Exit from Brexit

MamaCaz, where did I say anything was just for fun? Very serious matter indeed.

Yes I am saying that everyone who voted either Labour or Conservative was aware that the party they were voting for was Pro Brexit. It was in their Manifesto, it was said on the hustings and it was in leaflets dropped through certainly my door by both Party's. If any one voted who did not agree with these clear manifesto promises, and commitments made by these Party's then it is their own fault. They should have voted Lib Dem who clearly said they were against Brexit. This is not a game Mama, it's the real world, our votes do matter. We put that X in a box because it is important to register our support for something, or it might be a strategic vote but it is intended and it is based on what we read in manifesto's and how we see ourselves being Governed and the direction for the Country. It surprises me that any one would not see this and treat it lightly.

Both Conservative and Labour Party stood at the General Election for Brexit, indeed both stood on a platform of hard Brexit. The General Election endorsed the Referendum and empowered the Government to negotiate a hard Brexit, supported by the Opposition, whoever that might have been at that time. It turned out to be Conservative supported by Labour as far as Brexit is concerned. This is unequivocal Mama.

As has been mentioned many times on the various threads, the legally binding status of a referendum and a general election is not the same.
ie referendum advisory.
GE legally binding.

No, nigglienellie, to be pro-Brexit means in favour of Brexit, whereas to accepts the referendum means just that - accept it. I 'accept' that I will never be beautiful, but that doesn't mean that I am happy about it, or even that I would not change that if it were possible.
Two very different things!

Let me put he same question to you as I did to Allygran:
The parties' manifestos (most of which had nothing to do with Brexit) were just for fun, were they?

www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/01/it-s-time-accept-labour-manifesto-you-voted-promised-hard-brexit

The EU Withdrawal Bill cleared the House of Commons this week, with Labour formally ordering MPs to vote against the Bill at the Third Reading. It meant that only a handful of Labour MPs support the EU Withdrawal Bill, despite the fact that more than 70 per cent of Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted to leave the European Union, and up to five million Labour voters also supported Leave.

On 23 June 2016, voters were simply asked if they would like to remain a member of the EU or leave it. *But the Labour manifesto in 2017 was a hard Brexit manifesto. it promised to leave the European Union by 'accepting the result" and that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union". By definition for freedom of movement to end, we will have to leave the single market, since as the EU's chief negotiator has observed, the four freedoms are indivisible*. In the North of England and in the Midlands, as well as other parts of the country, voters flocked to Labour and supported our Brexit manifesto. In light of the vote this week in Parliament, these voters will now be more cautious with their trust.
The Spectator.

Mama this is clear that Labour supported and promised to support hard Brexit as explained the four freedoms being indivisible as far at the EU is concerned means we leave the single market, we leave the customs union and there will be no freedom of movement. This was the stance of the Labour Party at the General Election, this is unequivocal endorsement of the referendum majority vote to leave the EU.

So the parties manifestos were just for fun, were they, allygran?
And are you saying that everyone who voted either Labour or Conservative was pro-Brexit? Ridiculous!

'Labour accepts the referendum.' That is the same thing as endorsing brexit! As the referendum was in favour of brexit and Labour accepted the referendum how could it not endorse brexit?!!!

Mama. The General Election was a resounding endorsement of the Referendum result and authorised the Government to proceed to exit from the EU.

Brexit not being at the "top of the List" in the Labour Party manifesto makes no difference whatsoever Mama. It is one of the promises made to the electorate to get them to vote Labour.

Your comment about 2017 General Election result validating Brexit.

How can you state "unequivocally that that is untrue" Mama?
Please tell me how you know that this is not true?

Two votes, majority leave the EU in one, General Election with both party's standing on a Pro Brexit mandate both re-elected as were all the MP's on that Mandate. Both Government and Opposition re-elected on a Pro Brexit Mandate.

Ok, I'm back. Some things are just too hard to ignore!

Allygran1

^"Well that would be difficult since they stood for election and re-election at the General Election on a Pro Brexit mandate ...

And that is just one of many reasons why it is totally ridiculous to claim that the 2017 General Election result validates Brexit - a claim that you, amongst others, have made up-thread.
Surely you don't believe that everyone who voted for either of those parties was in favour of Brexit? I can state quite unequivocally that that is untrue. Any reasonably intelligent voter would have read the parties' manifestos and based their vote on the whole. That is what General Elections are all about - not one-issue votes.

In fact, even the claim that Labour stood on a pro-Brexit mandate seems dubious. I don't pretend to have read their manifesto in detail, but a quick glance at it now shows that Brexit wasn't even top of the list, and when it does appear, it says "Labour accepts the referendum result ...", which is hardly the same thing.

The 2017 General Election result is in no way whatsoever an endorsement of the referendum result, and claims that it is are blatantly untrue. The only second vote that could possibly do that would be a second referendum.

All the backstops are in place nellie. Intransigence from the EU is expected and prepared for as you say UK is already a member of the WTO since 1995. Even that membership was absorbed and taken over by the EU.

To summarise, on the basis of the analysis offered here, the UK already today possesses full WTO rights and obligations under the WTO multilateral trade agreements, even if these are, at present, for the most part, exercised and performed on its behalf by the EU. So another thing we are taking back unto ourselves as we Brexit.

The United Kingdom already has membership of the WTO. We joined 1st January 1995. Wisely it would appear!

Welshwife information on WTO.

The WTO is not pretending to be anything other than an unelected body. It is a trade organisation that as it say's World Trade Organisation. It is not pretending to be a Country and control with regulations the "four freedoms" that bind into every trade agreement. Nor is it making all UK citizens into WTO citizens and issuing passports. Nor does it control who travels where.

^The UK’s status in the WTO after Brexit
Lorand Bartels* 23 September 2016^

Conclusion
To summarise, on the basis of the analysis offered here, the UK already today possesses full WTO rights and obligations under the WTO multilateral trade agreements, even if these are, at present, for the most part, exercised and performed on its behalf by the EU. In many respects it is not complicated to identify these rights and obligations, and this is particularly true of rights and obligations applicable erga omnes partes to all WTO Members (or categories of Members). There is a question concerning the territorial limitation in the UK’s GATS schedule, according to which the schedule only applies to EU territory, but it is argued, based on the ‘moving frontiers’ rule, that this limitation can be ignored in the UK’s new schedule.
Complications arise where the UK’s rights correspond to part of an obligation, determined on a quantified basis, that is currently set out in the EU and EU Member State schedules.

These EU and EU member schedules are currently being disconnected from the UK schedules.

This is the case for the EU’s right to subsidise agricultural production up to a set limit. It was suggested that the UK should adopt a subsidy commitment calculated by applying the UK:EU ratio of payments from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over the past three years to these commitments. As to the UK’s quantified obligations corresponding to the EU’s country-specific tariff rate quotas, it is likely that, in practice, quotas are likely to be established with relevant WTO Members by agreement, in accordance with Article XIII:2 of the GATT 1994. However, such agreements should be reached against the background of the fact that the UK currently possesses obligations with respect to these tariff rate quotas; it is just difficult to know what these obligations mean in practice. The real problem, however, is that regardless of how a quota might be determined, the EU-27 would have a right to access this quota under Article XIII:2. This would raise the possibility of a non- violation complaint, on the basis that at the time the quotas were agreed, they would exclude imports from other EU Member States. To forestall such a complaint, it was suggested that the UK could offer tariff rate quotas corresponding to recent imports, including from the EU-27, over a representative most likely three-year period.
As to the procedure to be followed, it was suggested that the UK should submit new schedules under Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article XX of the GATS, as other ‘changes’ and rectifications to the current EU schedule, in respect of itself and its territory. It is almost certain that other WTO Members will object to these schedules, but, importantly, these objections do not require the UK to enter into renegotiation of the UK’s entire schedule, as is sometimes thought to be the case*. *Other WTO Members hold no veto over the determination of the UK’s schedules or over its legal position within the WTO in any other respect*. *At most, objections might lead to arbitration on the value of a compensatory adjustment following an alleged modification of the UK’s services concession (which might be zero) ^and dispute settlement proceedings in respect of any given measure alleged to violate the UK’s commitments or that otherwise nullifies or impairs benefits under the GATT 1994 or the GATS. However, it is also submitted that the UK will be able to forestall any such proceedings by determining its tariff rate quota and subsidy commitments along the lines suggested here.

newsite.diplomaticlawguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Lorand-Bartel-UK-WTO-Schedules-Paper-September-2016.pdf

This is a cut and paste. Cut meaning that it is not the full analysis, this part has been cut from the rest and then pasted on here. The link has the whole document. This might clear up one posters understanding of what 'cut' in these circumstances means.

Told you before Maizie...you are more privileged than I. It's aint the way I write it, it's wot I say that matters Gov! [pulling forelock] Clearly it rattles your cage!

Seems this thread is also getting like a playground

Having read about WTO regulations etc they are far worse than EU ones and that really is an unelected body! There is no guarantee that they will let the U.K. join anyway as several countries have intimated they will vote against.

It's copy and paste. Nothing is cut, all the original is still there.
I still can't really take seriously someone who misuses the English language

Have you read the cut and paste from Joelsnan...no I thought not!

There are two options Grandad if the EU are to remain intransigent, which I doubt..however let us assume they do. The UK has no other option than go down the WTO route. That means the EU lose out! We have all our temporary contingencies in place for that outcome. With a deal if it is not the right deal TM has two options accept it and suffer the consequences of whatever the deal is that is not right, or she walks away and we go WTO.

Grandad can you demonstrate how it would not be in the interests of "all working families in the UK". The manufacturing industry in the EEA (not Europe) as you so often refer to it. The EEA manufacturing is in the doldrums, not many are going to consider right now moving their manufacturing industries to EEA Countries. The situation in Europe is bad. Get the rose coloured specs off!

Allygran1, no one is interested now in cut and paste as to what has gone before in regards to Brexit. What is of supreme importance with just over six months until Brexit actually comes into being, is what will be the situation on that day in regards to working families everyday lives and employment.

With the leaders of industry now coming out ever more forcefully with statements on the effects a "no deal" Brexit will have on their industries, then it is those statements which are now commanding the main opinion debate at the present time.

It would seem that the leave campaign leaders and supporters have no answers or counter debate to those industry leaders statements. in that they "run away" in reliance of what has gone before in the Brexit debate or the old worn out slogan of "take back control".

Many would seem to now ask " take back control of what", our ports that cannot cope without frictionless trade, a broken transport system and what is left of Britains manufacturing industry rapidly moving to Europe.

I believe in the above are the outright challenges that the leave supporters have to confront and answer if the tide of public opinion now flowing strongly towards remaining in the European Union is to be checked.

So, let us see on this forum if the leave supporters can justify the "no deal" Brexit that their leaders now seem to support, and demonstrate how that would be in the interests of all working families in the UK.

As is your's Varian. You really think that you can overthrow two majority votes one for Brexit and another supporting mandates of the two leading Political party's who were voted into Government and Opposition. I just have to ask this, have you been use to a different system at some time?

Your lack of understanding of our democracy is astounding

Well that would be difficult since they stood for election and re-election at the General Election on a Pro Brexit mandate. To change that would mean the end of the Labour Party as we know it. Perhaps that is what a lot of the far left want.

Things have to be done in a proper manner Varian in a democracy, other wise we do have anarchy. If anyone want's to change anything then they will need to form a party and stand at the next General Election on a mandate that mirrors what they want to do. People will vote for them or not. That's how it's done!

I am not involved in the Labour Party but I recognise that they are the official opposition and it is about time they started to oppose the madness tbat is brexit.

Smart observation Jalimal.

varian Mon 13-Aug-18 21:11:48
Over the next few weeks, hundreds of local Labour parties will consider a contemporary motion backing a ‘people’s vote’ on Brexit, with a view to sending it to Labour conference. It has already been passed by nine CLPs, while another 130 or so are set to debate it before the deadline of 13th September. The question is whether the motion is chosen in the priorities ballot, which determines what is to be debated at conference. And that depends on how hard the party leadership, and particularly Momentum, whip against prioritising a Brexit debate.

This is very interesting Varian. Clearly you are heavily involved. The grassroots of the Labour Party who voted Leave will desert leaving the Labour Party in the hands of the extremist's.