O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[WanChaiMiller]

Not quite as you portray
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e...e/whatis_e.htm

Not quite as you portray
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e...e/whatis_e.htm

Exactly as I portray it. We have zilch say. Just click down off the opening page to see.

Quote:

"Essentially, the WTO is a place where member governments go, to try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations. But the WTO is not just about liberalizing trade, and in some circumstances its rules support maintaining trade barriers — for example to protect consumers, prevent the spread of disease or protect the environment."

Who are 'the bulk', who were the negotiators and by what process did we sign off on those agreements?

"The WTO is ‘rules-based’; its rules are negotiated agreements."

We will trade under WTO Rules. Its should not be confused with 'free trade' with the rest of the world. Before we go into this relationship we need to know how these rules impact on our existing trading relationships.

[WanChaiMiller]

That's a nonsense argument. Entering into any sort of international obligation or treaty arguably involves a degree of surrender of sovereignty. As an example, the UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. The point is, however, that our democratically elected government chose to surrender a degree of autonomy and sovereignty in doing so.

Sorry tried to edit but lost it.

I totally agree its complete nonsense. However, regaining sovereignty is one of the main rarguments Brexiteers put forward for leaving the EU. Leaving to trade under WTO rule simply does not achieve that end.

[Exiletyke]

Not all considerations are economic
There is the matter of
Borders
Laws
& we seem to overlook fishing rights

[John2]

UK did not vote for this and no way would they ever do so.

The problem is, some leave voters did vote for this! The question as worded on the ballot meant that leave was the option that most closely represented supporters of the Norway model. I don't support it, you don't, but you can't decide what everyone who voted leave meant because they all meant different things.

If the Brino supporters had voted with remain, the margin was so small there is a good chance remain would have won. This is why everything is so messed up and irreconcilable. People keep saying the outcome was clear, but they're projecting their bias, the outcome was about as far from clear as it is conceivable to be with a close result on an ambiguous outcome.

[rolymiller]

For me the original referendum didn't spell out clearly enough the consequences of leaving the EU. Would there have been so many leave voters if they had known that we would have all this shambles attempting to leave. The original vote was at a time of terrorist activity which stoked up knee jerk xenophobic reactions to immigration which the far right fed. The arguments now, with terrorist activities somewhat quieter, are more economic. So my point is the leave or stay vote would have a different frame now. It therefore begs the question then would the results have been different in the original referendum if t had been based on economic arguments. I suspect it could have been.

[Exiletyke]

The problem is, some leave voters did vote for this! The question as worded on the ballot meant that leave was the option that most closely represented supporters of the Norway model. I don't support it, you don't, but you can't decide what everyone who voted leave meant because they all meant different things.

If the Brino supporters had voted with remain, the margin was so small there is a good chance remain would have won. This is why everything is so messed up and irreconcilable. People keep saying the outcome was clear, but they're projecting their bias, the outcome was about as far from clear as it is conceivable to be with a close result on an ambiguous outcome.

I could have sworn that the ballot said

LEAVE or
REMAIN

Tell me what were the other words I missed

[Exiletyke]

To

For me the original referendum didn't spell out clearly enough the consequences of leaving the EU. Would there have been so many leave voters if they had known that we would have all this shambles attempting to leave. The original vote was at a time of terrorist activity which stoked up knee jerk xenophobic reactions to immigration which the far right fed. The arguments now, with terrorist activities somewhat quieter, are more economic. So my point is the leave or stay vote would have a different frame now. It therefore begs the question then would the results have been different in the original referendum if t had been based on economic arguments. I suspect it could have been.

We voted to leave
The shambles you now see is as a result of a remainer leading the negotiations & not very well to boot
Nowt to do with the vote

[WanChaiMiller]

To

We voted to leave
The shambles you now see is as a result of a remainer leading the negotiations & not very well to boot
Nowt to do with the vote

Davies Raab Barclay all prominent Brexiteers. Cabinet generally an even split (that clisely reflects the vote). Only May - who has actually created a transition deal that will take us out.

[John2]

I could have sworn that the ballot said

LEAVE or
REMAIN

Tell me what were the other words I missed

EXACTLY.

It didn't establish what leave meant beyond EU membership. It only established leave the EU. The ballot made no reference to leaving the single market or customs union.

Tell me where on the ballot we voted to leave the customs union. On the ballot.

[ragingpup]

I could have sworn that the ballot said

LEAVE or
REMAIN

Tell me what were the other words I missed

If the vote had said Leave with no deal v Remain then we would have had clarity.

But it didn't, so we don't.