Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Touring Mars]

This is honestly the single worst argument to not hold another vote

On the contrary, if you hold a vote to decide something, you ought to respect the result and not decide whether or not to hold a second vote on whether to respect the result or not. That's democracy.

From what I've read in the news, the population voted to leave the EU out of some weird nationalistic "I'm angry and Make Britain Great Again" thing. Same thing going on here. I've seen no evidence that the population at large studied anything at all about this, and virtually every discovery since the vote seems to show that leaving the EU is a terrible idea.

It's not (even close to being) the whole story. It is a balance, and although EU membership has obvious and clear advantages, the fact is that the EU itself is evolving and under-going fundamental change - and it is by no means a given that every member state is going to be comfortable with it. Article 50 exists for a (fundamentally important) reason - all member states reserve the basic right to leave the EU if its people call for that to happen.... think about the alternative for a moment.

Is continuing with an objectively bad idea a good thing?

A tough question - but, it is not quite as straightforward as saying it's "objectively bad" to leave the EU. The fact is that it will have both costs and benefits - IMO, more costs than benefits (which is why I voted to Remain), but the elephant in the room is the rapidly changing dynamic within the EU (and in the Eurozone in particular) that are swiftly replacing good decision making with a fire-fighting mentality - full political, financial and social integration of Europe was one envisaged as an ideal that all member states would welcome and equally benefit from... but now it is in danger of becoming more a product of necessity than anything else (including democracy)... and it is highly debatable that the EU equally benefits its member states. (n.b. it doesn't.)

I'm sensing a trend in a lot of nations of the world that, for some weird reason, "democracy" has led to a ton of bad decisions being made out of anger and misinformation.

This is a really good point - and unfortunately there is definitely a danger that 'popular opinion' is being manipulated by nefarious (or simply irresponsible) external actors... but again, the alternative is arguably worse (e.g. not giving people any choice at all). I reckon there must be a combination of governmental control and popular votes.... the Brexit vote was not legally binding (and that is arguably correct), but was used as an indicator for how the elected government should act. Not all decisions should be decided by a referendum - but the sovereign government should respect what the people have been asked to decide.

But the idea that Brexit was decided on a whim is, frankly, insulting to all of those who made an informed decision to vote (which I guess is the vast majority). It's almost irrelevant anyway, since irrespective of the referendum, this difficult situation was always going to come to a head at some point anyway... better, however, to proceed with the consent of a majority than to press ahead without even asking the people what they think.

 

[Scaff]

On the contrary, if you hold a vote to decide something, you ought to respect the result and not decide whether or not to hold a second vote on whether to respect the result or not. That's democracy.

So we still have the same PM we did in 1721?

We also didn't vote to firmly decide anything, it was an advisory vote that wasn't legally binding so let hold one that is legally binding

 

[Robin]

From what I've read in the news, the population voted to leave the EU out of some weird nationalistic "I'm angry and Make Britain Great Again" thing.

There can never be any hard evidence to suggest that statement is the sole reason people voted that way, just like it can't be with people voting for Trump (despite it being endlessly touted by the opposition as being such, usually as a reason to justify its own position).

There will always be people who vote out of pure nationalism but it can't be blanket assumed that was the entire leave vote. But of course it will be with the people who are unhappy, it's a predictable response.

 

[Touring Mars]

So we still have the same PM we did in 1721?

Come on, man...

We also didn't vote to firmly decide anything, it was an advisory vote that wasn't legally binding so let hold one that is legally binding

As I just said, the referendum was not legally binding - but the fact that 81% of MPs in the UK voted to trigger Article 50 was.

 

[Robin]

We also didn't vote to firmly decide anything, it was an advisory vote that wasn't legally binding so let hold one that is legally binding

The minute Article 50 was triggered based on the vote and MP's agreeing with it, it became legally binding.

 

[baldgye]

Has it been established that the Leave campaign was financed and organized by US nationals?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

Why the result of the joke that was the second referendum on staying within the EU matters is beyond me.

 

[baldgye]

but the fact that 81% of MPs in the UK voted to trigger Article 50 was.

Important to note that these same MP’s have voted against the one and only deal on the table, voted against no-deal and held a vote of no confidence in the government... but yes they voted for Brexit to happen.

 

[Dotini]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You should. Here, let me help you.

The US billionaire who helped bankroll Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency played a key role in the campaign for Britain to leave the EU, the Observer has learned.

It has emerged that Robert Mercer, a hedge-fund billionaire, who helped to finance the Trump campaign and who was revealed this weekend as one of the owners of the rightwing Breitbart News Network, is a long-time friend of Nigel Farage. He directed his data analytics firm to provide expert advice to the Leave campaign on how to target swing voters via Facebook – a donation of services that was not declared to the electoral commission.

Cambridge Analytica, an offshoot of a British company, SCL Group, which has 25 years’ experience in military disinformation campaigns and “election management”, claims to use cutting-edge technology to build intimate psychometric profiles of voters to find and target their emotional triggers. Trump’s team paid the firm more than $6m (£4.8m) to target swing voters, and it has now emerged that Mercer also introduced the firm – in which he has a major stake – to Farage.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit

 

[Scaff]

Come on, man...

So we do vote repeatedly on things as the situation and information changes.

As I just said, the referendum was not legally binding - but the fact that 81% of MPs in the UK voted to trigger Article 50 was.

The minute Article 50 was triggered based on the vote and MP's agreeing with it, it became legally binding.

Those same MPs who have voted repeatedly on it, it's also not true to say that it's legally binding as a number of legal bodies (including the ECJ and person who wrote the EU law) have said it can be reversed.

Strikes me as odd that given the volume of new information that holding a second vote is so alien a concept to do many.

 

[eran0004]

Because a vote has already been held on whether to remain inside or leave the EU.

A vote to Remain would have resulted in nothing happening - zero. However, a vote to Leave entailed instigating fundamental change, a great deal of uncertainty, facing certain difficulties and uncertain benefits etc.... as such, it is not merely unsurprising that some people may have changed their minds... it's inevitable. But - that doesn't make a second vote any more legitimate - or wise.


Nobody's forcing them to leave - they're leaving of their own Accord.

I disagree. That means the government asked them to sign a contract before the terms were set and that’s fraudulent. The referendum should be seen as an intent, but not as a final decision. The government has a mandate to seek a way out of the EU, but not to commit to it at any cost.

It wouldn’t be right to have another referendum directly after the first one (you can’t just vote until you get the result you want), but at this point there is so much new information available so I don’t see how it would be a problem - especially given the dilemma regarding the Irish border which could potentially break up the United Kingdom.

 

[Dotini]

...the dilemma regarding the Irish border which could potentially break up the United Kingdom.

Divide and conquer is an ancient and proven strategy, currently being implemented upon your Kingdom and upon the EU.

Divide and rule (from Latin dīvide et imperā), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people. It was heavily used by British Empire in India and elsewhere.[1]

 

[Touring Mars]

So we do vote repeatedly on things as the situation and information changes.

Sorry to say this, but conflating the UK's political and democratic history with a single issue such as the Brexit referendum is a bit silly.

It is virtually the definition of a democracy that the people reserve the right to elect new representatives on a regular basis - conflating that constitutional freedom with the idea that referendums can or should be held (and/or subsequently ignored) is simply not valid.

Those same MPs who have voted repeatedly on it, it's also not true to say that it's legally binding as a number of legal bodies (including the ECJ and person who wrote the EU law) have said it can be reversed.

It is by definition legally binding because it is a decision that has been passed by law. That doesn't mean it cannot be reversed - it does, however, mean that it can only be reversed by changing the law.

The referendum should be seen as an intent, but not as a final decision.

That's exactly what the referendum was.

The government has a mandate to seek a way out of the EU, but not to commit to it at any cost.

But that is exactly what is happening - it is still not even clear that Brexit will happen for this very reason.

It wouldn’t be right to have another referendum directly after the first one (you can’t just vote until you get the result you want), but at this point there is so much new information available so I don’t see how it would be a problem - especially given the dilemma regarding the Irish border which could potentially break up the United Kingdom.

But, as I said before, it is a right/prerogative of the UK people to decide on the future of the UK. Yes, it will affect the EU as well - but the EU cannot have it both ways... either it allows members to leave or it doesn't. Article 50 is a fundamental aspect of the EU charter that states that members can leave if they want to, and the UK has (for better or for worse) exercised that right. The reciprocal of that is that the EU has no right to insist that a member state remains a member indefinitely - it is actually a breach of the EU's own charter to prohibit a member state from deciding to leave.

Also, it is a result of the Article 50 process that the UK has been left in a situation where it must now commit (by way of a legally binding international treaty that cannot be unilaterally changed) to terms that will permanently disadvantage us on the promise that a trade deal might be agreed between the EU and the UK some time in the future. This is the real problem with Brexit - the entire thing is the wrong way around insofar as there is no way to properly address the Irish border issue before a trade deal has been agreed, but the Article 50/EU-defined process by which a member state is allowed to leave specifically prohibits a trade deal from even being discussed prior to exit. And if that sounds barmy to you, you are not alone.

 

[Scaff]

Sorry to say this, but conflating the UK's political and democratic history with a single issue such as the Brexit referendum is a bit silly.

Given that the outcome of this single issue has as much, if not more, impact that the election of any single person or parliament then I think its anything but 'silly'.

It is virtually the definition of a democracy that the people reserve the right to elect new representatives on a regular basis - conflating that constitutional freedom with the idea that referendums can or should be held (and/or subsequently ignored) is simply not valid.

See above, its valid.

It is by definition legally binding because it is a decision that has been passed by law. That doesn't mean it cannot be reversed - it does, however, mean that it can only be reversed by changing the law.

And that invalidates my point how?

 

[Touring Mars]

And that invalidates my point how?

Because you are misunderstanding what the phrase 'legally binding' means.

Ironically, you say that we should now hold a vote that is legally binding, but at the same time appear to suggest that this be in the form a (non legally binding) referendum.

It actually doesn't really matter what the result(s) of referenda are (a point you seem to agree with it)... what really matters is what the law states right now, and (unfortunately for those of us who wanted to remain in the EU) that means we leave the EU next month because that is what UK (and EU) law dictates. For the record, I hope an alternative can be thrashed out/agreed before that happens, but that is (sadly) only my opinion/wishes.

 

[Keef]

What are the main issues developing with the EU that convinced the UK to leave? Is this a matter of national sovereignty in general?

As a bystander, it always seemed to me like the UK is/was one of the more powerful and influential nations in the EU. I'd expect the UK, France, and Germany to be dictating the show, as they all have similar and strong economies. Is this a matter of the neglected nations dragging down the UK and being a parasite on their economy?

 

[eran0004]

@Touring Mars There’s nothing in article 50 that prevents trade negotiations. The only thing it says is that the UK may leave, that there’s a timeframe of two years for negotiating an exit deal (which can be extended) and that the UK can’t negotiate with itself (that is, be part of EU’s side in the exit negotiations).

 

[Touring Mars]

@Touring Mars There’s nothing in article 50 that prevents trade negotiations.

I disagree, but it is also evident from the Brexit process itself.

Article 50 states:

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Article 218 is predicated upon the fact that the EU negotiates the terms of all trade deals with a third country, which by defintion is a non-member state.

Even if I might be reading that wrongly, the fact is that this is the case. It's February 18th 2019 and yet there has been nothing agreed on the UK's future trade relationship with the EU... and that is a direct result of EU law.

In other words, the 'Withdrawal Agreement', by defintion, sets the terms by which a member state may withdraw from the Union. The 'Political Declaration', however, merely sets the aims for a future trading relationship that, due to other EU articles, cannot be commenced until after the member state has exited.

Indeed, what we have right now is precisely what Article 50 states... a Withdrawal Agreement (which is an international treaty, i.e. legally binding) and the 'Political Declaration', which sets out the framework (e.g. 'hopes') for the exiting member state's future relationship with the EU (which is not legally binding) in accordance with Article 218(3).

 

[Touring Mars]

What are the main issues developing with the EU that convinced the UK to leave? Is this a matter of national sovereignty in general?

There are several issues, but concerns over migration are strong (not just in the UK, but elsewhere too). But another major factor is a result of the Euro/monetary union.

Despite being a no-brainer in terms of how a trading bloc should operate, the way the Euro was implemented was botched and has led directly to the effective bankruptcy of several member states, notably Greece, but also Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain. Fortunately, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have recovered to a large extent (albeit after bailouts), but Greece and Italy have not. Unfortunately, monetary union doesn't really work unless you also have fiscal and political union, as well as debt sharing... but Germany (and others, including the UK) will not countenance debt sharing just yet... however, the UK can (and already has) opted out by virtue of not signing up to monetary union in the first place, while Germany remains on the hook.

As a bystander, it always seemed to me like the UK is/was one of the more powerful and influential nations in the EU. I'd expect the UK, France, and Germany to be dictating the show, as they all have similar and strong economies.

The UK is enormously powerful in the EU, but all the more reason why it makes absolutely no sense to give away that influence/power while effectively staying in the EU... (e.g. Soft Brexit). Germany, at least, seem to understand that, while Brexit will impact the UK the most, the UK's influence on the EU economy as a whole will be huge, but, crucially, the impact on individual member states will be vastly different... Germany may be hit hardest of all, but they are also most capable of handling a hard hit and therefore will be affected the least... Italy, on the other hand, are likely to be hit quite hard, but that hit could be a fatal blow to their economy because of their incredibly precarious position thanks to their membership of the Euro, their enormous sovereign debt, and the fact that their budget is controlled by the EU.

Is this a matter of the neglected nations dragging down the UK and being a parasite on their economy?

Not really - it's also a question of rich nations (particularly Germany) lending poorer nations (like Greece) ridiculous amounts of money on the (misguided) belief that they share a credit card/bank account, when in reality they don't.

 

[Scaff]

Because you are misunderstanding what the phrase 'legally binding' means.

Ironically, you say that we should now hold a vote that is legally binding, but at the same time appear to suggest that this be in the form a (non legally binding) referendum.

It' never been done, but we are into the uncharted so far that anything is possible.

It actually doesn't really matter what the result(s) of referenda are (a point you seem to agree with it)... what really matters is what the law states right now, and (unfortunately for those of us who wanted to remain in the EU) that means we leave the EU next month because that is what UK (and EU) law dictates. For the record, I hope an alternative can be thrashed out/agreed before that happens, but that is (sadly) only my opinion/wishes.

A refurendum doesn't need to be non binding

What are the main issues developing with the EU that convinced the UK to leave? Is this a matter of national sovereignty in general?

It was sold to the UK on that basis of the achievable, and that's now firmly coming home.

As a bystander, it always seemed to me like the UK is/was one of the more powerful and influential nations in the EU. I'd expect the UK, France, and Germany to be dictating the show, as they all have similar and strong economies. Is this a matter of the neglected nations dragging down the UK and being a parasite on their economy?

The UK has/had arguably one of the best (if not the best) deals of any of the EU 28, however people were promised that they could keep all of that and have more, something that was never going to happen.

The key reasons why no side will agree with any deal the EU and UK put together is that no deal exists that will leave the UK better off than it was in the EU from a trade perspective, and the promised 'taking back control' combined with free trade with everyone before the deal is done was a unicorn.

I disagree, but it is also evident from the Brexit process itself.

Article 50 states:



Article 218(3) is predicated upon the fact that the EU negotiates the terms of all trade deals with a third country, which by defintion is a non-member state.

Even if I might be reading that wrongly, the fact is that this is the case. It's February 18th 2019 and yet there has been nothing agreed on the UK's future trade relationship with the EU... and that is a direct result of EU law.

In other words, the 'Withdrawal Agreement', by defintion, sets the terms by which a member state may withdraw from the Union. The 'Political Declaration', however, merely sets the aims for a future trading relationship that, due to other EU articles, cannot be commenced until after the member state has exited.

Indeed, what we have right now is precisely what Article 50 states... a Withdrawal Agreement (which is an international treaty, i.e. legally binding) and the 'Political Declaration', which sets out the framework (e.g. 'hopes') for the exiting member state's future relationship with the EU (which is not legally binding) in accordance with Article 218(3).

All of which was clearly stated by the EU and many other parties and roundly dismissed as 'Project Fear' and countered with the likes of us 'holding all the cards', ' easiest trade deal ever', done in an afternoon over a cup of tea' and ' have trade deals larger than the EU before we leave'.

The UK is enormously powerful in the EU, but all the more reason why it makes absolutely no sense to give away that influence/power while effectively staying in the EU... (e.g. Soft Brexit). Germany, at least, seem to understand that, while Brexit will impact the UK the most, the UK's influence on the EU economy as a whole will be huge, but, crucially, the impact on individual member states will be vastly different... Germany may be hit hardest of all, but they are also most capable of handling a hard hit and therefore will be affected the least... Italy, on the other hand, are likely to be hit quite hard, but that hit could be a fatal blow to their economy because of their incredibly precarious position thanks to their membership of the Euro, their enormous sovereign debt, and the fact that their budget is controlled by the EU.

Germany is quite well insulated based on the IMF predictions regarding a hard Brexit, with the UK and Ireland bearing the brunt by quite a significant margin (a factor I suspect the Irish will put firmly at the feet of the UK).

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-would-harm-all-european-countries-warns-imf

 

[Touring Mars]

A refurendum doesn't need to be non binding

True, but a non-binding referendum requires an act of Parliament to make it meaningful, and an act of Parliament is required to reverse something that is legally binding... hence the fact that the EU referendum of 2016 was not legally binding is an irrelevant fact.

 

[Scaff]

True, but a non-binding referendum requires an act of Parliament to make it meaningful, and an act of Parliament is required to reverse something that is legally binding... hence the fact that the EU referendum of 2016 was not legally binding is an irrelevant fact.

And yet the lie that it was binding has been repeated.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...y-said-the-eu-referendum-was-binding-it-wasnt

http://www.sketchnews.co.uk/home/brexit was legal and binding, say lawyers.html

 

[Touring Mars]

And yet the lie that it was binding has been repeated.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...y-said-the-eu-referendum-was-binding-it-wasnt

http://www.sketchnews.co.uk/home/brexit was legal and binding, say lawyers.html

"Binding" and "Legal and binding" is not the same as 'legally binding'.... but it is easy to see why there's confusion on the point. But, as I said earlier, it has been rendered moot by the fact that the referendum result has subsequently been translated into law.

 

[eran0004]

Article 218(3) is predicated upon the fact that the EU negotiates the terms of all trade deals with a third country, which by defintion is a non-member state.

I don’t read that in 218(3). It says that the council decides when to start negotiations on matters relating to the common foreign and security policy and that they may also nominate a negotiation team.

It doesn’t say that trade negotiations must wait until the UK has left the union. And since 218 only applies to EU members who are staying (the council did not nominate the British negotiating team) it also doesn’t prohibit trade negotiations between the EU and the UK. In the matter of an exit deal and post-brexit trade, the UK is already a third party.

The fact that the UK have already secured trade deals with a handful of countries is a strong indicator of that, because the UK is still an EU member and yet they are allowed to negotiate trade deals on their own. Technically they shouldn’t, but law isn’t technical, it’s pragmatic. Law has intentions and in this case the intention of the law is to govern the common policy areas, it’s not to prevent members from leaving the EU and it’s not to prevent such members from securing their economy. In the end it’s up to the CJEU to make that interpretation.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/13/brexit-uk-trade-deals-eu

Even if I might be reading that wrongly, the fact is that this is the case. It's February 18th 2019 and yet there has been nothing agreed on the UK's future trade relationship with the EU... and that is a direct result of EU law.

The fact that something has or hasn’t happened does not prove what caused it to happen or not happen. If that were the case, one could accurately claim that according to UK law, the parliament is not allowed to approve of a brexit deal, proven by the fact they haven’t done so yet. Or that the fact that apples fall from the tree proves that the Earth is accelerating vertically and must either be flat or expanding rapidly.

Indeed, what we have right now is precisely what Article 50 states... a Withdrawal Agreement (which is an international treaty, i.e. legally binding) and the 'Political Declaration', which sets out the framework (e.g. 'hopes') for the exiting member state's future relationship with the EU (which is not legally binding) in accordance with Article 218(3).

Article 50 states that there will be negotiations on an exit deal, that’s why there is one. It doesn’t say anything about a trade deal.

Where in 218(3) do you read that?

 

[Mr Tree]

I've always wondered, after which time is it ok to revote an issue? Or what criterea must be met for a new vote to be ok?

I agree with @Scaff that people should get a new vote when new information arises or 'enough' time has passed.
But according to for example @Touring Mars this does not seem the case or I don't get when you'd be ok with it again.

 

[Liquid]

It's also closing Gebze in Turkey (notably not in the EU), as it's consolidating production in Japan. Probably also due to the reduction in tariffs under the EU-Japan trade agreement.

As @Scaff also says, the new EU-Japan TA does go some way to explaining the decision or at least cushioning the blow regarding import charges.

For Turkey, it's a TA it wasn't part of anyway; fair enough, that happens in business sometimes.
But for the UK, it's a TA it is willingly taking itself out of and away from.

And again, I highly doubt any UK government would have offered the level of corporate welfare required to keep the manufacturer in the country anyway.

 

[Touring Mars]

I don’t read that in 218(3). It says that the council decides when to start negotiations on matters relating to the common foreign and security policy and that they may also nominate a negotiation team.

Where in 218(3) do you read that?

Sorry, I meant 218, not 218(3).

In the matter of an exit deal and post-brexit trade, the UK is already a third party.

Given that the UK can revoke Article 50 any time, we cannot be 'already a third party'.

The fact that the UK have already secured trade deals with a handful of countries is a strong indicator of that, because the UK is still an EU member and yet they are allowed to negotiate trade deals on their own. Technically they shouldn’t, but law isn’t technical, it’s pragmatic. Law has intentions and in this case the intention of the law is to govern the common policy areas, it’s not to prevent members from leaving the EU and it’s not to prevent such members from securing their economy. In the end it’s up to the CJEU to make that interpretation.

Trade deals with other countries are not the problem though - the problem is the fact that the UK's future trading relationship with the EU has not been agreed - or even discussed - yet, and this is causing the Withdrawal Agreement to be rejected.

The fact that something has or hasn’t happened does not prove what caused it to happen or not happen. If that were the case, one could accurately claim that according to UK law, the parliament is not allowed to approve of a brexit deal, proven by the fact they haven’t done so yet. Or that the fact that apples fall from the tree proves that the Earth is accelerating vertically and must either be flat or expanding rapidly.

The fact is, the EU will not begin trade deal negotiations with the UK until after Brexit, and that is defined in EU law in the Lisbon Treaty. However, even if that were not true (even though it is), the point stands that there is no trade deal agreed between the EU and the UK, and there likely will not be one for several years. It is moot point as to how this situation has come about - but the simple fact that there isn't a trade deal yet is a major reason why the entire Brexit process has become a political stalemate.

As @Scaff also says, the new EU-Japan TA does go some way to explaining the decision

It does - it also explains how the same decision would have been made even if Britain were not leaving the EU.

 

[Liquid]

It does - it also explains how the same decision would have been made even if Britain were not leaving the EU.

Will it mean higher prices for Honda products though? I would imagine that it might with the addition of import taxes in lieu of a trade agreement.

 

[mustafur]

Will it mean higher prices for Honda products though? I would imagine that it might with the addition of import taxes in lieu of a trade agreement.

If that was the case it would be best to move the factories to Ireland(or at least wait untill the border issue is resolved), I mean the whole reason they where in the UK and not another EU member was because of the RHD situation right?

 

[baldgye]

Will it mean higher prices for Honda products though?

Higher prices on brand new cars won't be a large concern for the vast majority in the event of Brexit happening.

 

[Liquid]

If that was the case it would be best to move the factories to Ireland(or at least wait untill the border issue is resolved), I mean the whole reason they where in the UK and not another EU member was because of the RHD situation right?

I don't know. If Honda are set on consolidating production centrally in Japan then it wouldn't matter where any of its EU factories were. My point was that if Honda do do that, then import charges and higher prices wouldn't matter for the EU27 because of the Japan-EU FTA whereas in the UK it might/could/will lead to higher prices.

Higher prices on brand new cars won't be a large concern for the vast majority in the event of Brexit happening.

Not necessarily, no, but to say that it isn't a concern is missing the point. Especially from the tenured government being "the party of business" as it has championed itself in the past.

A similar Japan-UK FTA could be in place by 2022 but it doesn't look that way right now. Besides, 3,500 more people on the unemployment list is still a big blow to the economy and manufacturing industry irrespective of Brexit.