reduce.

Reducing MPs expenses, and council events budgets would be a start!

Education, the welfare state, the NHS, waste collection and emergency services are in desperate need of proper funding.

How can that be achieved without raising tax?

Because as sure as shite those in power aren't going to give up their tasty salaries and perks to make it happen.

So, ID cards ... only today ....

A National Audit Office report into the unending nightmare of Home Office attempts to buy a new critical communications network has warned the project is likely to be three years late and £3bn over-budget.

Originally due to be switched on in 2017, it is now hoped to be ready to go live in December 2022. This means a £1.4bn extension to Motorola's Airwave contracts. The network is now expected to cost £9.3bn, up 49 per cent on first estimates.

(contd)

The UK is simply incapable of any large scale IT project. And will remain so until I am dead, and my DS is dead. We had to scrap the benchmarks for Universal Credit because it was so far behind it couldn't fit on the page and be legible. And that's a tuck shop compared to the Selfridges that ID cards would be.

Inheritance is taxing things that have already been taxed when they were bought. Above a certain level it does make sense, current threshold is £325k.

How can people expect tax cuts when already there isn't enough money to provide public services?

Where did you hear that fairy story ? There's plenty of money. Seems the government can't move for the stuff. Look at all the spending on Brexit - including cancelling contracts for non existent ferries.

Why, even this week it turns out the government can rustle up a paltry £200 million so that the leaseholders of dodgy tower blocks don't lose out.

As my DF says, watch the priest - don't listen to them.

Because as sure as shite those in power aren't going to give up their tasty salaries and perks to make it happen.

Funny, because they are few, and the less well off are many ....

DGRossetti on here, from the rather befuddled leavers.

I don't know what the answers are, but I think that complaining public services are shite while complaining about taxes really doesn't make any sense.

I know there is more money, but it's not going to be accessed for the right reasons is it? That was kind of my point.

DGRossetti on here, from the rather befuddled leavers.

I think we've already seen how firm Leavers grasp on reality is. Plus the fact they'll swallow any old tosh from the likes of Farage.

Sorry, you can't barge around the globe bleating about being in the top five six of the worlds economies from one side of your face while at the same time preaching austerity from the other side of your face. Or indeed your other face.

Austerity is a genius wheeze to trick people into punishing the innocent (thus setting a precedent for future use) while at the same time enforcing Tory morality upon the masses. Starting with the unspeakably unspeakable rape clause in our social security system. Which as long as it stands precludes anyone from even dreaming of describing England as a civilised nation. Partly civilised, certainly. But with a lot of work to do.

Austerity is a genius wheeze to trick people into punishing the innocent (thus setting a precedent for future use) while at the same time enforcing Tory morality upon the masses. Starting with the unspeakably unspeakable rape clause in our social security system. Which as long as it stands precludes anyone from even dreaming of describing England as a civilised nation. Partly civilised, certainly. But with a lot of work to do.

Completely agree. Sadly Ruth Davidson is an advocate of the rape clause too. Despite her being a Tory, I honestly expected better of her.

Sadly Ruth Davidson is an advocate of the rape clause too. Despite her being a Tory, I honestly expected better of her

Tory first; woman second ?

(stops and thinks ....)

didn't Scotland not enact that measure ? Which is why I was careful to say "England".