Please can someone tell me the upsides of Brexit

[CleopatrasMum]

Apparently Dominic Raab has said there are many upsides of Brexit. The article in the Guardian that I read this in gave no details of what Raab (presumably) went on to say those upsides were.

Please can someone explain them to me?

Link to article here for what it's worth:

Raab says Brexit will bring 'huge series of upsides' for UK trade

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/06/raab-says-brexit-will-bring-huge-series-of-upsides-for-uk-trade?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Rules on a second referendum:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/a-second-brexit-referendum-the-rules/

What I want to know is did the UK vote on a no deal exit of the EU?

No.

How much will it cost the government to mint the new 50p coins?

We will never know.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_per_unit_of_minting_each_b

Vote was leave. No specific type of leave listed as almost unlimited permutations.

If people want change their mind it is better to do so through a general election. If you want to remain in EU vote for parties that are pro remain and vice versa.

The one thing which would have prevented all this was not triggering Article 50 until there was some sort of plan.

triggering Article 50 until there was some sort of plan

Think they were trying to get it over with before the European Elections in May 2019. Plus EU would not enter into negotiations until Article 50 invoked.

But Article 50 can still be revoked.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47668466

So, for all the discussion on this thread, there are no real upsides?

Perhaps it would be better to Revoke Article 50, put in preparation plans and then put another referendum to the people.

That's what I would do.

However, revoking Article 50 could be costly for the Treasury in terms of compensation to businesses.

@NosyBe2006 - So tell me why it is solely the fault of UK that negotiations with EU so far have not produced a deal.

A deal was agreed between the UK and the EU. However, certain MPs decided to block it.

A deal was agreed between the UK and the EU

Think this has been raised before. The outcome of the case brought by Gina Miller against the government was that Brexit had to go through parliament process. Rejected by parliament three times. So whilst WA was signed by T May it was not agreed by UK.

T May has subsequently been replaced. Johnson has stated backstop out of WA or no deal hoping to restart negotiations. So far not happened, but time remains.

NI only backstop and Scotland being allowed to have another independence referendum seems to provide what most want.

T May has subsequently been replaced. Johnson has stated backstop out of WA or no deal hoping to restart negotiations

The EU was clear that they will not enter further negotiations. Just because the UK has shifted the goalposts again, doesn't mean they should demand anything from the EU.

NI only backstop and Scotland being allowed to have another independence referendum seems to provide what most want.

It would be seen by many as pandering to Scotland and NI and we can't possibly have that can we? England is the only part of the UK that makes decisions. The rest do as they're told, giving NI and Scotland choices goes directly against the entire premise of the UK.

So whilst WA was signed by T May it was not agreed by UK.

It was not agreed by Parliament. The UK has had no say in the WA.

There is still a chance that Johnson will prorogue Parliament, though it is widely believed that this will be political suicide for him.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48936711

In response to those posters who had nothing new to add to my post yesterday - did anyone look up the question I asked in my first sentence? That the EU were questioning the CTA as being unfair on those from other (non UK/RoI) EU countries prior to the 2016 Ref. (and yes I am well aware that CTA predated the EU, but assume what you like). I'm surely not the only poster who knew this.

The point I'm making is that the EU would most likely have proceeded with 'meddling' in the agreements made between the RoI and UK had the Ref produced a Remain result. Would anyone here have a problem with that? I did, even if no one else here does.

And not being PA (nor consider myself any more or less than any other poster here) when I said that I wouldn't be back until today due to being a working mum - just stating that because it seems that many posters who don't follow the Brexit Board 'mantra' are
often described as 'in the pay' of some organisation that gives a toss what MNetters think.

I completely own my "Boing" comment as it does seem that the question I asked didn't get answered after all.

It would be seen by many as pandering to Scotland and NI and we can't possibly have that can we? England is the only part of the UK that makes decisions. The rest do as they're told, giving NI and Scotland choices goes directly against the entire premise of the UK.

That's pretty much it, isn't it? Can't go having the Scots getting uppity.

Can't go having the Scots getting uppity.

Actually read that in BJs voice! Bang on the money.

He probably sings the second verse of the national anthem too, about crushing rebellious Scots. Or heathen. Can't remember which, don't actually know the words to that anthem.

The EU was clear that they will not enter further negotiations

Easy to say when there is still 81 days to go.

England is the only part of the UK that makes decisions. The rest do as they're told, giving NI and Scotland choices goes directly against the entire premise of the UK

The result of the 2016 referendum tells me that both NI and Scotland voted differently to England and Wales. So not sure where you get the above view from?

Easy to say when there is still 81 days to go.

Why? It's not up to them to sort this mess, they didn't cause it.

The result of the 2016 referendum tells me that both NI and Scotland voted differently to England and Wales.

They did indeed. Well done.

Promptly told by Westminster, both May and Johnson that the UK majority was leave, the remain vote majorities in NI and Scotland were irrelevant because of that. And that Scotland wouldn't be part of brexit negotiations, because it was down to Westminster to make the decisions.

So not sure where you get the above view from?

Are NI and Scotland being allowed to remain in the EU? Being given the option of Indy 2 or a reunification referendum?

No. They're not, they're being told to pipe down and do as they're told because UK UK UK.

That's where I get that view from.

It's reality.

There is still a chance that Johnson will prorogue Parliament

Doesn’t need to as insufficient time for vote of no confidence, general election before 31 October

Can't MPs block No Deal altogether? They've blocked everything else!

@HateIsNotGood - The point I'm making is that the EU would most likely have proceeded with 'meddling' in the agreements made between the RoI and UK had the Ref produced a Remain result.Would anyone here have a problem with that? I did, even if no one else here does.

I addressed your point re the CTA and your claim that its existence was somehow proof that the GFA could be renegotiated.

Regarding the EU stance on the CTA, it's a perfectly reasonable one. One of the tenets of the EU is equal treatment between member states. An agreement that predates the EU and that gives pretty much the same rights (with some extras admittedly) is a very different beast to an international peace treaty that one side now wants to destroy as it is no longer convenient.

The removal of the CTA would have been subject to negotiations and would have had to be agreed by both Ireland and the UK. The EU would not have been able to unilaterally remove it. You should also remember that the UK tried to remove some of the freedoms associated with the CTA in 2008 but were defeated in the Lords, mainly because of unionist disquiet, so there it's not like it is some point of principle for the UK.

What I want to know is did the UK vote on a no deal exit of the EU?

Yes. The 2017 election is quoted as a majority supporting leaving the EU because of what was said in the manifestos. If that is accepted then the fact that these explicitly ruled out no deal means that over 30 million people voted against no deal - over 90% of those voting.

Yes whyamI I do appreciate your pov - although I still do suggest that it is possible to re-write only the parts of the GFA that rely on both RoI and UK being EU members. I don't think it's that impossible really, although it might be easier to just say "can't do that because" instead of "let's make this work because".

Otherwise, in regards to Brexit, what else do you suggest?

@HateIsNotGood - although I still do suggest that it is possible to re-write only the parts of the GFA that rely on both RoI and UK being EU members.

I can only assume you have never read the GFA or looked at the cross border cooperation and bodies that have resulted from it? The foundation of the GFA is predicated on an open border.

The GFA does not rely on the UK and Ireland both being members of the EU. It simply makes it easier if they are. It is now up to the UK to choose one of the 3 possible options that will facilitate an open border:

• reversal on some of the UK red lines
• backstop only including NI
• backstop including the entire UK

If they don't do this, they are breaking an international peace treaty that they signed in 1998.

The GFA does not rely on the UK and Ireland both being members of the EU. It simply makes it easier if they are.

Thought so.

There are more than 3 options, including that the EU also reduces its 'stance' as well as the UK and that more options are considered
to get to a resolution.