Post Brexit

[Bladesman]

And there we have it, readers.

When you challenge Brexiters as to why they voted to leave, they have no reason.

One just assumes they swallowed all the bs and don't like people 'not like them', because they have little else to say.

There's nothing arrogant about having an argument and a principle.

There's everything arrogant about not engaging because 'I'm not telling you why know I am right and you have a picture of Jason King and I think it's horrid and nasty'

Sovereignty, border control and concern over the future expansion of EU powers.

This was done to death endlessly on here with forum threads locked and this one will be locked soon enough.

 

[Rodley]

We haven't 'lost' tax revenue. The current government is increasing the overall we pay (frozen allowances, stealth taxes etc), i e, the tax burden as a % of GDP has risen. If GDP rose, this %age would fall, but the amount of tax collected would remain the same.

There is no direct link between tax and GDP, although government policies can affect both.

But if the tax rates & rules stay static, doesn’t more GDP create more income which creates more tax revenue in capital terms?

 

[Rodley]

Sovereignty, border control and concern over the future expansion of EU powers.

This was done to death endlessly on here with forum threads locked and this one will be locked soon enough.

I would have thought it will get moved, I don’t see anyone arguing in particularly bad faith.

 

[I should coco]

But if the tax rates & rules stay static, doesn’t more GDP create more income which creates more tax revenue in capital terms?

If wages grow as a result of increasing GDP and thresholds are frozen, then yes, more tax is paid.

The trouble is that that this government wants an ever bigger slice of the cake, and is actually doing things to shrink the cake.

A sensible argument could be made, that 2024's employer NI rises, hit GDP far more over the last 18 months, than Brexit did.

The whole thread is getting too political, with grandstanding by certain people, so I'm out now.

 

[Rodley]

If wages grow as a result of increasing GDP and thresholds are frozen, then yes, more tax is paid.

I don’t think it’s grandstanding, I think you’ve made my point and we’re agreeing - GDP impacts on tax take in capital terms and by extension impacts on tax policy.

 

[I should coco]

I don’t think it’s grandstanding, I think you’ve made my point and we’re agreeing - GDP impacts on tax take in capital terms and by extension impacts on tax policy.

Not you, but the thread is getting a bit ner ner, ner ner.

 

[BazWainwright]

Sovereignty

Never was an issue. Our sovereignty was never threatened. We still have a monarch and were never compelled into a federation or a republic of states, or to change our name, flag or identity. Never. If anyone has anything counter to that, I'd like to see it.

Border Control

That was such a success. We even have morons suggesting the Royal Marines should shoot migrants in boats and 'turn them back'.

...future expansion of EU powers ...

Again, fabricated nonsense. Why did other EU nations not show concern over this too? It sounds a bit 'Little Englander' where there's this conspiracy that the rest of Europe is ranged against us, avariciously wanting to steal and dominate us in these islands, as if bigotry, decay, poverty, laziness, political division and unproductivity is something anyone would want.

Brexiters are beneath contempt, both for their stupidity and their ignorance and now for their denial.

 

[BazWainwright]

Not you, but the thread is getting a bit ner ner, ner ner.

It's not.

It's Remainers saying 'ten years on, show us your working out' and Brexiters saying 'your mum' whilst the country descends into the swamp.

 

[Rodley]

Never was an issue. Our sovereignty was never threatened. We still have a monarch and were never compelled into a federation or a republic of states, or to change our name, flag or identity. Never. If anyone has anything counter to that, I'd like to see it.



That was such a success. We even have morons suggesting the Royal Marines should shoot migrants in boats and 'turn them back'.



Again, fabricated nonsense. Why did other EU nations not show concern over this too? It sounds a bit 'Little Englander' where there's this conspiracy that the rest of Europe is ranged against us, avariciously wanting to steal and dominate us in these islands, as if bigotry, decay, poverty, laziness, political division and unproductivity is something anyone would want.

Brexiters are beneath contempt, both for their stupidity and their ignorance and now for their denial.

I’m not sure that last sentence is necessary really. I suspect that is the point ISC is making.

 

[KMC-1889]

The answer is income tax increases.

The biggest mistake Starmer made was promising no income tax or VAT raises, which meant they had to go after the small stuff which upset more smaller noisy niche interests. NIC, winter fuel allowance, farmers inheritance tax subsidies, all needed because he was avoiding increasing income tax.

Increase income tax levels but increase the thresholds. Affects those that can afford it more than those that can’t. Should be the first thing Burnham does while he’s still in his honeymoon.

Close EU ties will immediately add a massive GDP bump. Even if it’s not full membership then the Swiss model of accepting the 4 freedoms in return for access (struggling to remember correct name for this) would be a preferable halfway house.

 

[Lord Eddard Muir]

I never liked being ruled by forriners they think different speak different ergo they are different

Much like southerners, then? And blokes from Manchester for that matter

 

[Bladesman]

Never was an issue. Our sovereignty was never threatened. We still have a monarch and were never compelled into a federation or a republic of states, or to change our name, flag or identity. Never. If anyone has anything counter to that, I'd like to see it.



That was such a success. We even have morons suggesting the Royal Marines should shoot migrants in boats and 'turn them back'.



Again, fabricated nonsense. Why did other EU nations not show concern over this too? It sounds a bit 'Little Englander' where there's this conspiracy that the rest of Europe is ranged against us, avariciously wanting to steal and dominate us in these islands, as if bigotry, decay, poverty, laziness, political division and unproductivity is something anyone would want.

Brexiters are beneath contempt, both for their stupidity and their ignorance and now for their denial.

The sovereignty concern was not fabricated nonsense—it was a core legal and political reality of EU membership, rooted in the doctrine of EU law.

Illegal migrants still can't be deported properly as we still have not untangled our self from ECHR.

There has been loads of anti EU sentiment across Europe in Denmark, Germany, Poland, Hungary etc.

No serious argument claimed the EU wanted "to steal and dominate these islands". Brexit was more to do with the accountability (electorate vs. distant institution), policy preferences (e.g. fisheries, borders, regulation and net contributions). Many EU states have their own gripes; the UK was an awkward partner with frequent rebates and opt-outs. Dismissing concerns as paranoia ignores the explicit legal primacy doctrine and real policy constraints that prompted the referendum.

We can keep going around in circles on this and have done for a decade especially on here. I am surprised people have the energy to discuss this anymore especially in this heat, its like the Tevez affair at this point.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

The answer is income tax increases.

The biggest mistake Starmer made was promising no income tax or VAT raises, which meant they had to go after the small stuff which upset more smaller noisy niche interests. NIC, winter fuel allowance, farmers inheritance tax subsidies, all needed because he was avoiding increasing income tax.

Increase income tax levels but increase the thresholds. Affects those that can afford it more than those that can’t. Should be the first thing Burnham does while he’s still in his honeymoon.

Close EU ties will immediately add a massive GDP bump. Even if it’s not full membership then the Swiss model of accepting the 4 freedoms in return for access (struggling to remember correct name for this) would be a preferable halfway house.

They could do worse than just match Scotlands tax bands and thresholds.

 

[alcoblade]

It's not.

It's Remainers saying 'ten years on, show us your working out' and Brexiters saying 'your mum' whilst the country descends into the swamp.

And yet I should coco voted to remain, so your theory doesn't hold

 

[jt64]

It's not.

It's Remainers saying 'ten years on, show us your working out' and Brexiters saying 'your mum' whilst the country descends into the swamp.

Come back to us when we have a government that actually wants to implement what we told them to.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Come back to us when we have a government that actually wants to implement what we told them to.

The government were told to leave the EU and they did. Anything else is just overreach.

 

[MobileBlade]

Come back to us when we have a government that actually wants to implement what we told them to.

What did we tell them to?

 

[BazWainwright]

What did we tell them to?

Shoot migrants in boats, apparently.

 

[BazWainwright]

Come back to us when we have a government that actually wants to implement what we told them to.

'We'? Who do you represent?

Okay. Gauntlet thrown down. What exactly did you instruct the government to do and what were the specific benefits of those instructions? Also, given you allude succesive governments have not acted on 'your' instructions, what penalty has this incurred?

I am genuinely interested in this.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

'We'? Who do you represent?

Okay. Gauntlet thrown down. What exactly did you instruct the government to do and what were the specific benefits of those instructions? Also, given you allude succesive governments have not acted on 'your' instructions, what penalty has this incurred?

I am genuinely interested in this.

Plus also, how many of the country wanted what he did.

 

[BazWainwright]

.

 

[Bladesman]

.

The key doctrine is the "primacy" (also called supremacy or precedence) of EU law over national law. It was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ/CJEU) through its case law, not explicitly written in the EU Treaties themselves (though later declarations referenced it).

In other words if our laws conflicted with EU law on a certain cases, then EU law would prevail.

Which happened for example:

The Factortame case (1990s) saw the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1988 disapplied because it conflicted with EU free movement rules (discriminating against Spanish fishermen). UK courts, following the European Communities Act 1972, had to prioritise EU law. This directly challenged the traditional Diceyan view of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty.

It was not about surrendering all sovereignty, abolishing the monarchy, or full federation — it was a limited, pooled sovereignty in areas transferred to the EU.

 

[BazWainwright]

The key doctrine is the "primacy" (also called supremacy or precedence) of EU law over national law. It was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ/CJEU) through its case law, not explicitly written in the EU Treaties themselves (though later declarations referenced it).

In other words if our laws conflicted with EU law on a certain cases, then EU law would prevail.

Which happened for example:

The Factortame case (1990s) saw the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1988 disapplied because it conflicted with EU free movement rules (discriminating against Spanish fishermen). UK courts, following the European Communities Act 1972, had to prioritise EU law. This directly challenged the traditional Diceyan view of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty.

It was not about surrendering all sovereignty, abolishing the monarchy, or full federation — it was a limited, pooled sovereignty in areas transferred to the EU.

Which, in specific case law where a collective deal or treatise is applicable and understandable by all members, is perfectly valid.

Brexiters however, were all about 'faceless European mandarins' making the Stasi patrol the streets telling honest Englishmen to not wear football shirts denoting their sovereign nation and other such Daily Mail nonsense. Check back over the past 25 years of headlines by the popular press and it is rammed with allegations 'our rites r bein' taken off off us!' which is preposterous. We also do - ultimately - have a right by principle of ignoring any directives set and/or tying it up in perpetuity in legal contest.

Bottom line is the mantra of the EU and its council (who we elect members to) have no real leverage beyond what we agree to in the first place.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Which, in specific case law where a collective deal or treatise is applicable and understandable by all members, is perfectly valid.

Brexiters however, were all about 'faceless European mandarins' making the Stasi patrol the streets telling honest Englishmen to not wear football shirts denoting their sovereign nation and other such Daily Mail nonsense. Check back over the past 25 years of headlines by the popular press and it is rammed with allegations 'our rites r bein' taken off off us!' which is preposterous. We also do - ultimately - have a right by principle of ignoring any directives set and/or tying it up in perpetuity in legal contest.

Bottom line is the mantra of the EU and its council (who we elect members to) have no real leverage beyond what we agree to in the first place.

You do realise you're debating with ChatGPT (or possibly Grok)

 

[Bladesman]

Which, in specific case law where a collective deal or treatise is applicable and understandable by all members, is perfectly valid.

Brexiters however, were all about 'faceless European mandarins' making the Stasi patrol the streets telling honest Englishmen to not wear football shirts denoting their sovereign nation and other such Daily Mail nonsense. Check back over the past 25 years of headlines by the popular press and it is rammed with allegations 'our rites r bein' taken off off us!' which is preposterous. We also do - ultimately - have a right by principle of ignoring any directives set and/or tying it up in perpetuity in legal contest.

Bottom line is the mantra of the EU and its council (who we elect members to) have no real leverage beyond what we agree to in the first place.

The core issue is that EU law primacy is not equivalent to a standard international treaty. While member states voluntarily agreed to the Treaties, the resulting legal order is supranational: EU law has direct effect (creates rights individuals can enforce in national courts) and primacy (takes precedence over conflicting national law, including Acts of Parliament). This was established by the CJEU and accepted by the UK upon joining.

You could not simply ignore them. National courts were obligated to apply EU law and disapply conflicting domestic rules (Simmenthal, 1978). Individuals could sue the state for damages if harmed by non-compliance (Francovich principle). The European Commission could (and did) launch infringement proceedings leading to CJEU fines and pressure. Persistent defiance risked escalation (e.g., loss of funds, political isolation—as seen with Poland/Hungary on rule of law). While delays and litigation occurred, ultimate compliance was required for membership. "Tying it up in perpetuity" was not a viable long-term strategy; the UK lost cases and had to change laws.

We voted for MEP's only not for the rest such as the Council and Commissioners. It was the EU council that often outvoted the UK as well.

The more member states that joined the more influence the UK lost. Hence the likes of David Cameron trying to get some concessions pre-brexit to stave of a referendum but got next to nothing in return.

The system worked because members agreed to limit sovereignty in defined areas, enforced by independent courts. Brexiters highlighted this democratic/accountability gap ("faceless" in the sense of Commission initiative + Council + CJEU final say).

You also need to keep in mind that the whole European project when was first put to the public was sold as a Common Market for trade, jobs and food. It wasn't sold to the public as possible currency change, law changes, ECHR etc. The public were told to ignore the likes of Tony Benn regarding sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy etc.

Anyway we can go around the houses on this and you can keep dismissing the reasons people voted the way they did 10 years later on. It's all been done to death on here and it's boring.

 

[BazWainwright]

The core issue is that EU law primacy is not equivalent to a standard international treaty. While member states voluntarily agreed to the Treaties, the resulting legal order is supranational: EU law has direct effect (creates rights individuals can enforce in national courts) and primacy (takes precedence over conflicting national law, including Acts of Parliament). This was established by the CJEU and accepted by the UK upon joining.

You could not simply ignore them. National courts were obligated to apply EU law and disapply conflicting domestic rules (Simmenthal, 1978). Individuals could sue the state for damages if harmed by non-compliance (Francovich principle). The European Commission could (and did) launch infringement proceedings leading to CJEU fines and pressure. Persistent defiance risked escalation (e.g., loss of funds, political isolation—as seen with Poland/Hungary on rule of law). While delays and litigation occurred, ultimate compliance was required for membership. "Tying it up in perpetuity" was not a viable long-term strategy; the UK lost cases and had to change laws.

We voted for MEP's only not for the rest such as the Council and Commissioners. It was the EU council that often outvoted the UK as well.

The more member states that joined the more influence the UK lost. Hence the likes of David Cameron trying to get some concessions pre-brexit to stave of a referendum but got next to nothing in return.

The system worked because members agreed to limit sovereignty in defined areas, enforced by independent courts. Brexiters highlighted this democratic/accountability gap ("faceless" in the sense of Commission initiative + Council + CJEU final say).

You also need to keep in mind that the whole European project when was first put to the public was sold as a Common Market for trade, jobs and food. It wasn't sold to the public as possible currency change, law changes, ECHR etc. The public were told to ignore the likes of Tony Benn regarding sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy etc.

Anyway we can go around the houses on this and you can keep dismissing the reasons people voted the way they did 10 years later on. It's all been done to death on here and it's boring.

I acknowledge your statements there, but there is so much I cannot accept.

I could articulate ... but won't. As you say, done to death.

We disagree, respectfully.

 

[Matlock Blade]

All this talk of Sovereignty makes you sound like Calvinists. I presume you are in favour of signing Calvin Philips?