/ Brexit Will Not Happen

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Shani - on 31 Jul 2017
Fox, Davis, Gove, Boris and Faraj* have proven themselves to be liars, deluded and incompetent. The problem of Brexiting is beyond our resource. It will not happen.

Hammond is delaying it as much as he can. May's side wants it but May herself is a spent political force.

There is open talk of unbrexiting - the problem is doing it without losing face.
11
Postmanpat on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

> There is open talk of unbrexiting - the problem is doing it without losing face.
>
Lol, Like that's gonna happen. They'd stick a red hot poker up our backside as a condition of
"re-entry"

13
Tyler - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
We haven't left, Junker has said we'd be welcomed back. That said, I think Brexit will happen
Post edited at 22:28
Shani - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

There is open warfare in the cabinet. We are suffering economically. The Tories know Brexit is a poisoned chalice to deliver. Germany would be happy to see us stay in the EU.
5
bouldery bits - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

As much as I'd like to think you're right it seems unlikely that it won't happen at this point...
Dave the Rave on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.
22
Shani - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.

Yes, but not only was the vote non-binding, we can always go back on any vote. History proves it.
7
Timmd on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Lol, Like that's gonna happen. They'd stick a red hot poker up our backside as a condition of

> "re-entry"

We've not started to leave yet, and some EU 'big wigs' didn't and don't seem very cheery about Brexit happening, from an ideological point of view towards us all being better off as one collective of countries.

I think it's too early to say, that it's not going to happen, personally.
3
DaveN - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

It was hardly "overwhelming" though was it. Despite what is claimed.
6
Timmd on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:
> I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.

We can possibly come to a sense of what Brexit will look like, and people could be asked again, which wouldn't be brushing it under the carpet. A different result might royally annoy not quite all of the 52 percent, but a decent amount, with secondary votes generally being more cautious though. Which mightn't be good for the country.
Post edited at 22:39
2
Shani - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> We can possibly come to a sense of what Brexit will look like, and people could be asked again, which wouldn't be brushing it under the carpet. A different result might royally annoy not quite all of the 52 percent, but a decent amount, with secondary votes generally being more cautious though. Which mightn't be good for the country.

If the Leavers want to galvanise the 52% back in to action, they could do worse than to pony up th £350m a week they promised to the NHS.
5
baron - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:
So in your fantasy world the UK stays in the EU and all the leavers roll over and accept it?
7
Postmanpat on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

> There is open warfare in the cabinet. We are suffering economically. The Tories know Brexit is a poisoned chalice to deliver. Germany would be happy to see us stay in the EU.

They've got a similar problem to if we leave. They can't be seen to let a member not suffer for threatening to leave, let alone get concessions. So they'd demand their pound of flesh.
3
thomasadixon - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

What do you reckon would happen to the Tory party if it doesn't happen? Given all they've invested, and Corbyn's support in principle, how do you think the party would carry on? There'd be a split, an election, and they'd lose, badly. They all know it, that's why they might be whinging but they're voting the way they are. Hammond isn't happy, but I'd note his deadline is just before the 5 year term ends. He's not saying not to leave, even if that is what he wants.

They're not in a great place politically, and they've got 5 years to make that up. Question is can they keep it together ...the votes in Parliament so far say yes.

> There is open talk of unbrexiting

From who? I've not seen anything new recently.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Lol, Like that's gonna happen. They'd stick a red hot poker up our backside as a condition of

> "re-entry"

Didn't you say the EU is destined to fail once we leave? One of the pro leave persons did, I thought it was you.

I think the EU would take an early unbrexit very well, the longer it goes on the more the pissed they'd be.

After all Brexit was largely about personal political gain in the Tory party and internal party politics has had a serious effect on the U.K.
Post edited at 23:05
5
Timmd on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> So in your fantasy world the UK stays in the EU and all the leavers roll over and accept it?

How will Brexit be better for quality of life in the UK?
4
Tyler - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> They've got a similar problem to if we leave. They can't be seen to let a member not suffer for threatening to leave, let alone get concessions. So they'd demand their pound of flesh.

It depends how and at what point we decide to return. I'm pretty sure when DC went looking for his concessions before the referendum no one he was dealing with thought leaving was a viable option. Now the EU know we are fully prepared to cut off our nose to spite our face they might be a little more cowed. The prodigal's return would be enough to make other countries realise leaving is a bad idea whilst the EU would appreciate that, whilst the UK might prefer to stay, it's not a given and so prevent them getting all punative on our asses.

It would be a tricky negotiation to pull off and one that would no doubt be beyond the abilities of the shower of shite we have negotiating for us
Jim C - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:
The non binding story has been done to death, there is nothing in the referendum legislation that states that it is non binding, and beyond that the government sent you me and everyone a leaflet saying that it would be binding ( if you care to read it) Take that to court and any judge will say there was a contract there between the government and the people.

On the other point about not leaving, Macron already said the door we left has shut with A50 and any re entry would be through another door, and a much more expensive and onerous one that would be, so the government is then as well to proceed, nothing to do with losing face, but upholding a democratic vote that some here would decry if it happened in other democracies.
Post edited at 23:12
12
Roadrunner5 - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Jim C:
like in Switzerland..

Care to point to any outcry over the ignored referendum?
Post edited at 23:14
2
Postmanpat on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> Didn't you say the EU is destined to fail once we leave? One of the pro leave persons did, I thought it was you.

> I think the EU would take an early unbrexit very well, the longer it goes on the more the pissed they'd be.

> After all Brexit was largely about personal political gain in the Tory party and internal party politics has had a serious effect on the U.K.

I don't think the 52% voted for "personal gain in the Tory party".

My expectation was and remains that the EU will either have to back pedal to a looser confederation or it will push forward to "ever greater union"-which will fail. And if it doesn't fail, and they form a successful, USE, so be it.

What we are seeing is the latter. In the absence of the UK the French are trying to re-establish the Franco-German dominance, facilitated, they believe, by reforms in France which will enable its economy to match the Germans and justify the duopoly. That is about as likely as me soloing Indian Face so we shall be left with an ever more powerful Germany (through no particular fault or ambition of the Germans). I wonder how the other 27 States will view that.

There are already huge tensions emerging with the Poles and Hungarians, and we all know that the crises in Greece and Italy et al have not gone away. Eventually the Germans will either reluctantly have to pick up the bill and the Club Med accept the quid pro quo (unlikely), or the economy will roll over once more.
Post edited at 23:14
8
Roadrunner5 - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
No the people voted for the lies poured down their throats.. 'I voted to keep the Iraqis out'.. or stop the Turks who were supposedly imminently joining the EU.

But the referendum was called so Cameron could get control and it backfired.

Hasn't the Greek situation improved? I saw an article on it today but didn't really read it.
Post edited at 23:16
4
Jim C - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:
> I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.

Can you imagine if the Tories lost to Labour at the last election by the same margins as the referendum , and the Tories just said they were ignoring the vote, as it was such a close run thing, and they would just keep power and ignore the result.
Post edited at 23:43
5
Postmanpat on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> No the people voted for the lies poured down their throats.. 'I voted to keep the Iraqis out'.. or stop the Turks who were supposedly imminently joining the EU.

>
That old chestnut. There were no more lies than in a general election. It's called democracy. It's messy and, as we know, the EU isn't desperately keen on it.

> Hasn't the Greek situation improved? I saw an article on it today but didn't really read it.

Marginally. Italy is the elephant in the room.

13
baron - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:
Doesn't matter if Brexit is better or worse.
There's been a referendum where many people used it as a protest vote, feeling that they were being ignored and left behind by the then political and economic situation.
Now you want to overturn their choice.
That'll make them feel better.
2
Timmd on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Tyler:
> It depends how and at what point we decide to return. I'm pretty sure when DC went looking for his concessions before the referendum no one he was dealing with thought leaving was a viable option. Now the EU know we are fully prepared to cut off our nose to spite our face they might be a little more cowed. The prodigal's return would be enough to make other countries realise leaving is a bad idea whilst the EU would appreciate that, whilst the UK might prefer to stay, it's not a given and so prevent them getting all punative on our asses.

> It would be a tricky negotiation to pull off and one that would no doubt be beyond the abilities of the shower of shite we have negotiating for us

I gather that we could likely be forced to adopt the Euro if we do leave, and then want to rejoin again. Our current/fading(?) position in the EU, is one of having things go our own way most of the time, and having a decent amount of influence, not having to use the euro like the other countries do, and benefiting from the trade we have, as well as our universities benefiting from the EU citizens coming into the UK to study, and stay, and produce work which we can 'sell back', essentially. There's lots of good things about our current position. Cameron had also got an agreement of no further integration of the UK into the EU in the run up to the Referendum, too.

After the decline of manufacturing, our 'knowledge economy' is one of our real strengths, but that's looking less certain should Brexit happen, our universities have done very well in terms of grants for research thanks to the EU. At a high enough level, all expertise and knowledge stems from research .
Post edited at 23:38
1
Roadrunner5 - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.

So what?

Sometimes the people are misinformed and make mistakes at the ballot box


Look at the Swiss example. They voted to close their borders. The EU said fine, close the door on your way out. The government realized that was economic suicide and ignored the vote and their was little national or international outcry.
4
Roadrunner5 - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

You know that isn't true.

The 350 million a week to the NHS? No political party would get away with not delivering on such huge election pledges. You know that very well.

The lib dems were wiped out by their tuition fees pledge before forming a coalition and not delivering.
1
baron - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

I'd be more worried about the pension crisis in universities than Brexit.
3
veteye on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Shani:

Thank you for raising a topic which has several different view points and is a political dark entertainment. I hope that it keeps rolling for a few more replies, as I can see the points of many of the writers, and it makes me think/consider.
2
pasbury on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> Doesn't matter if Brexit is better or worse.

> There's been a referendum where many people used it as a protest vote, feeling that they were being ignored and left behind by the then political and economic situation.

> Now you want to overturn their choice.

> That'll make them feel better.

They're going to need something to make them feel better soon enough.
1
Postmanpat on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> You know that isn't true.

> The 350 million a week to the NHS? No political party would get away with not delivering on such huge election pledges. You know that very well.

>
It wasn't a pledge and it was hotly disputed and criticised across the media. People had enough information to make their own decision on its veracity. I agree that was disingenuous propaganda, but no more so than Corbyn's implied policy (now denied) of writing off student loans, or that taxing a few rich people would "save our NHS" and many other such examples (no doubt by all parties) over the years.
13
baron - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:
But the leave campaign wasn't run by the Conservative party so promises made aren't directly attributable to the present government.


1
pasbury on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Are you aware of what actually happened after the last election?
3
pasbury on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

So because some people have lied then lying is OK?
2
Timmd on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:
> I'd be more worried about the pension crisis in universities than Brexit.

Less funding from the EU for research, and less EU students, won't be helpful towards plugging the gap, it would seem.
Post edited at 23:47
1
Timmd on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:
> Doesn't matter if Brexit is better or worse.

Yes it does.

> There's been a referendum where many people used it as a protest vote, feeling that they were being ignored and left behind by the then political and economic situation.

Yes it was. The question is, will Brexiting make things better for them? Some in Sheffield voted for Brexit as a protest vote against Cameron, and against Austerity, which was batshit nuts for a reason to vote for Brexit.

> Now you want to overturn their choice.

> That'll make them feel better.

Improving things in this country will be the thing to make things better for them (which takes me back to me asking if quality of life will improve after Brexit - and saying that it matters), but I get what you mean.

If things get worse, can't you see recorded instances of hate crime failing to fall again, or even increasing, as people look for an outlet for their anger and dissatisfaction? I'm hoping Brexit works if we go through with it, by the way.
Post edited at 23:55
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Can you imagine if the Tories lost to Labour at the last election by the same margins as the referendum , and they just said they were ignoring the vote, as it was such a close run thing, and they would just keep power and ignore the result.

Nobody is going to say they are ignoring the vote. The vote is going to fade away with the passage of time and newer, more pressing, concerns. The closer we get to leaving the more people will care about not losing their job or savings rather than a referendum a few years ago.

It looks like the current 'plan' among the Tories who are pragmatic enough to worry about the economy is to leave into something like the EEA for a 'transitional period' that gets extended enough that it eventually becomes permanent. It's not a bad plan, but the more likely scenario is infighting, incompetence and things getting so f*cked up as we approach the deadline there's a Greece like scenario of demonstrations from people whose livelihoods are threatened, a financial crisis and eventually a change of government.





2
baron - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to pasbury:

And what would that be?
baron - on 31 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

The gap is 17 billion pounds, someone is going to really suffer in order to plug that gap.
bouldery bits - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Wow.

That's a serious underfund.


If that's the uni one. What're the NHS, MOD teaching and parliamentary ones going to look like?

Guess which one will have the gap plugged first.

Pocket lining politicians.
1
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:
The university fund is a private one and not the responsibility of the government so there's unlikely to be a state bailout.
Either the academics take the hit or students will have to contribute more.
Expect to see tuition fees rise and academics being made redundant.
And all without the help of Brexit.
pasbury on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Nobody is going to say they are ignoring the vote. The vote is going to fade away with the passage of time and newer, more pressing, concerns. The closer we get to leaving the more people will care about not losing their job or savings rather than a referendum a few years ago.

> It looks like the current 'plan' among the Tories who are pragmatic enough to worry about the economy is to leave into something like the EEA for a 'transitional period' that gets extended enough that it eventually becomes permanent. It's not a bad plan, but the more likely scenario is infighting, incompetence and things getting so f*cked up as we approach the deadline there's a Greece like scenario of demonstrations from people whose livelihoods are threatened, a financial crisis and eventually a change of government.

I think you have drawn a good picture of what's actually going to happen. What worries me is the damage this monumental fudge will cause.
I would like to know what the projections are for inward investment to the UK, for our balance of trade, for growth in our manufacturing sector (apparently it will be our saviour, by expanding trade to those welcoming importers like China, South America, India and America). Finally what's going to happen to tax revenue? This is what really scares me; we think we've got austerity now but I think we ain't seen nothing yet.
1
bouldery bits - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> The university fund is a private one and not the responsibility of the government so there's unlikely to be a state bailout.

> Either the academics take the hit or students will have to contribute more.

> Expect to see tuition fees rise and academics being made redundant.

> And all without the help of Brexit.


Thank you for that.
I wasn't aware.

Very interesting and concerning.

BB
tom_in_edinburgh - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> The gap is 17 billion pounds, someone is going to really suffer in order to plug that gap.

Look on the bright side: it is only a problem if the pound keeps its value after Brexit.
pasbury on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Has it not been audited for ten years or something? Mine was and my own and the companies contributions had to double about 8 years ago and have remained at that level since.
oldie - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.<

Yes, the majority voted for Brexit. However no democratic decision is necessarily forever, we have an election every few years (or less!).
At the moment I think many in the country believe we are drifting towards a situation the majority may not want after a vote influenced by misinformation from both sides.
We should have a second referendum now the real pros and cons are becoming more apparent : a vote for Brexit would probably get many remainers to accept we were leaving.
Of course Brexiteers would not want a new referendum, and the Remainers wouldn't have if they had won. It won't happen because our politicians are too scared.

1
Big Ger - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Are you channelling "Ice Doctor"?

He's already done this one...
2
Dr.S at work - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Has it not been audited for ten years or something? Mine was and my own and the companies contributions had to double about 8 years ago and have remained at that level since.

There was a previous calculated shortfall, which was addressed by increased contributions and decreased benefits (still pretty cushty). This new shortfall has cropped up since then.
Yanis Nayu - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> We can possibly come to a sense of what Brexit will look like, and people could be asked again, which wouldn't be brushing it under the carpet. A different result might royally annoy not quite all of the 52 percent, but a decent amount, with secondary votes generally being more cautious though. Which mightn't be good for the country.

And the people who voted for it in the first place are the sort of people who are constantly angry anyway.
1
Postmanpat on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> So because some people have lied then lying is OK?

Who said it was "OK"? Not me, unless you think "disingenuous propaganda" is "OK". Do you?
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> So in your fantasy world the UK stays in the EU and all the leavers roll over and accept it?

No. We stay and the diminishing number of leavers keep whining.

We continue to influence the EU in to a more democratic institution.

The right-wing press in the UK is neutered and country by country tax reporting crushes the shittier end of the media.

But yeah, brexiters keep on f*cking mewling.
1
pasbury on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Disingenuous propaganda is a very accurate description of the arguments and benefits put forward by the leave campaigners. As we are now discovering.
Big Ger - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> No. We stay and the diminishing number of leavers keep whining.


Ok, how many threads are started here by remainers bemoaning Brexit, and how many by leavers?

Go on, do a quick review, and then think about who the ACTUAL whiners are.

But there again, it's hysterically funny that the remain brigade still haven't figured out that the "I can insult anyone with different views on Brexit with impunity" idea isn't working for them...
10
lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I'll tell you what isn't ACTUALLY winning- the U.K. economy.

It's ok though- the Donald will do the BEST trade deal with us.

Thank f*ck for that.
Postmanpat on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> Disingenuous propaganda is a very accurate description of the arguments and benefits put forward by the leave campaigners. As we are now discovering.

Yes, that will be why it is the phrase that I used (23.35)! Glad to see you agree but odd that you seem to think that it is a codeword for "ok".
Post edited at 08:38
RomTheBear on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Ok, how many threads are started here by remainers bemoaning Brexit, and how many by leavers?

> Go on, do a quick review, and then think about who the ACTUAL whiners are.

> But there again, it's hysterically funny that the remain brigade still haven't figured out that the "I can insult anyone with different views on Brexit with impunity" idea isn't working for them...

You don't get the irony of your post, do you.
1
Big Ger - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Explain it to me Rom.
1
wercat on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Looking back, the British people were, apparently, overwhelmingly in favour of waging the invasion of Iraq based on some unfounded disinformation about WMD. 63% wasn't it?

Well, the will of the people really turned out to be best in our national interests didn't it? And well for the many people more directly affected. I wonder whether carrying out our apparent will was a good thing then?


I didn't ever meet anyone who was in favour of that war, but I can't imagine they would now think they would have been cheated if the aggressive invasion had not taken place.
Post edited at 08:59
1
Postmanpat on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to lummox:

> I'll tell you what isn't ACTUALLY winning- the U.K. economy.

>
The problem with so many remainers is their obsession with GDP growth and the materialist values that it reflects ;-)
4
Trangia on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Loosing face is peanuts to losing our economy and the overall good relations we have enjoyed with our European neighbours for so long. It wasn't always a bed of roses, but nothing ever is, and Brexit has become a nightmare.
andyfallsoff - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Take that to court and any judge will say there was a contract there between the government and the people.

No, they wouldn't. Not in any way.
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> But there again, it's hysterically funny that the remain brigade still haven't figured out that the "I can insult anyone with different views on Brexit with impunity" idea isn't working for them...

The problem for pro-brexiters is that then cannot determine what Brexit should look like nor agree how it should be done. Thus they could never understand the impact.

That is why you have brexiteers like May getting spanked in an election, James Dyson demanding matching of CAP payments, Tim Martin from Weatherspoons bleating about free movement of people (he depends on 3500 foreign staff), Faraj* gets German passports for his kids, and the dismal Amber Rudd has commissioned a report in to the impact of brexit on labour in the UK. Hammond understands the mess so is kicking it in to the long grass whilst awaiting for opinions to turn.

Pre-vote on UKC i was accused of engaging with Project Fear on the back of my idea that Ireland would become a huge burden on matters, perhaps leading to the break up of the UK. I see nothing to change my mind.

Edit: I'm going to add civil unrest to my list - based on food prices and the poor. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9562
Post edited at 09:26
Big Ger - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> The problem for pro-brexiters is that then cannot determine what Brexit should look like nor agree how it should be done. Thus they could never understand the impact.

But they are still happily awaiting the outcome of ongoing negotiations.

> That is why you have brexiteers like May getting spanked in an election

By 'spanked in an election", you mean "getting more seats than Labour and the Lib Dems".

> Faraj* gets German passports for his kids,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-german-citizenship-application-embassy-qu...

> James Dyson demanding matching of CAP payments,

I cannot find any evidence for this?

> Hammond understands the mess so is kicking it in to the long grass whilst awaiting for opinions to turn.

Hammond is prevaricating, yes, he's entitled to.

> Pre-vote on UKC i was accused of engaging with Project Fear on the back of my idea that Ireland would become a huge burden on matters, perhaps leading to the break up of the UK. I see nothing to change my mind.

Good for you.
Post edited at 09:30
4
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The problem with so many remainers is their obsession with GDP growth and the materialist values that it reflects ;-)

You know Postie, I'm with you on this - we need to think beyond GDP.
wercat on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
my own view is that this is as big a mistake for us as the Iraq war but that the UK will naturally take a much bigger share of the shit hitting the fan this time

that's the problem with following ideologies
Post edited at 09:40
Deadeye - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> It's what the people voted for.

*What* exactly?

Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Deadeye:

> *What* exactly?

Smashed it! +1
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to wercat:
> my own view is that this is as big a mistake for us as the Iraq war but that the UK will naturally take a much bigger share of the shit hitting the fan this time

> that's the problem with following ideologies

So many people in the UK fail to understand how we are seen abroad. All that Empire 2.0 rubbish, flag-waving nostalgia and fawning to the Queen. The whole exceptionalism thing is appalling. But question it and you are seen as anything but a realist.

I think Boris is finding this out...

http://amp.theage.com.au/comment/sorry-boris-johnson-britain-has-little-to-offer-australia-20170731-...


Edit: Of course the biggest obstacle is The City. Because of the Robin Hood tax amongst other proposals, the City really does not want to move out of London, and wants the UK to maintain influence on EU finance policy, which can only be done from within the EU. Nicky Morgan's 'City assessment' will pave the way.

Once we see the Swiss Cheese outcome of Brexit, riddled with holes and exceptions for vested interests, it's game over.
Post edited at 10:20
Dave Garnett - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That old chestnut. There were no more lies than in a general election.

I simply don't think that's true. No political party would have got away with what Johnson was saying, the other side would have raised hell. For some reason, maybe because the party-based mechanisms just didn't work, basic truth and integrity was completely abandoned in a way I have never seen in British politics and has only recently become possible in the US. I hold both sides responsible because the Remain campaign completely failed to hold Boris and others to account (actually, it completely failed period).

> It's called democracy. It's messy and, as we know, the EU isn't desperately keen on it.

That old chestnut! The EU is no more undemocratic than our parliamentary system. Both have an unelected civil service but only one has an unelected upper house. What's undemocratic is how few people are interested enough to vote in European elections and that we have an education system that thinks that's OK.

Dave Garnett - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> There's been a referendum where many people used it as a protest vote, feeling that they were being ignored and left behind by the then political and economic situation.

People like the guy I was talking to a couple of weeks ago who told me he voted Leave because he fancied a change and would vote the other way next time if it didn't work out? Is that really how you think we should make massive, irreversible, economic and geopolitical strategic decisions?
John Stainforth - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you must be joking. The economy is only one aspect of Brexit that worries Remainers like myself. I worry about (in no particular order, and straight off the top of my head):

The European political aspects
The potential damage to our Sciences and Engineering
The damage to the NHS
The weakening of Europe, which includes us of course
The lack of desire to constructively improve the EU from within
The damage to the unity of the UK
The weakening of our position and influence in the world
The potential weakening of excellent food and health standards that the EU has brought us
The insularity and parochialism of the Little Englanders
The incredible shrinking pound
The absence of logic in the Brexit plans
What Brexit plans?
The neo-Fascism as expressed in our press and mail (puns intended)
...
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

No, nothing like the guy you talked to. He's a dickhead.
I was refering to the people who, for a variety of reasons, feel totally disenfranchised from the apparently booming economy and its resulting benefits.
It can't be a coincidence that many Labour constituencies voted to leave.
Areas which have seen traditional jobs declining or vanishing altogether and people seeing little hope of improvement in either their or their children's lives.
While the EU might be blameless in these situations I did say that for many it was a protest vote, against the status quo, and the only way they had to express their anger.
Not leaving might make economic sense but only on a national scale.
It won't address the fears and concerns of these protest voters.
They haven't benefited, in their opinion, from the current EU membership so why should they think that staying in will make things better?
Bob Kemp - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:



> Go on, do a quick review, and then think about who the ACTUAL whiners are.

Let's not forget the 'ACTUAL whiners' are the Brexiters, who've whined for forty or so years to have the earlier referendum result overturned. That's an pretty impressive record of persistent, long-term, tedious moaning and whinging.
3
tom_in_edinburgh - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> But they are still happily awaiting the outcome of ongoing negotiations.

How long is that going to last? The EU are already noticing the UK side don't have a defined position and are threatening to stall negotiations until they come up with one. There is no way for the UK to come up with a defined position which will please most of the Leavers, is acceptable to the EU and doesn't completely f*ck the economy up. This is why we are headed for something very like the EEA or complete chaos and a change of government.
ByEek on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> So in your fantasy world the UK stays in the EU and all the leavers roll over and accept it?

Which is ironic because remainers are regulaly told to shut up and accept the vote.

The only way this can truly work is if some sort of compromise can be found that suits no one. If everyone loses at least we are all equal. Have Brexiteers wreck the place for everyone else just isn't cricket.
Post edited at 12:39
1
Baron Weasel - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> I hope people aren't planning to brush under the carpet a majority vote? It's what the people voted for.

People voted for lies mate.
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> They haven't benefited, in their opinion, from the current EU membership so why should they think that staying in will make things better?

Sitting here in Bordeaux with an Irish wife, on a clean beach, drinking Italian wine, whilst writing this on a contract phone for which roaming charges have recently been abolished by the EU, i have to say, many people don't recognise the benefits EU membership has brought us.

It is neoliberal politics that has made people poorer. It is corporate welfare that has led to austerity and contraction of the state.

Remember Osborne telling us the state was too big and we had to live within our means? Think about that; we have to 'live within our means and endure service cuts' because of huge debts. Those huge debts were created by bailing out the private sector.

Yep - the Tories go on about how we need the efficiency and innovation of private enterprise - but when it goes pop - they approve that we socialise the debt.

The reason most don't realise they've benefitted from EU membership is because of those who control the narrative in the media.
Post edited at 12:49
lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Eloquently put and completely agreed with.
captain paranoia - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> So in your fantasy world the UK stays in the EU and all the leavers roll over and accept it?

And the 48% that voted* to remain...? They're supposed to roll over and accept it?

* of those who actually voted.
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

No of course not.
You lose a vote and you fight on why wouldn't you?
But this is about winning a vote and then seeing it ignored and overturned.
What then for those who were so dissatisfied that they voted leave and then see their wishes ignored?
Remaining might be the sensible thing to do but we're talking about further disillusioning a hefty chunk of the population.
You have to offer these people something more than what they have now.
2
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
And for many the EU dream is alive and well.
If you don't have the opportunity to participate in this lifestyle then the benefits of the EU are less obvious.
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to ByEek:

Sorry I pressed the dislike button on your post instead of the reply button. Apologies for that.
I don't expect remainers to simply accept the vote but neither do I see the sense in ignoring the wishes of many of the population who actually wonnthe referendum.
If 'win' is the right word.
edwardgrundy2 - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> And the 48% that voted* to remain...? They're supposed to roll over and accept it?

Not sure that we *should* roll over and accept it, but I expect that most of us will. Certainly more so than leavers would accept not leaving.


jonfun21 on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

Indeed, noting the 52% was only 27% of people who live in the UK.

25% Remain
27% Leave
48% Didn't vote and/or not eligible to vote (i.e. EU citizens living in the UK, 16 & 17 year olds, <16 year olds)

Have tried, but there is no way to disaggregate the 48% unfortunately.

My gut tells me if you had let EU Citizens who live here (and are mainly likely to remain living here post Brexit) vote and allowed 16 & 17 year olds (who are going to be impacted more by this than some older voters) the result would have been different.





1
jonfun21 on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
No winners here....we are all going to be losers.

The current "fantasy land" we have been living in post vote is starting to unravel (GDP growth slower than other EU countries etc.) and the reality is starting to hit.

Ironically the areas who voted so strongly for Brexit are the ones that are going to be totally f&cked as they recieve the most amount of EU funding and our London/South East bias isn't changing soon.

Once this becomes apparent I believe there is going to be a lot of unrest.
Post edited at 13:27
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> But this is about winning a vote and then seeing it ignored and overturned.

A poorly defined vote that cannot be delivered upon due to its clumsy definition. The question voted upon was specious.

> What then for those who were so dissatisfied that they voted leave and then see their wishes ignored?

Hopefully they become more politically engaged.

> Remaining might be the sensible thing to do but we're talking about further disillusioning a hefty chunk of the population.

As above.

> You have to offer these people something more than what they have now.

Let's start with fighting neoliberal politics, lobbying, corporate welfare and tax evasion/avoidance.
Jim C - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> People voted for lies mate.

Are you referring to elections in general?
For what you say if of course true if all elections.
Jim C - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> No, they wouldn't. Not in any way.

And from what basis do you take this stance, are you a lawyer, contracts law perhaps?
( edit :- So why has the remain camp not challenged this in court? It's not like they are adverse to going to court)
Post edited at 13:49
4
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> And for many the EU dream is alive and well.

> If you don't have the opportunity to participate in this lifestyle then the benefits of the EU are less obvious.

70% of our imported food comes from the EU. You've definitely eaten some of it.

Most of our exports go to the EU. You've definitely benffitted from the trade even if indirectly.

Ever swam in Britain's clean coastal waters? Thanks EU.

You've probably suffered from Austerity - that is a CHOICE of Tory policy.
lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Not to mention employment rights which are protected under EU law. I trust the Cons to preserve them as much as I trust the Donald to keep his hands to himself at a beauty pageant.
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
Your opinion of the EU is possibly influenced by your experiences of it.
You have a positive experience but many don't.
These are the people you need to engage with and persuade.
I couldn't really care having experienced life in and out of the EU.
While I would acknowledge that EU membership has had some benefits I wouldn't be so quick to attribute everything good to the EU.
If I lived on a sink estate with no job and bugger all prospects I'd probably be lashing out at all and sundry and wouldn't be too interested in listening to somebody who's lying on a beach,sipping wine and telling me to become more politically engaged.
But that's just me
4
lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

>

> If I lived on a sink estate with no job and bugger all prospects I'd probably be lashing out at all and sundry

Like people that told you there would be £350m a week for the NHS and that millions of Romanians and Bulgarians were taking your job that you don't have ? Those sort of people ?

Good to know that we are back to Schrodinger's immigrant..
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to lummox:

What are you on about?
I'm trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain how one person's experience of the EU might be different than anothers and how these experiences might influence one's opinions of the EU and you pop up with some stereotype about people who voted leave.
3
Doug on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to jonfun21:


> My gut tells me if you had let EU Citizens who live here (and are mainly likely to remain living here post Brexit) vote and allowed 16 & 17 year olds (who are going to be impacted more by this than some older voters) the result would have been different.

Don't forget those of us who are British but have been living elsewhere in the EU for >15 years - I suspect the large majority of us would have voted to remain if we'd been allowed (another broken promise from Cameron)
Jim C - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> like in Switzerland..

> Care to point to any outcry over the ignored referendum?

The Swiss have had 180 referendums in the time that we have had two, they treat them more like a policy popularity indicator than anything.

Remember what our government told us before the vote:- ( which bit did you misunderstand?)

"This is your decision. The government WILL implement what you decide."


https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/51khsk/this_is_your_decision_the_government_will/
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> The Swiss have had 180 referendums in the time that we have had two, they treat them more like a policy popularity indicator than anything.

> Remember what our government told us before the vote:- ( which bit did you misunderstand?)

> "This is your decision. The government WILL implement what you decide."


The concept of a government not delivering on a promise is clearly alien to you.
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> I'm trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain how one person's experience of the EU might be different than anothers

There's the problem. You've given no evidence of HOW wretched lives have been made more wretched by EU membership. The wretchedness has arguably been a result of national government, not the EU.

Again, the problem is those who control the narrative. They prey on our atavistic/evolutionary tendency to 'other' different groups. Blaming Johnny-foreigner really is low hanging political fruit. The poor have been fleeced financially more by the rich than by Bulgarian immigrants.
Post edited at 14:47
john arran - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> And from what basis do you take this stance, are you a lawyer, contracts law perhaps?

> ( edit :- So why has the remain camp not challenged this in court? It's not like they are adverse to going to court)

What's to be challenged? Our glorious leaders have decided to use the slim majority as justification for going through with Brexit, and parliament approved the decision. Whether any other course of action also would have been legal is irrelevant. If the government were to decide to cancel Brexit, that's the point at which the legally binding outcome of the referendum could conceivably be challenged, but I'm not holding my breath for that circumstance to happen, and I certainly wouldn't expect much hope of a legal decision to enforce Brexit if it did.
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> If I lived on a sink estate with no job and bugger all prospects I'd probably be lashing out at all and sundry and wouldn't be too interested in listening to somebody who's lying on a beach,sipping wine and telling me to become more politically engaged.

Sipping the wine? I'm chugging it like a boss!

You are aware that you can hitch and doss around Europe on a shoe string? Climbers and hippies, and climbing hippies, have been doing this for 50 years. Great wine is cheap!

If you lived on a sink estate with no job and bugger all prospects I'd recommend you hitch down here.

I'd never tell you to become more politically engaged, but i HOPE you do.
Post edited at 14:55
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
I don't have to show or prove any negative effects of the EU as Brexit is, despite your best wishes, a done deal.
What did matter is that 17 million adults perceived that leaving the EU was preferable to remaining.
That most of the people's ills lie at the door of successive UK governments matters not one jot as long as people see the EU as the main problem.
It's damning that the remain campaign, armed with all the good that the EU has done, couldn't persuade even a tiny majority to vote remain.
1
lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

What is damning is that, despite the lies of the Brexiters, buyer's regret now means that the slim Brexit majority has melted away and the crap hasn't even hit the fan properly yet...
1
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to lummox:
I await your evidence that the majority of people now want to remain.
lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Google is your friend.. check out opinion polls over the last three months.

I'm sure the green shoots of recovery once we do a deal with the Donald will make all the difference though. We're going to win bigly.
1
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> I don't have to show or prove any negative effects of the EU as Brexit is, despite your best wishes, a done deal.

Wrong.

> What did matter is that 17 million adults perceived that leaving the EU was preferable to remaining.

See my point above about whom has control of the narrative.

> That most of the people's ills lie at the door of successive UK governments matters not one jot as long as people see the EU as the main problem.

As above.

> It's damning that the remain campaign, armed with all the good that the EU has done, couldn't persuade even a tiny majority to vote remain.

As above. But just as the Brexit lies have been successively exposed, and just as the mainstream media got it wrong on the election, a proxy for unhappiness at these lies, there is little credibility left for the brexit argument other than "we must do it as it was voted for".

That is NO argument. Luckily there will be so many exceptions and exemptions, the final Brexit will be laughably weak - hence Hammond's stalling. He can see it.

Some of those jobless people with no prospects you keep talking about are going to HAVE to come up with substantive policy if they want brexit. You can't just vote for something and expect others to wrestle with its feasibility. That is not reflective of British Values!
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to lummox:
This popped up first


https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/majority-favour-pushing-brexit-many-are-tempted-so/

It suits my argument so I'll use it.
andyfallsoff - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Yes, I'm a qualified, practicing lawyer - what you propose doesn't fit in with either contract law or constitutional law (and tries to apply one to the other). Legally speaking, it was nonsense.

As for why it hasn't been challenged in the courts by the remain camp - you were arguing that a citizen could hold the government to account if they didn't proceed to leave the EU by using your analysis of the pre-election documents as a contract. Ignoring my point above (the analysis doesn't work), that would be an argument for a leaver to make, if in fact the government decided we weren't to leave (which doesn't appear to be the case at the moment). How could a remain supporter challenge this in court now? What would I be challenging?

lummox - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Super. You can Google. There are quite a few examples to the contrary.

Btw, for what it's worth, I think Brexit is such a poison chalice politically, that in 2022, when whichever Government of the day has strung out negotiations for as long as they can and muddled some sort of agreement, they will hold another referendum to be seen to get further consent from the country that they are on the right track. In five year's time, not only will the electorate be quite different, I think attitudes will have changes significantly as well. The declining influence of the tax avoiding Barclays, Rothermere and Murdoch will have a big role to play as well.
andyfallsoff - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Out of interest though, search for polls on whether people think it was a mistake.

The polls you are referring to include those who think we now have to proceed because they don't want to go against a referendum result. The opinion polls that leavers keep pointing to in order to show that the country "now supports" brexit include all the people who think it is a bad idea but that we are bound by it.

That isn't support in my book.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> You have to offer these people something more than what they have now.

Apparently the hard line Leave voters who would not change their mind even if it was clear there would be large scale economic damage are mainly pensioners.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-leave-voters-uk-economy-damage-yougov-ol...

john arran - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

From your linked article:

"Overall, 70% think that the government should go ahead with Brexit, with this group being split between those that actually support it (44%) and those who don’t personally back it but it but think the government has a duty to go ahead with it regardless (26%)."

So actually the 52% appears to have dwindled to 44% ... and falling.
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Then you need to offer them something to make them change their minds.
These are the people who voted the UK into the Common Market so the usual 'Little Englander' and 'xenophobe' don't carry much weight here.
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to john arran:
But support to leave is above 70%.
2
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to lummox:
If there's another referendum and the result is remain then that should be the government position.
Ridge - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:

My observations on your points:

> The European political aspects
Not clear on what these are, is it the possible rise of anti-EU sentiment within Europe?

> The potential damage to our Sciences and Engineering
Agree on that one.

> The damage to the NHS
Agreed, but we should have given far more funding to developing our own training and education resources to recruit 'in-house'. At some point in the future, be it because of Brexit or improving pay elsewhere in the EU or worldwide, we'd have the same sort of damage as the NHS became less attractive to workers from outside the EU.

> The weakening of Europe, which includes us of course
Will it be weaker, or will our mistake make it stronger? I'm undecided on this.

> The lack of desire to constructively improve the EU from within
The UK has always been in that position. The EU might be better without the UK.

> The damage to the unity of the UK
That occurred years ago. Brexit might make us face up to how divided this nation really is.

> The weakening of our position and influence in the world
Agreed.

> The potential weakening of excellent food and health standards that the EU has brought us
We pretty much led the EU in food hygiene and H&S standards. CE standards are in many cases less stringent than the old BS standards. However I take your point, standards will be eroded.

> The insularity and parochialism of the Little Englanders
Those attitudes can be found elsewhere in Europe, and with a harder right wing edge to them.

> The incredible shrinking pound
Agreed

> The absence of logic in the Brexit plans
Absolutely agreed.

> What Brexit plans?
Indeed.

> The neo-Fascism as expressed in our press and mail (puns intended)
A bit hyperbolic. A lot of the EU have a far more active fascist parties than we do, the xenophobic articles in the mail existed long before brexit.

On balance I agree. Brexit is a crap idea, but the UK isn't heading towards the equivalent of 1930s Germany.
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> Then you need to offer them something to make them change their minds.

Nope. It is encumbent on those that fought for brexit to be all over the madia both defining it and determinig how to deliver it, and selling it to us - but not at any cost, as this would be beyond their remit.

Sadly the concept of brexit is so nebulous, particularly in our modern, integrated economy, that nobody can agree on what should happen, how or when.

Now of course, this is an impossible situation and that is why many of them have spinelessly run off and are unwilling/unable to defend it, or are suddenly asking for concessions.

Anyway, the Queen/Empire2.0/Dunkirk....blah
Tyler - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> But support to leave is above 70%.

That's a bit disingenuous. 70% are in favour of the govt carrying out the policy because it was voted for but of those a significant minority want to stay in the EU. According to those figures a majority favour staying in the EU. A bit like a parent buying sweets in a supermarket to shut up an unruly child, it's not what they want to do but they capitulate because they know the child is going to behave like a right shit otherwise.
john arran - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> But support to leave is above 70%.

Haha, you're funny.
2
BnB - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> Sitting here in Bordeaux with an Irish wife, on a clean beach, drinking Italian wine, whilst writing this on a contract phone for which roaming charges have recently been abolished by the EU, i have to say, many people don't recognise the benefits EU membership has brought us.

> It is neoliberal politics that has made people poorer. It is corporate welfare that has led to austerity and contraction of the state.

> Remember Osborne telling us the state was too big and we had to live within our means? Think about that; we have to 'live within our means and endure service cuts' because of huge debts. Those huge debts were created by bailing out the private sector.

I'm surprised that you write this with only the mildest allusion to the Financial Crisis. Everything stems from that. The Deficit, Austerity, Brexit, Trump. By all means blame the crisis itself on the regulatory deficiencies of neo-liberalism and I wouldn't argue with you. But it isn't neo-liberal dogma to impoverish the state.

The depths of austerity have little to do with private sector bailouts and everything to do with deficit reduction. Since the contraction of 2009, there is insufficient state income to provide state services, pay down the debt and pay the interest. So great is that gulf , "the Deficit", that we risk sending the economy into a permanent tailspin weighed down by a spiralling vortex of debt. Austerity is one of the textbook responses. Raising borrowing to invest in infrastructure another. Different nations have tried various approaches and, frankly, none of them look too clever nearly 10 years later. The UK has done better than most and yet look at the levels of dissatisfaction.

The simple fact for a highly developed nation like the UK is that there is a lot of demand for well-educated knowledge economy workers and highly skilled scientists, technicians and engineers. Pretty much everyone else has missed the boat. If there were an obvious alternative the worst election campaign in British history wouldn't have delivered the highest number of votes.

Analyse the politics of the Brexit vote all you like but don't kid yourself over the significance of the Crash on all nations and political ideologies. It will ripple on for a good few years yet.

PS Have a lovely holiday!!
Post edited at 16:20
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

So you make a couple of valid points in your post and then spoil it with some throwaway line at the end about Queen, empire.
Is this an attempt at humour or are you just showing disdain for the people who voted leave.
That's 17 million people, not a few, not a large minority but a majority.
And you sit on your beach and ridicule them.
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Tyler:

Maybe those who support Brexit do so because it's how our system works.
Have a vote.
One side wins.
One loses.
3
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to john arran:
Is it not 70%?
1
jonfun21 on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

"That's 17 million people, not a few, not a large minority but a majority"

= 27% of people who live in the UK
john arran - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

For the hard of reading:

"those that actually support it (44%)"

> But support to leave is above 70%.
> Is it not 70%?

No.
2
cb294 - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to BnB:
> The depths of austerity have little to do with private sector bailouts and everything to do with deficit reduction.

Rebranding the banksters´ crimes as a "sovereign debt crisis" was the PR coup of the century, and unfortunately most media have been complicit in this. It still makes me angry every time I read it.

The huge increase from reasonable state debts in most countries during the late 1990s / early 2000s (many economists would argue that a certain level of sovereign debt is desirable, but let´ s not go there) to the large debts that required addressing by some means or other post 2008 is a direct consequence of the banking crisis and the amounts states had to borrow to bail out the banks and keep the economy liquid. This holds true for the US, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, and even Ireland, only Greece is somewhat different.

The issue in the UK is that the Tories see austerity and shrinking of the public sector as a desirable aim in itself, similar to many US Republicans, and have used the banking crisis induced public debt as an opportunity to push this independent agenda through.

Ironically, the country that triggered the crisis was also the first to exit from it, precisely because there was no real austerity under the Obama administration.

CB
Post edited at 16:34
1
Tyler - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to jonfun21:

> "That's 17 million people, not a few, not a large minority but a majority"

> = 27% of people who live in the UK

I am an avowed Remainer and think the referendum was illegitimate for many reasons but not this one. The argument that 'only x% of the population voted' is bullshit, it has to be based in who did actually bother to vote and you can't ascribe any view to those who did not.
jondo - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Timmd:
> How will Brexit be better for quality of life in the UK?

Only if there is a collapse of the single market. In that case it would be better to be out.
I still think it's a huge mistake to leave on 2% difference.
Cameron , as much as I thought he was an articulate and honest guy, messed up in a way that is beyond me.
All he had to say to the media was 'in the case of a small difference we may not leave, after all constitutions also require great majorities to change’
That way he could remain vague which was a big advantage if he actually wanted to renegotiate some things with the EU. Win win for everyone.
Post edited at 16:45
Tyler - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> Maybe those who support Brexit do so because it's how our system works.

> Have a vote.

> One side wins.

> One loses.

Yes it is and that's what some are saying. But it does not mean that a majority are in favour of leaving the EU
Timmd on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> And the people who voted for it in the first place are the sort of people who are constantly angry anyway.

Argh. No they're not, while he didn't vote, my Dad was broadly in favour of Brexit, and he was Buddhist in his student days. He's not even close to being constantly angry. He's a little bit odd perhaps ;-) , but he's definitely not constantly angry. I get the impression that how Greece was treated poked at his sense of injustice, in having the rules bent to let them join, before them coming unstuck because of that.

Remove the stereotype glasses...
Post edited at 16:50
andyfallsoff - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Tyler:

I would agree it doesn't make the outcome invalid. I do think this is a factor that should be considered when looking at how to proceed in the case of a result that is hard to determine, though.

If the result is marginal, and the actual people who have voted for it do not make up a majority (although they do make up a majority of those who voted), then surely that militates proceeding with caution, and trying to implement a version of the outcome that strays as little from the status quo as possible whilst respecting the outcome.

Isn't that just sensible? If a result is 51 / 49, then it's almost deadlock - so surely that means look for compromise, but with the deciding vote towards the 51?
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> So you make a couple of valid points in your post and then spoil it with some throwaway line at the end about Queen, empire.

> Is this an attempt at humour or are you just showing disdain for the people who voted leave.

The jingoistic notion behind "the Queen/Empire2.0/Dunkirk" is pathetic, which is why:

1) I was surprised that Liam Fox used the incredibly insensitive term 'Empire 2.0' on an international, political platform, clearly unaware of the horrors of empire or how those our forefathers ruled were brutally expolited,

2) was horrified that Nigel Faraj* should misinterpret the sentiment behind Dunkirk, and appear ignorant of its wider context,

3) delighted that even those who fawn at the feet of our monarch were under no illusion as to her views on Brexit given *THAT* hat she wore to parliament.

So yep, whatever you think of my throwaway line, it is core to brexit.

> That's 17 million people, not a few, not a large minority but a majority.

In a country of 65m?

> And you sit on your beach and ridicule them.

Too hot for the beach. I'm now poolside happily ridiculing brexiters, monarchists, the religious (well, their ideology), neoliberals, tax avoiders/evaders, and the liberal Left.

Encore de vin rouge sil vous plait Mr barman!

2
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
Once again you mistake the motives of those who led and are leading Brexit with the majority of leave voters.
One of the main problems with Brexit was always going to be the ability, or lack of it, of those politicians who had to implement it.
Anyway,enjoy your holiday, unless it's what you do for a living, I've got a UKIP meeting to go to!
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to BnB:
> I'm surprised that you write this with only the mildest allusion to the Financial Crisis. ... But it isn't neo-liberal dogma to impoverish the state.

I'm typing this on a phone in between swimming, wine, and John Gribbin's excellent "13.8" - about the age of the universe. So please forgive brevity!

> The depths of austerity have little to do with private sector bailouts and everything to do with deficit reduction. Since the contraction of 2009, there is insufficient state income to provide state services, pay down the debt and pay the interest.

Long story short, we are in the situation we are because if bank recapitalisation. The problem was exacerbated by QE being directed at the banks, which actually only had a short term economic benefit which mainly benefitted the wealthy.

Austerity and brexit have taken demand out if the economy (our problems are demand side). Interest rates are ineffective at the zero lower bound. Growth has been anaemic and with low unemployment but low productivity, the future looks bleak. Weak employee rights and treatment of labour as chattels suggest that demand is unlikely to recover near term. Suddenly Osborne's promise to balance the books by 2015 really does appear to be the ignorant, steaming pile of doo-doo that hindsight has proven it to be.

We need a stimulus at root and branch. Not tax cuts at the top. We need investment in green infrastructure - not the overpriced rubbish of HS2 or the gift to the French that is Hinckley C.

Pissing away money on our military in some nationalistic fantasy of empiric glory is also increasingly vexing to me (£6.5bn on 6 type 45 destroyers of which only one is ready for service - the others undergoing maintenance and trials, a £6.5bn aircraft carrier with no planes ffs).

> PS Have a lovely holiday!!

Cheers.
Post edited at 18:36
Jim C - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:


> Isn't that just sensible? If a result is 51 / 49, then it's almost deadlock - so surely that means look for compromise, but with the deciding vote towards the 51?

Or we can just stick with winner takes all, as I expect you would want if the vote had gone narrowly the other way.

4
Dave the Rave on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> Or we can just stick with winner takes all, as I expect you would want if the vote had gone narrowly the other way.

How some people are rationalising a defeat as meaning they can override it beggars belief! I wouldn't mind so much if I didn't think that their viewpoint was born purely out of self interest.

' nothing in it for them, no'

'They know best what's good for everyone'
Doubt it.
Well feck off then and live with the vote!
(Not you Jim)
Post edited at 21:39
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Or we can just stick with winner takes all, as I expect you would want if the vote had gone narrowly the other way.

Which is fine if the winners can define brexit. So please, can any brexiters tell us *what* the post-brexit UK/EU relationship will be?
1
Jim C - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Which is fine if the winners can define brexit. So please, can any brexiters tell us *what* the post-brexit UK/EU relationship will be?

Remainers also cannot possibly tell us what a future in the EU would have been, or will be, the future is like that .

( However, we can of course speculate that if we now want to stay in, having triggered A50, we will have to pay much more than before ( no rebates) and we will most likely have to adopt the Euro as our currency)
6
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Only if they've got a crystal ball.
Jim C - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Of course it is mostly those who did very well out of the current system that wanted the status quo, and that wanted to remain, so their vote could be said to be that of self interest. Those that were not benefiting ( generally) voted against)
So you could say remainers thought, stuff the poor folk, I'm ok let's stick with what benefits me.

8
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Of course it is mostly those who did very well out of the current system that wanted the status quo, and that wanted to remain, so their vote could be said to be that of self interest. Those that were not benefiting ( generally) voted against)

> So you could say remainers thought, stuff the poor folk, I'm ok let's stick with what benefits me.

Strawman. The EU continually evolves. It is a work in progress. Modern environmental & employment rights stem from EU legislation.
1
Shani - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> Remainers also cannot possibly tell us what a future in the EU would have been, or will be, the future is like that .

The brexit future is evident:

Lower investment, economic contraction, relocation of private sector banking to Europe, loss of European scientific involvement, loss of the European Medicines Agency, loss of the European Banking Authority, reduction in EU students studying here and so loss of intellectual capital, unfulfilled jobs in farming and NHS in particular, food inflation, political turmoil in Ireland, turmoil in farming over CAP replacement, poor trading agreements because of inadequate staff with suitable experience in trade negotiations....
Post edited at 22:35
1
Dave the Rave on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Of course it is mostly those who did very well out of the current system that wanted the status quo, and that wanted to remain, so their vote could be said to be that of self interest. Those that were not benefiting ( generally) voted against)

> So you could say remainers thought, stuff the poor folk, I'm ok let's stick with what benefits me.

Indeed. Spot on. And those with most money generally get heard.
2
baron - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
You really should stop attributing everything positive tomthe EU.
Are you saying that without EU involvement the UK would not have environmental and employment rights.
If so that's a real indictment of UK governments of the last 40 years.
Post edited at 22:57
2
descender8 - on 01 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

That'll be the last time I bother voting for anything , what's the point ?¿
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Let's not forget the 'ACTUAL whiners' are the Brexiters, who've whined for forty or so years to have the earlier referendum result overturned.

So, any referendum, once passed, is never to be challenged again, not even after 40 years have passed and a different generation are affected by it?

Idiocy.
2
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> But they are still happily awaiting the outcome of ongoing negotiations.

> How long is that going to last?

One would assume until negotiations are concluded, or irrevocably break down.
1
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Sitting here in Bordeaux with an Irish wife, on a clean beach, drinking Italian wine, whilst writing this on a contract phone for which roaming charges have recently been abolished by the EU, i have to say, many people don't recognise the benefits EU membership has brought us.

So they brought you free roaming for your phone, obviously the €145 bn they spend a year is well worth it.

Were you not able to sit on Bordeaux beaches, or were you banned from having an Irish wife before the EU was created?

7
Hugh Janus - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

F*ck my old boots! Is that our Nige with a tache?

Looks about an inch and a half (or should I say 4cm?) too long on both sides.
Post edited at 06:19
1
Hugh Janus - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Drinking Italian wine in France? You should be deported! ;)
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Don't you think that if the vote had gone the other way, we would have continued to have a rebate, be outside Schengen, not adopt the euro?
1
BnB - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> The brexit future is evident:

> Lower investment, economic contraction, relocation of private sector banking to Europe, loss of European scientific involvement, loss of the European Medicines Agency, loss of the European Banking Authority, reduction in EU students studying here and so loss of intellectual capital, unfulfilled jobs in farming and NHS in particular, food inflation, political turmoil in Ireland, turmoil in farming over CAP replacement, poor trading agreements because of inadequate staff with suitable experience in trade negotiations....

I was surprised to read in yesterday's BBC reality check that the NHS is considerably less reliant on EU staff than is widely assumed. The proportion of EU workers is well below the wider average and pales next to the reliance on workers from the wider world, all the more so the higher up the qualifications scale you go. Doctors are very strongly represented but they typically don't come from EU nations. Who'd have thought it?

As for the future being evident, I'd say anything but. It's the uncertainty that's currently a threat to our economy. Far less the eventual reality. The economy will adjust. It's a fluid system and companies will still find ways to make money and the government will find ways to take it off them and spend some wisely, the rest less efficiently, just as they've been doing for centuries.
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:
> I think you must be joking. The economy is only one aspect of Brexit that worries Remainers like myself. I worry about (in no particular order, and straight off the top of my head):

> The European political aspects

> The neo-Fascism as expressed in our press and mail (puns intended)

> ...
What an extraordinary list. I won't go through them one by one but suffice to say that a lot of them actually reflect economic issues and others reflect just a blinkered faith in the European concept.

I don't think employing the "fascist" slur is generally a brilliant ploy but since you started it: if there is "fascism' it lies on the side of the EU. One of the great problems of our era is the alienation of the mass of the people from what they regard as distant, undemocratic and arrogant governments. Hence the rise of populist demagogues of left and right providing simplistic solutions to complex problems: Trump, Le Pen, Corbyn etc.

The EU is the archetype of such governments: largely appointed rather than elected and largely unaccountable to the people. Controlled by a cadre of technocrats appointing their own to run constituent countries (eg.Italy, Greece) above the heads of the electorates when they deem it necessary, and blatantly ignoring or demanding to overturn of the wishes of the electorates.

Essentially the supporters of the EU and its further accumulation of power are at best supporting a supra Singapore ie. a benign dictatorship, and worst a Soviet State. Neither is (or was) a democracy. Your list implies, unwittingly no doubt, that you are of the former persuasion: we should forsake democracy for a democratic deficit because "it works".

(whether "it works" in the case of the EU is, of course, open to question.)
Post edited at 08:29
5
Hugh Janus - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
Anyone who believes we are not already and never have been anything other than living under a hidden and less than benign dictatorship is either fooling themselves or just plain ignorant.

Edit: You get to vote for the people others decide you can.
Post edited at 08:36
2
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Anyone who believes we are not already and never have been anything other than living under a hidden and less than benign dictatorship is either fooling themselves or just plain ignorant.

As I have said repeatedly on here, UK "democracy' is obsolescent and deeply flawed. It is not immune to the criticisms I outline above of being "being distant and undemocratic". But the solution is to reform it, not to give up what we have.
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Corbyn; a demagogue. You're funny.
2
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But the solution is to reform it, not to give up what we have.

Totally agree - oh you're not talking about the EU are you?

2
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Corbyn; a demagogue. You're funny.

"demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument." Tick.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Totally agree - oh you're not talking about the EU are you?

Did you miss the last 40 years spent failing to reform it?
4
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> The jingoistic notion behind "the Queen/Empire2.0/Dunkirk" is pathetic, which is why:

> 1) I was surprised that Liam Fox used the incredibly insensitive term 'Empire 2.0' on an international, political platform, clearly unaware of the horrors of empire or how those our forefathers ruled were brutally expolited,

> 2) was horrified that Nigel Faraj* should misinterpret the sentiment behind Dunkirk, and appear ignorant of its wider context,

> 3) delighted that even those who fawn at the feet of our monarch were under no illusion as to her views on Brexit given *THAT* hat she wore to parliament.

> So yep, whatever you think of my throwaway line, it is core to brexit.

> In a country of 65m?

> Too hot for the beach. I'm now poolside happily ridiculing brexiters, monarchists, the religious (well, their ideology), neoliberals, tax avoiders/evaders, and the liberal Left.

> Encore de vin rouge sil vous plait Mr barman!

Oh my. The Dunkirk Spirit invoked again....

http://t.co/aAVVuG80SO

Brexit is being treated like a Famous Five adventure.
2
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Corbyn; a demagogue. You're funny.

Demagogue:
a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.


Hmmm... let's see now...

Facing the tens of thousands of festival-goers who had gathered to see him, Corbyn, arriving on stage with Glastonbury founder Michael Eavis, beamed and waited for the chants of his name to die down. “Michael, you brought the spirit of music, of love, of ideas, and of great messages,” he said, giving Eavis a copy of the Labour manifesto.

See also;

So how was Corbyn’s unspun, outsider appeal to young voters turned into hard votes, against all the odds? Insiders insist there was no magic bullet, but two pieces of obscure software developed by Labour HQ are widely acknowledged to have played a significant role.

The first helped turn a swollen base of activists into proper campaigners. Called Chatter, it allowed Labour’s growing base of activists to have proper text exchanges with people they canvassed, rather than dispatching them blunt, campaigning messages. “It armed campaigners with the ability to actually make people feel like they were being listened to on a local level,” said a senior Labour figure.

The second was the closest thing Labour had to a secret weapon. Over the last year the party developed a tool called Promote. Its effect was to unleash the power of Facebook advertising to local parties across every constituency.


Both from the Graun...
Hugh Janus - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
There's no chance of that under the Conservatives, the clue is in the name. Like WWI for the upper classes, Brexit is a their catastrophic attempt to keep control of the masses.*

Also, the U.K. would be crushed by the financial powerhouses if the kind of reforms that are needed were to take place solely in the U.K. It needs something like the people of the USA or collective EU to say enough is enough, things have to change.

*Edit: Thankfully it is unlikely to lead to such an appalling waste of young lives.
Post edited at 08:56
2
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

God help us all - a party leader who actually appeals to a portion of the electorate.
1
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

There have been massive changes in 40 years - I don't agree with them all but they can and do happen. Cameron's deal was a change and could have been worked on as there were other states sympathetic to his stance.
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Did you miss the last 40 years spent failing to reform it?

Surely you are joking right ? The EU has changed tremendously in 40 years, and to a large extent the UK has driven that change, and agreed every step of the way.

As pasbury said Cameron deal would have been another significant change as well, which was a massive strategic advantage for the UK.

Now it will continue to change, unfortunately our interests won't be protected.
Post edited at 09:08
1
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

And oh how they chanted and cheered at home when the Labour Party announced that ( actually) Corbyn was not going to wipe out their student debt after all.
What a joker, ha ha good old Corbyn they chanted;)
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument." Tick.

Ha ha. Gove, Johnson, Farage.....

1
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

They still plan to do something about it though - which I believe is a good idea.
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to BnB:

> As for the future being evident, I'd say anything but. It's the uncertainty that's currently a threat to our economy. Far less the eventual reality. The economy will adjust. It's a fluid system and companies will still find ways to make money and the government will find ways to take it off them and spend some wisely, the rest less efficiently, just as they've been doing for centuries.

My comments about negotiators were prescient:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/headhunter-splurge-fails-to-deliver-brexit-negotiators-liam-fox-de...
2
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> Ha ha. Gove, Johnson, Farage.....

"Hence the rise of populist demagogues of left and right providing simplistic solutions to complex problems"

If your over-sensitivity about the Great Jezzer makes you feel the need to start a thread about which politicians meet the definition of demagogue, go ahead.
Post edited at 09:13
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to BnB:

> I was surprised to read in yesterday's BBC reality check that the NHS is considerably less reliant on EU staff than is widely assumed. The proportion of EU workers is well below the wider average and pales next to the reliance on workers from the wider world, all the more so the higher up the qualifications scale you go. Doctors are very strongly represented but they typically don't come from EU nations. Who'd have thought it?

So the Heath service would collapse without EU workers it was a Remain camp lie then?

Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Don't you think that if the vote had gone the other way, we would have continued to have a rebate, be outside Schengen, not adopt the euro?

Quite possibly, but we are dealing post A50 now, all the main parties supported it, the MPs voted for it, and to go back now will mean the EU would dictate the terms ( or the new door as Macron put it) in which the UK would revoke A50 and stay. That is likely to be no rebate and join the Euro, and more integration .
2
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> The brexit future is evident:

> Lower investment, economic contraction, relocation of private sector banking to Europe, loss of European scientific involvement, loss of the European Medicines Agency, loss of the European Banking Authority, reduction in EU students studying here and so loss of intellectual capital, unfulfilled jobs in farming and NHS in particular, food inflation, political turmoil in Ireland, turmoil in farming over CAP replacement, poor trading agreements because of inadequate staff with suitable experience in trade negotiations....

You should see the doctor about your depressive tendencies , and perhaps a psychiatrist about your inferiority complex on behalf of the country.
10
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> You should see the doctor about your depressive tendencies , and perhaps a psychiatrist about your inferiority complex on behalf of the country.

You should look up ad hominem in the dictionary.
2
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Quite possibly, but we are dealing post A50 now, all the main parties supported it, the MPs voted for it, and to go back now will mean the EU would dictate the terms ( or the new door as Macron put it) in which the UK would revoke A50 and stay. That is likely to be no rebate and join the Euro, and more integration .

I really don't think so, if we wanted to change our minds before the end of the negotiations, I think they'd be more than happy to let us stay on the current terms.
However if we tried to rejoin after it would be a different story.
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

1. That doesn't address the point we were talking about before - you seem to think that remain would have viewed it as "winner takes all" had they won by a narrow margin. My point is that they wouldn't have done; we had already negotiated a moderate position where we were permitted to opt out of measures we didn't want. So the "in" option already included compromise towards those less keen. However the "out" option now is offering no equivalent concession to the other side.

2. We may not be able to get the same deal again if we rejoined. That's all the more reason why it was a stupid idea to leave, but there you have it.
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> So the Heath service would collapse without EU workers it was a Remain camp lie then?

No, it was a comment from Nurses themselves who believed that to be the case: http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/07/nhs-would-collapse-without-foreign-workers-warn-leading-nurses-6177003...
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> The gap is 17 billion pounds, someone is going to really suffer in order to plug that gap.

And how many people in the UK will suffer if we bend over and pay 80 or a hundred billion that the EU want with no legal basis?
17 billion is chicken feed if you don't pay that 'bill'
Post edited at 09:26
4
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Rather than cod psychology, how about addressing Shani's list, most of which is simple fact? For example, there is competition right now for where the EU agencies he mentions will go. Simply put, we are all going to be poorer, financially and in other ways. You might be happy with this as so you can avoid those pesky foreigners but at least be honest about it.
1
Hugh Janus - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:
And perhaps you should see someone about your delusions of grandeur on behalf of the country? Just don't choose Big Ger! ;)
Post edited at 09:27
1
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:


I have found the soloution to the migrant worker free movement issue.

http://streaming.britishpathe.com/hls-vod/flash/00000000/00059000/00059700.mp4.m3u8
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> And perhaps you should see someone about your delusions of grandeur on behalf of the country? Just don't choose Big Ger! ;)

If you go into a negotiation with your tail between your legs, the other side see that you are expecting to get shafted( and duly oblige)
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Still seeing this like your widget buying I see. Rather than seeing the EU and anyone out of your tribe as enemies who will crush you, or be crushed by you, try looking at it as a partnership where everyone can win.
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Were you not able to sit on Bordeaux beaches, or were you banned from having an Irish wife before the EU was created?

The wife was a result of the freedom of movement of people across Europe. A secondary factor was EU education funding.

Travelling across Europe and sampling local food & culture is one of life's great pleasures. Cheap to do and rather fulfilling.
1
Dave Garnett - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:


> Brexit is being treated like a Famous Five adventure.


Already done...

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/five-brexit-island-added-enid-blyton-spoof-series-369521
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Ha ha. Gove, Johnson, Farage.....

Gove and Farage have mass appeal? Maybe on your planet....
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
Antonio Romeo - what sort of British name is that?

1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> There have been massive changes in 40 years - I don't agree with them all but they can and do happen. Cameron's deal was a change and could have been worked on as there were other states sympathetic to his stance.

Yes, massive changes in the direction of "ever closer union" which the UK managed to slow down a little or gain opt outs from (eg.Schengen, the Euro). As Cameron's efforts showed and the EU has made abundantly clear, patience with such special pleading aka. "cherry picking" had run out.

It's a bit like being the passenger in a car driving into a wall at 120mph and saying "we're fine, I got the driver to slow to 100mph".
3
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Still seeing this like your widget buying I see. Rather than seeing the EU and anyone out of your tribe as enemies who will crush you, or be crushed by you, try looking at it as a partnership where everyone can win.

You mean like the nice way that they said if you now want to stay it will be a return through a different door where we pay more and have to accept more of their rules.

So yes.
3
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> The wife was a result of the freedom of movement of people across Europe. A secondary factor was EU education funding.

So we didn't have freedom of movement from Ireland to the UK before the EU stepped in? That's funny,m I'm sure I first visited Ireland in 1965, to attend a funeral.

> Travelling across Europe and sampling local food & culture is one of life's great pleasures. Cheap to do and rather fulfilling.

I know I've done it lots, it's not a new thing, it happened before the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, or were you not aware of that?
Post edited at 09:43
3
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's a bit like being the passenger in a car driving into a wall at 120mph and saying "we're fine, I got the driver to slow to 100mph".

Do you think the EU is about to collapse?
1
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> God help us all - a party leader who actually appeals to a portion of the electorate.

Not any more he doesn't, not since he flip-flopped on the freebies.
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> I know I've done it lots, it's not a new thing, it happened before the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, or were you not aware of that?


Travelling working and being educated across the EU has got steadily easier over time. As recently as the 80s, going from the the UK the Germany by train involved several currencies and numerous border checks. Working would have involved numerous approvals, visits to embassies, costs etc. etc.
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Jeez, you must be able to see the future.
Who'd have thought that the UK would be short of negotiators when we haven't needed any for many years.
Sounds like an insurmountable problem to me.
Probably best if runnbackmtomthe EU and hide under their coat tails.
Any more totally unforseeable (to those of us not so gifted as you) predictions up your sleeve?
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Do you think the EU is about to collapse?

Not imminently but, like a bicycle, it can only work if it keeps moving, and it has decided to keep moving forward. Ultimately it will therefore either end up as a , probably undemocratic, USE, or will collapse when its constituent populations refuse to accept that outcome.
1
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Travelling working and being educated across the EU has got steadily easier over time. As recently as the 80s, going from the the UK the Germany by train involved several currencies and numerous border checks. Working would have involved numerous approvals, visits to embassies, costs etc. etc.

Yes, and?
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> You mean like the nice way that they said if you now want to stay it will be a return through a different door where we pay more and have to accept more of their rules.

What's wrong with that?

> So yes.

Well at least you are honest about your xenophobia,unlike many other brexiters.

2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Yes, and?

you are still a complete wally.
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> You should see the doctor about your depressive tendencies , and perhaps a psychiatrist about your inferiority complex on behalf of the country.

Jesus wept! Remove the emotion and actually look at the evidence. Those prestigious agencies are going but if an emotive rather than factual rebuttal satisfies you, there is no convincing you. Not really a way we can debate here.

I love my country which is why i hate to see it being trashed thusly by emotive nostalgists.
1
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

Oh grow up.
4
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Not imminently but, like a bicycle, it can only work if it keeps moving, and it has decided to keep moving forward. Ultimately it will therefore either end up as a , probably undemocratic, USE, or will collapse when its constituent populations refuse to accept that outcome.

Seems highly improbable to me. I have doubts about say Hungary and some other eastern countries' commitment to rule of law and democracy etc which will probably be problematic, but the bulk of the EU will continue to function well enough, better and more prosperously than the UK.
2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Oh grow up.

Nah, it's kind of fun baiting you.
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
More prosperous, like Spain, Greece, Italy, Romania, etc.
I think I'll take the UK economy thanks.
1
Sir Chasm - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

How do you envisage brexit making us more prosperous?
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> How do you envisage brexit making us more prosperous?

Oh come on, that's easy. We've got all these trade deals to sign with countries just begging us to sell stuff to them, even though we won't let their citizens come here.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
> Seems highly improbable to me. I have doubts about say Hungary and some other eastern countries' commitment to rule of law and democracy etc which will probably be problematic, but the bulk of the EU will continue to function well enough, better and more prosperously than the UK.

You mean like Italy which, since 2009, has lost 7 per cent of its GDP, 12 per cent of its disposable income and 20 per cent of its industrial production? Or maybe Spain, whose unemployment has fallen to "only" 18%" or France, where unemployment is down to a champagne inducing 10%?
Post edited at 10:05
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Nah, it's kind of fun baiting you.

Carry on then...
Ridge - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> No, it was a comment from Nurses themselves

The RCN are probably worried about a lack of subs. According to Mrs Ridge they don't really represent the interests or views of nurses.
Big Ger - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> I love my country which is why i hate to see it being trashed thusly by emotive nostalgists.

I love mine, which is why I believe it should remain ours.

4
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Do you think GDP per capita will increase more in the EU or UK over the next 5 years?
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
We can start with the £350 million a week for the NHS.
2
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
GDP,needs to increase more in the EU so they can make up the shortfall created by the UK leaving and taking its money with it.
Sir Chasm - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

I suppose a lie was about the best I could expect.
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

*per capita*, as I wrote.
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

'Won't let their citizens come here'
Do you know something that we don't?
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

See India trade deal failure.
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
It needs to increase in any way you wish to measure it but I'd still rather live in the UK than most other EU countries.
That's a reflection on the economic state of those countries and not the people who live there.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
> Do you think GDP per capita will increase more in the EU or UK over the next 5 years?

Don't know, and given the failure of economists on the topic so far, it appears that neither do they.

If you think that 5 years of GDP numbers is what is at issue then you have completely missed the point. Firstly 30-50 years is a reasonable time frame. Secondly, and repeating my earlier point, GDP growth does not trump democracy.

Singapore is a nice place to live as an expat, but I wouldn't want the UK to adopt it's system of government for the sake of GDP growth,
Post edited at 10:14
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

Failed because the UK wouldn't accept the increase in migration that India wanted as part of the deal.
Got to get those numbers down to the tens of thouands.
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I thought it would fit nicely into your opinion of leave voters.
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Don't know, and given the failure of economists on the topic so far, it appears that neither do they.

I'm confident it will be the EU.

> If you think that 5 years of GDP numbers is what is at issue then you have completely missed the point. Firstly 30-50 years is a reasonable time frame.

If you can't make predictions for 5 years, how can you possibly do so for 50!? In any case it's not a reasonable time-frame. We will quite probably be dead within that time-frame so its irrelevant to us.

> Secondly, and repeating my earlier point, GDP growth does not trump democracy.

Both the EU and UK are democratic, so, again, irrelevant.

2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Which is what I said, flippantly.
1
lummox - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

quite aside from the obvious point that you love " your " country so much that you haven't lived in it for so many years, who do you think is trying to take it away from you ?
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> It needs to increase in any way you wish to measure it but I'd still rather live in the UK than most other EU countries.

OK. No one was going to force you to move, you know.
2
Sir Chasm - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> I thought it would fit nicely into your opinion of leave voters.

That you can't answer a simple question without lying? It's not an opinion.
1
damhan-allaidh on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

Quite.

I think many people, on both sides, don't understand the meanings and differences of:

- access to a market
- free trade agreement
- single market

Also, the devil, as always, is in the detail. As the India example you draw attention to shows, some degree of FoM, sometimes called 'international mobility', is a significant part of many a TA or FTA. The Chile Canada FTA that Davis likes to draw attention to involved 'international mobility' agreements.

In the other deal that Davis like to draw attention to, South Korea - US (which took at least seven years to negotiate, not the 2 that Davis likes to publicly state), it took several years after the 'final' deal for some of the tariff reductions or eliminations to be implemented.

This is not wave a magic wand stuff. People should try reading trade agreements. It's fun and educational.
1
John Stainforth - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

We've also got to make things to sell!
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
You wanted me to spend god knows how long typing out a detailed answer just so that you could disagree with it.
I couldn't be bothered
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
> I'm confident it will be the EU.

It certainly should be, given the large number of relatively less developed economies in Eastern Europe which should have higher rates of underlying growth, and places like Italy which one would hope should achieve some sort of rebound from their disaseterous decade.

> If you can't make predictions for 5 years, how can you possibly do so for 50!? In any case it's not a reasonable time-frame. We will quite probably be dead within that time-frame so its irrelevant to us.

You can't. But the economics profession has made its best efforts and suggested quite a minor impact. Do you know better?

Think of the children, like we were told to when we voted

> Both the EU and UK are democratic, so, again, irrelevant.

Utter rubbish
Post edited at 10:28
damhan-allaidh on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Both the EU and UK are democratic, so, again, irrelevant.

>>Utter rubbish

Please explain?

OED:
a. Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives [Damhan-allaidh: note 'representatives' not 'delegates' - crucial distinction] to a parliament or similar assembly; (more generally) a system of decision-making within an institution, organization, etc., in which all members have the right to take part or vote. In later use often more widely, with reference to the conditions characteristically obtaining under such a system: a form of society in which all citizens have equal rights, ignoring hereditary distinctions of class or rank, and the views of all are tolerated and respected; the principle of fair and equal treatment of everyone in a state, institution, organization, etc
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> It needs to increase in any way you wish to measure it but I'd still rather live in the UK than most other EU countries.

"Most" not "all"?
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Yes, most.
Sir Chasm - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> You wanted me to spend god knows how long typing out a detailed answer just so that you could disagree with it.

> I couldn't be bothered

A few bullet points would have been a start. I'd like us to be more prosperous so I was curious to see how you think brexit will bring that about. But, whatever, bovvered.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> >>Utter rubbish

> Please explain?

>
Christ, I've been through this ten times on here if I've been through it once and I don't have time to rehash the arguments.

Like most undemocratic States eg. Singapore, it has the illusion of democracy: votes, parliaments, legal systems etc etc. but that does not make it democratic. Ask the Greeks.

Oh, somebody did....

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/03/yanis-varoufakis-eu-democracy-160328120300393.html
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Perhaps you have to keep explaining it because your arguments are not persuasive.
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Perhaps you have to keep explaining it because your arguments are not persuasive.

Perhaps, or more likely people just disagree, or have short memories, or simply weren't here the first (10 times) around?

2
Mike Stretford - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Perhaps, or more likely people just disagree, or have short memories, or simply weren't here the first (10 times) around?

It's because name checking Varoufakis is not a persuasive argument..... and 10 is an underestimation, I reckon your into triple figures.

pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> GDP,needs to increase more in the EU so they can make up the shortfall created by the UK leaving and taking its money with it.

Are you being sarcastic?
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Perhaps, yes. Although "people just disagree" is related to your arguments not being persuasive - if they were persuasive, they would persuade people to agree with you...
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Your vision of democracy is very limited. It's not a binary yes or no position but a combination of a whole range of features such as elections, parliaments, rule of law, free press, free expression etc. etc. which combine to make a state that serves its people. Both the EU and UK (and even Singapore) have all this to large, if imperfect, extent. Somewhere like Russia or Turkey much less so, and Saudia Arabia very much less again.
1
Mr Lopez - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Like most undemocratic States eg. Singapore, it has the illusion of democracy: votes, parliaments, legal systems etc etc. but that does not make it democratic. Ask the Greeks.

Both Scotland and N. Ireland voted to remain in the EU, yet the UK is leaving. Does that mean the UK is undemocratic?

Like most undemocratic States eg. The United Kingdom, it has the illusion of democracy: votes, parliaments, legal systems etc etc. but that does not make it democratic. Ask the Scots and the Irish!


1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> It's because name checking Varoufakis is not a persuasive argument..... and 10 is an underestimation, I reckon your into triple figures.

The first few times Varoufakis didn't enter into the discussion. And it's not a "namecheck". It's using an articulate purveyor of the arguments who even the dyed in the wool remainers cannot dismiss with the lazy stereotypes of "Little Englander", ""Tory backswoodsman" etc rather than having to spend hours rehashing them.
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

please can you list some of the adverse effects of this 'lack of democracy' on the UK, either economically or socially?
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> Like most undemocratic States eg. The United Kingdom, it has the illusion of democracy: votes, parliaments, legal systems etc etc. but that does not make it democratic. Ask the Scots and the Irish!
>
Glad you agree with my post of 8.37 this morning "As I have said repeatedly on here, UK "democracy' is obsolescent and deeply flawed. It is not immune to the criticisms I outline above of being "being distant and undemocratic". But the solution is to reform it, not to give up what we have." although you'll be unsurprised to hear that I think that England probably suffers a bigger deficit than the other constituent parts of the UK
Post edited at 11:29
Offwidth - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

"I'd be more worried about the pension crisis in universities than Brexit."

I've started another thread to discuss this with reasons why you can probably sleep relatively easily in this respect.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=668565


1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> please can you list some of the adverse effects of this 'lack of democracy' on the UK, either economically or socially?

The question is redundant unless you believe that democracy is a luxury that can only be justified if it creates added GDP growth. Just as I suspected....
Post edited at 11:32
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> I love mine, which is why I believe it should remain ours.

I guess you are opposed then to foreign ownership of large swathes of land and property in the UK, and particularly London, and opposed to goreign ownership of large parts of our infrastructure - particularly in the energy and transport sector, and i guess you must also be anti immigration as that means 'we' have to share what is 'ours' with 'them'?

You'd never be so hypocritical as to leave the UK and expect others to share their geographic 'fruits' with you, would you?

By the way, ever see a trade deal where one side DIDN'T concede a degree of sovereignty to make the deal work for both sides?
Post edited at 11:33
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The question is redundant unless you believe that democracy is a luxury that can only be justified if it creates added GDP growth. Just as I suspected....


If there was a route to health, happiness, wealth and endless climbing that didn't involve democracy would you reject it?
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:
> If there was a route to health, happiness, wealth and endless climbing that didn't involve democracy would you reject it?

No, but I don't believe such a system would be sustainable (Power corrupts...etc). I am quite prepared to acccept some negative impact on GDP in order to protect what democracy we have and the option to improve it, and believe in the longer term will be the best route to to health, happiness, wealth and endless climbing.
Post edited at 11:41
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's not a redundant question, it's one of the foundations of the leave campaign and a common meme that we're 'ruled by unelected mandarins eating foie gras and supping claret in Brussels '. Whatever democratic deficit the EU might have it could be compared favourably with our own, or the US's or any other interpretation of democracy - they will all be found lacking in something.
So, what are the negative consequences of the EU's democratic deficiencies on us.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> So, what are the negative consequences of the EU's democratic deficiencies on us.
>
Of course it's a redundant question because you are assuming that negative economic consequences trump democracy so that if there are no negative economic consequences we should accept a diminution of democracy.

Furthermore, I have never made the case that the EU's democratic deficit has been negative for the EU economy, so why should I defend it?

Do you believe if there are no negative economic consequences we should accept a diminution of democracy.
Post edited at 11:46
tom_in_edinburgh - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> That is likely to be no rebate and join the Euro, and more integration .

I don't think you are correct. I think legally we probably have the right to withdraw article 50 and politically the EU would be glad for it to happen and avoid the need to deal with the disruption and loss of revenue of a large state leaving.

However, no rebate, joining the Euro and more integration would all be good things. The UK's refusing to commit and being generally disruptive is a major reason why the EU has not yet achieved its full potential.

1
Mike Stretford - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's using an articulate purveyor of the arguments who even the dyed in the wool remainers cannot dismiss with the lazy stereotypes of "Little Englander", ""Tory backswoodsman" etc rather than having to spend hours rehashing them.

I don't think he helps your cause much, the basis of his argument is deeply flawed and he has obvious grievances. I am curious as to so many on the right turn to him, there are loads of lefties who are critical of the EU, without his baggage.

For what it is, the EU is democratic. As for what it will become, we'll see, it's up in the air.... the current Poland issue will be much more revealing that the Greek debt crisis. However, if the EU does become a state, it will be at the consent of the national populations, and there's no reason to think it will be undemocratic.

1
Mr Lopez - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

So let me get this right. Do you think democracy means that everyone gets it their own way? Because i doubt there's a single 'community' that agrees to anything unanimously.

So for example, the EU gets a vote on leaving the UN. If we ignore that such a measure would have to be agreed unanimously, the UK votes to remain while the other 26 countries vote to leave, so the vote passes.

But that would be undemocratic, because the UK wants to remain.

Ah, but if the UK remains, Scotland wanted to leave, so that would also be undemocratic.

Uh, but if Scotland leaves, the Highlands wanted to remain, so leaving would be undemocratic.

Oh, but Inverness-shire wanted to leave, so remain would be undemocratic.

Yeah, but Inverness city wants to remain, so leaving woul dbe undemocratic.

Doh, but Smithton wanted to leave, so remain would be undemocratic.

Lol yeah, but the residnets at Smithton Rd want to remain, so leaving would be undemocratic.

Well yes, but the household at number 45 wants to leave, so remain would be undemocratic.

No, because the guys from flat 5 want remain, so leaving is iundemocratic.

And what about Hammish Campbell from the room down the hall, he wants to leave, so remaining is undemocratic...

You seem to work on the concept that Greece, or the UK, is an unified entity where everyone wants the same, which is obviously not the case. The democratic thing to do, si to allow everyone a vote to select representatives, such as MEP's, MP's and the European Council, and for this representatives to vote on the matters at hand . That means not everybody gets their way, though.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> So let me get this right. Do you think democracy means that everyone gets it their own way?
>
Er, no. (rolls eyes...)
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

You're the one who keeps inserting the word "economic" when you (mis)quote people - pasbury didn't refer to economic consequences. You did this earlier too - someone said "economic and social", and you berated them for focussing "only on economic".
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> You're the one who keeps inserting the word "economic" when you (mis)quote people - pasbury didn't refer to economic consequences. You did this earlier too - someone said "economic and social", and you berated them for focussing "only on economic".

Point of order: I didn't "insert the word economic". I left out the word "social" but you can include it if you like.

If people don't believe in democracy, they should at least be honest about it.
Mr Lopez - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

So can you explain what for you, democracy is? And by extension, what is undemocratic?
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Apologies - I didn't take the time to revisit the exact wording.

However my point still stands - you keep saying that people shouldn't measure things solely by economic measures, but when they refer to non-economic measures you ignore them...
1
krikoman - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Lol, Like that's gonna happen. They'd stick a red hot poker up our backside as a condition of

> "re-entry"

They don't need to, we've already f*cked ourselves enough, I'd say.

Look at the exchange rate for one.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> So can you explain what for you, democracy is? And by extension, what is undemocratic?

See my previous answers. The search function will help.
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> They don't need to, we've already f*cked ourselves enough, I'd say.

> Look at the exchange rate for one.

>
And look at the shrinking current account deficit.

£16.9bn in the Q to June, down 35% yr on yr

Or exports rising at the fastest pace in 7 years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-manufacturing-july-industry-exports-economy-brexi...
Post edited at 12:32
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Furthermore, I have never made the case that the EU's democratic deficit has been negative for the EU economy, so why should I defend it?

It seems to me that the "democratic deficit" will be worse when we leave. We'll have no say on EU policy, which will impact our lives, whether we want it or not.
This idea that somehow "sovereignty" ends and begin at the UK border is utterly rubbish in an economically, socially, and politically integrated part of the world.
Even within the UK itself it doesn't even make any f*cking sense.

The reality is that the rules of the political and economic world order are set by the big players, i.e. the US, the EU, and increasingly, China. So we'll have to play by them anyway, or isolate ourselves and decline. To relinquish the influence we have is just plain stupid.
Post edited at 13:02
1
Mr Lopez - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, i've jusr read back through all the waffle and other than Daily Mailesque claims that the EU is an undemocratic Stalinist state there's just a link to Varoufakis which says "yes, i completely failed, but it's not my fault, it's the EU's fault".

Care to be more specific? It can't be that dificult. Just explain what Democracy is, and give us an example of a functioning democratic institution.
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Well, i've jusr read back through all the waffle and other than Daily Mailesque claims that the EU is an undemocratic Stalinist state there's just a link to Varoufakis which says "yes, i completely failed, but it's not my fault, it's the EU's fault".

>
Like I've said.Use the search function. I spent days on this with Rom some time last year. Here's a taste https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=641605&v=1#x8306687

2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm struggling to see where you say anything about democracy there. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about UK sovereignty, which is rather different. It is odd how brexiters seem incapable of having more than one identity - what's wrong with Yorkshire and English and British and European, for example?
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Like I've said.Use the search function. I spent days on this with Rom some time last year. Here's a taste https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=641605&v=1#x8306687

Yeah, it's quite amazing that one year on you still don't seem to have any compelling argument.
1
Mr Lopez - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

That post still doesn't answer the question i'm afraid. That is a discussion about sovereignity, and as to which level of organisation should have, if any of them, 'ultimate sovereignity'.

Try again?
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> That post still doesn't answer the question i'm afraid. That is a discussion about sovereignity, and as to which level of organisation should have, if any of them, 'ultimate sovereignity'.

> Try again?

It's unsolvable because the question of sovereignty is frothilically vague and abstract and ultimately it is no more than a question of identity, no matter how much some like to lie to themselves thinking it's not.

For a British nationalist all powers in Westminster would be ultimate sovereignty, for a Scottish nationalist such a situation is the ultimate opposite.

What matters really is how best you accommodate as many people as possible within the constraints of reality, so that they get what they want. I suspect our ability to get people what they want will be severely reduced once we lose our seat at the top table.

And here is the big problem the leavers are facing, they wanted theoretical sovereignty, but in practice they are finding out with each passing day that their options are increasingly limited.

"Yeah we'll have control of immigration"
"Ho wait, shit, we need doctor, nurses, engineers, fruit pickers, students... in fact we're pretty much stuffed without them, ho, and shit again, my kids are not allowed to live and work in the EU anymore..."

"Yeah we can strike free trade deals around the world"
"Ho wait, shit, the EU has already a lot of trade deals signed and many others in the pipeline and we have no prospect of negotiating as many with such good terms, and we risk losing trade with the most important partners"

The list of "ho wait, shit" goes on...


Post edited at 13:44
3
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yeah, it's quite amazing that one year on you still don't seem to have any compelling argument.

Genuinely made me laugh out loud. Good work Rom.

But there's the rub. After a year we still dont seem to have any plan about Brexit. All that talk of "it will be easy to do - they need us more than we need them", has evaporated to "we need the Dunkirk spirit".

Fact and realism are treated by people like Jim C as an "inferiority complex on behalf of the country".

No brexiteer can tell us HOW their sovereignty was affected by being 'controlled by Brussels', nor what we will gain by leaving.

Whilst we hear comments about it not being all about GDP - and that we need to be open to the World, we are pissing off our closest allies and neighbours and forcing administrative and customs barriers between peoples.

Meanwhile we are about to do a deal (any deal), with the biggest shyster in US political history....

Go brexit, eh?
3
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Worth adding that India, China, Australia, and the EU, have all said that for any new trade deal, restrictions on the freedom of movement of their respective citizens are either non-negotiable or, we must allow more in.

Meanwhile the US wants an all-in trade deal that will expose everything from education and research to the NHS and BBC to US neoliberalism. Don't expect the welfare state to survive.
3
krikoman - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

There's a good example of what people think "sovereignty" is and it's not what sovereignty actually is.

Search out Radio 4 Pimlico Plumbers interview, this bloke is pretty typical of a lot of peoples views, nothing to do with facts or the law, but their perceptions of what "their" sovereignty is!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ylrfp

15:00 minutes in.

And this bloke is a remainer!!

Gawd help us all.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Genuinely made me laugh out loud. Good work Rom.

Childish, of course, but people like childish stuff quite often.

> No brexiteer can tell us HOW their sovereignty was affected by being 'controlled by Brussels', nor what we will gain by leaving.

They can, you just choose not to listen. We were/are affected in that we cannot make whatever laws we like. Examples include the prevention of the Scottish government from creating minimum alchohol pricing in the way they choose, and prevention of the UK government from zero rating sanitary products for VAT. We gain the ability to make whatever laws we like. Very clear, very simple. That Rom, and you it would appear, still don't understand this doesn't reflect well on you. What is so difficult to understand that you still don't get it?
11
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

As has been said many times, we cannot be truly sovereign unless we withdraw from all treaties.

All that we will do is swap one set of Rules (in which we have a say in making and have a veto) for another set of Rules where the likes of Trump and his cronies will have the main say.
2
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Childish, of course, but people like childish stuff quite often.

> They can, you just choose not to listen. We were/are affected in that we cannot make whatever laws we like. Examples include the prevention of the Scottish government from creating minimum alchohol pricing in the way they choose, and prevention of the UK government from zero rating sanitary products for VAT. We gain the ability to make whatever laws we like. Very clear, very simple. That Rom, and you it would appear, still don't understand this doesn't reflect well on you. What is so difficult to understand that you still don't get it?

it's odd that you have chosen an example that illustrates so well the good functioning and benefit of the ECJ as an arbitration system of the single market.
In the case of alcohol minimum pricing, there was no clear rule within the single market, which indeed raised a problem of fairness if these products are to be traded without tarrifs.
The Scottish government won its case at the ECJ, and now, thanks to them, we have EU case law that makes it clear what is allowed and not allowed if any government wants to enforce minimum prices.

What would have happened, in this case, outside of the single market ? There would be nothing preventing the EU from slapping a higher tarrifs on whisky imports from Scotland, or other non tarrifs barrier, in retaliation
Post edited at 15:05
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Childish, of course, but people like childish stuff quite often.

Genuinely made me laugh out loud. Good work Tom. Childish work, but good.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> That post still doesn't answer the question i'm afraid. That is a discussion about sovereignity, and as to which level of organisation should have, if any of them, 'ultimate sovereignity'.

> Try again?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=635075&v=1#x8241596

It's really not hard, and if you are unaware of the arguments then you are not in a position to comment.

Essentially it is a system whereby key roles-presidents and commissioners are largely appointed rather than elected-so I vote for an MP in the UK, who by some odd process chooses the PM for me and that PM chooses some failed politician to be a commissioner in Brussels. The power in the EU lies with these executive actors and they are essentially unaccountable to national parliaments (or anyone else).

Theoretically, the European Parliament should be the check on the powers of the executive actors.It is true that it has many of the necessary powers but the problem lies in the detachment of the electorate from the elections and the elected. All over Europe the participation rate in EP elections is falling and those that do vote do so not on European issues but on domestic issues and often a protest vote, hence the large number of fringe groups in the EP.

The result is that the EP acts largely in its own interests or those of Brussels lobbyists, rather than in those of the electorate.

In a nutshell, the system is such that vast powers, not least the power to initiate legislation, lie with unelected factotums, and the elected Parliament doesn't represent the electorate.

It's all about form, not substance, and democracy is not democracy if the electorate are detached from it.

But beyond that , as we have seen in its actions in Greece and Italy, the EU through the troika, rides roughshod over national electorates and national institutions to impose its own policies. It is government, albeit probably well meaning, of unelected technocrats unaccountable to any elected institution or person.

It's not as if those involved make much effort to hide their disdain for democracy. To quote Juncker

"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
"When it becomes serious you have to lie"

Maybe he was pissed.

or Schauble "Elections change nothing. There are rules"
Post edited at 15:08
2
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What would have happened, in this case, outside of the single market ? There would be nothing preventing the EU from slapping a higher tarrifs on whisky imports from Scotland in retaliation.

Which has what to do with anything? The point is, and I really don't understand what is so hard for you to get, that we can make whatever laws we like. What would have happened outside of the single market? The Scottish government would have proceeded with making the law as planned.

Of course others can react in whatever ways they wish. That's up to them.
3
Postmanpat on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Genuinely made me laugh out loud. Good work Rom.

>
There was and is no need to make further arguments. His case was entirely specious sophistry and remains so.

It's quite amazing that one year on he still doesn't seem to have any compelling argument.
3
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

So yes in a pointless sense we have "taken back control". And lost control over all sorts of other things if we want to sell anything to anyone.
3
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Which has what to do with anything? The point is, and I really don't understand what is so hard for you to get, that we can make whatever laws we like. What would have happened outside of the single market? The Scottish government would have proceeded with making the law as planned.

Sure I can totally see the Scottish government risking jeopardising a key industry. Not.

Making whatever law you like, that's great, if you're isolated from the rest of the world. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated. Mind you, that's probably beyond you.


> Of course others can react in whatever ways they wish. That's up to them.

Indeed, and that's exactly the issue, you end up at the mercy of blackmail and coercion from bigger trading blocks. So much for "sovereignty", you end up either suffering economic damage, or become of rule taker.
Here is an idea, what if we had a seat at the top table so that we can make the rules to our advantage ? Ho wait, shit...
Post edited at 15:21
2
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> There was and is no need to make further arguments. His case was entirely specious sophistry and remains so.

> It's quite amazing that one year on he still doesn't seem to have any compelling argument.

Here is a compelling straightforward argument :

"It's unsolvable because the question of sovereignty is frothilically vague and abstract and ultimately it is no more than a question of identity, no matter how much some like to lie to themselves thinking it's not.

For a British nationalist all powers in Westminster would be ultimate sovereignty, for a Scottish nationalist such a situation is the ultimate opposite."

In your case it seems you still have not been able to answer his simple question.
Post edited at 15:22
2
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> All that we will do is swap one set of Rules (in which we have a say in making and have a veto) for another set of Rules where the likes of Trump and his cronies will have the main say.

So Trump and his cronies are now going to be able to make law that overrides our laws? Wow. When did that happen?

It's a very clear, simple, thing. Parliament makes law, that's the law, no other body can override the decisions of Parliament. The alternative is membership of the EU, where EU bodies can override the decisions of Parliament. What is so bloody hard to understand about this?
5
Sir Chasm - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

What law do you want the uk to have that membership of the eu is preventing us having?
2
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> It's a very clear, simple, thing. Parliament makes law, that's the law, no other body can override the decisions of Parliament.

Which is already the case by the way.

> The alternative is membership of the EU, where EU bodies can override the decisions of Parliament. What is so bloody hard to understand about this?

Can you give me just one example of the EU overriding the decisions of parliament ? Please, just one.
Post edited at 15:31
2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So Trump and his cronies are now going to be able to make law that overrides our laws? Wow. When did that happen?

Or the EU or any other body we want to sell stuff to.

"Want to sell us a widget? Fine, here the rules. Don't like them, OK, piss off."

What is so bloody hard to understand about this?
2
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

I think we all get the point you are trying to make.

The counterpoint is that what matters is whether we in practice have to accept rules from elsewhere, not whether we have the technical ability to pass laws. So we could liberate ourselves from any outside influence so we can pass whatever rules we want, but that's useless if we then just agree to do whatever the US bids to get a trade deal (as seems increasingly likely). Yes, we can technically refuse anything because we have sovereignty; but if we don't have power and influence what does that matter? I'm free to walk into Tesco and tell them I only want to pay 2p for all my shopping because "sovereignty", but that doesn't mean I actually get to have what I want - they have to agree.

The problem is you keep saying "it's a very clear, simple thing". It's only a "very clear, simple thing" if you ignore all the reasons why the world is more complicated than that.

What's so bloody difficult to understand about that?
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
You seem to live in an alternate reality. Trade deals are give and take, unless we want to be in isolation we are going to have to abide by other people's rules. What is so bloody hard to understand about this?
Post edited at 15:50
2
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
From the Express article "In 1986, the European Court of Justice nullified the UK's right to opt out of the Social Chapter, a charter of social rights including a directive on working hours. "

Do you think that the ECJ not allowing us to opt out of the Social Chapter as a good thing or a bad thing?

If more of the 101 defeats have been about things like the Social Chapter then it only proves how valuable the ECJ is to this country.

Maybe a list of all of these judgements that we lost (and those that we won) would be of more use than a headline from a paper owned by a billionaire tax dodger.
Post edited at 15:58
1
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
Actually most of us should be massively grateful for the EU directives and consequent UK law that have improved our workers rights, equality, environmental quality and (speak it quietly) our health and safety.

As a bloc it can be more socially progressive, and take a longer view than it's member states.
Post edited at 16:04
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

It's not about whether or not the UK government is/was seeking to enact good/bad legislation.
It's the ability of that legislation to be affected by the judgements of the EU.
And what's the owner of the quoted newspaper got to do with it, unless your suggesting that the article is untrue.
8
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> It's not about whether or not the UK government is/was seeking to enact good/bad legislation.

This is exactly why lots of us think this whole crusade is bonkers. What matters more - whether or not we are subject to good or bad legislation, or where that legislation originates from?

I would say the former, because that makes a difference to peoples' lives.
pasbury on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> It's not about whether or not the UK government is/was seeking to enact good/bad legislation.

> It's the ability of that legislation to be affected by the judgements of the EU.

Yes and I'm totally fine with that, I regard it as a bit like a second house with teeth.

And anyway our legislation will continue to affected by the judgements of the EU as we will continue to trade with them - those CE marks aren't just for decoration.
1
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Therein lies the problem. You seem to be happy wallowing in a bath of toxic waste, as long as it is our own toxic waste. Me, I would rather have some checks and balances.

Logically you will now by lobbying for us to boycott the Hague, leave the UN, Nato and any other organisation that has some say in what we do.

I would suggest that the article reflects the owner's views and that he personally is someone who does not have the interests of the country at heart - he is more interested in his own wealth.
2
Doug on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Could be seen as the rest of the EU keeping to agreements & legislation we helped draft & then agreed to. It can't really be seen as something being imposed on us from outside
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:


I'm suspicious of your source. We also need to consider this statistic in relation to how other countries' justice systems fare against the ECJ. Taking one statistic on its own like this without context is bovine and will undoubtedly trigger DailyMail readers.

However, above all, these are issues of justice, not purely sovereignty. So if the government of the UK is not taking necessary steps to protect its citizens to treating them fairly in accordance with our human rights, then thank god for the ECJ.

You've brought this statistic along as if it is a bad thing, so let's dig in. What kind of cases does the UK lose and win? How do we compare to other EU nations?
1
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Doug:

Yes, like the EN that relates to climbing walls. The 2007 version was finalised under a GBR Director, at a meeting held in Didsbury with me and at least 3 other Brits involved. The document was not imposed by bureaucrats from Brussels but was created after months of co-operation by industry figures from across Europe. the document was rubber stamped by the faceless ones, not created by them.
1
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

From the article

"High profile rulings included the court's decision in 1981 to outlaw reductions in duty on beer.

As a result Chancellor Nigel Lawson was forced to add 2p to a pint of beer in his 1984 Budget. "

Hmm, doesn't ring true. Not being allowed to reduce duty means that 2-3 years later you are FORCED to put duty up.

Now that's what I call taking back control!
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

That does not answer the question, your just giving me example of lost ECJ cases. I am asking you to provide an example of the EU overriding a parliamentary decision.
Post edited at 16:27
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Factortame. Just do some basic research as you insist others do.
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

So all judgements from the ECJ are good?
I'm happy with the UK courts having the final say.
You're not.
Best enjoy the rulings of the ECJ while it still has some influence.
2
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

We, the UK, have a system of checks and balances even without the ECJ.
Your assumption that I wish to leave the UN, NATO, etc is wrong.
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> I'm happy with the UK courts having the final say.

Well they won't. Unless you propose pulling out of the WTO and numerous other organisations too.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I think we all get the point you are trying to make.

Rom and Shani don't seem to, and they're not alone.

> The counterpoint is that what matters...

It's not a counterpoint, it's a separate issue. You're arguing that sovereignty is unimportant in comparison to the effect that other parties can have on us, so that we'll be forced to make certain decisions. That may be true, but it doesn't affect whether we're sovereign or not.

> The problem is you keep saying "it's a very clear, simple thing". It's only a "very clear, simple thing" if you ignore all the reasons why the world is more complicated than that.

No, that particular thing is very clear and simple. Our relations with the rest of the world are not, but no one ever said they are.
7
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
I quoted the newspaper article in response to Rom The Bear's request for examples of the EU over ruling the UK.
There was no mention by me of those rulings being negative.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> This is exactly why lots of us think this whole crusade is bonkers. What matters more - whether or not we are subject to good or bad legislation, or where that legislation originates from?

This is where democracy comes in. What matters in democratic terms is that we get to make the decisions, not whether those decisions are to your mind good or bad. If you're happy with a benign dictatorship then democracy doesn't matter, sure, and the whole thing is meaningless.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

The WTO can overrule UK courts now?
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:


> It's not a counterpoint, it's a separate issue.

It's exactly the same issue. If we intend on interacting with the rest of the world, we need to make joint decisions, or in your parlance, lose sovereignty. For some reason you and other brexiters got so worked up about doing this with the EU, you decided to burn the house down, yet you regard doing it with the WTO and any number of other organisations as OK.
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Don't have a problem with the ECJ ruling on things that affect trade in europe.
Do have an issue with the ECJ ruling on UK internal affairs.
2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Factortame. Just do some basic research as you insist others do.

You're the one claiming that the EU overrides parliamentary decisions.
It's your job to provide at least one example supporting your claim.

For all your banging about sovereignty and UK law, you don't even seem to have a grasp of the basics of the UK constitutional system.
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Rom and Shani don't seem to, and they're not alone.

I would guess from their replies that they do get the point you're trying to make, they just disagree...

> It's not a counterpoint, it's a separate issue. You're arguing that sovereignty is unimportant in comparison to the effect that other parties can have on us, so that we'll be forced to make certain decisions. That may be true, but it doesn't affect whether we're sovereign or not.

You know that we are sovereign though as an EU member, right? If you want to be a purist and disregard effective sovereignty then you have to also acknowledge that the right to pull out of the EU means we were always entirely sovereign.

You can argue that we were effectively less than sovereign because we needed to withdraw from the EU to exercise those rights fully - but then we're into an argument about being able to exercise sovereignty, and that isn't so different from the arguments I've made about what effective power / ability to choose our own destiny we have.

> No, that particular thing is very clear and simple. Our relations with the rest of the world are not, but no one ever said they are.

As above - you've got the basic premise wrong (we always were sovereign), so clearly not *that* clear and simple. And in any event - isn't it a bit daft to base our approach on only one isolated, ideological point, rather than the practical impact it has on us overall?
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The WTO can overrule UK courts now?

No, it can't, nor does the ECJ, however as a country that usually respects our commitments made through international law , our parliament and ministers by convention do not vote laws that would be in breach of those commitments, and when our laws are found to be in breach, parliament has to make a call as to whether they want to stay in breach, or vote a new law that bring them into compliance.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

That does not give the WTO the power to override UK court decisions.
3
tony on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You're the one claiming that the EU overrides parliamentary decisions.

> It's your job to provide at least one example supporting your claim.

Banging on about how it doesn't happen in your world doesn't mean it doesn't happen:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11652827/Households-must-pay-higher-VAT-on-insulation-a...
A clear case of the EU over-riding a UK parliamentary decision. And in this case, the UK was definitely trying to do the right thing - unless you can think of a reason why increasing VAT on energy-saving products is remotely smart.
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> That does not give the WTO the power to override UK court decisions.

Same for the EU.
Post edited at 16:45
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> So all judgements from the ECJ are good?

I clearly didn't say that anywhere - I think this reductive approach of saying one court good, one court bad is stupid. Which is exactly why I disagree with your approach...

> I'm happy with the UK courts having the final say.

> You're not.

> Best enjoy the rulings of the ECJ while it still has some influence.

It will continue to have influence, though - wherever we end up we are likely to still need to comply with EU rules in lots of respects, we just won't be able to influence what rules they are anymore.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> It's exactly the same issue. If we intend on interacting with the rest of the world, we need to make joint decisions, or in your parlance, lose sovereignty. For some reason you and other brexiters got so worked up about doing this with the EU, you decided to burn the house down, yet you regard doing it with the WTO and any number of other organisations as OK.

That's not my parlance. I don't think that signing trade agreements affects parliamentary sovereignty. The house is fine.
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Yes it does "Member found to be in violation of its WTO obligations must comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) immediately". If a UK court.says otherwise, tough.
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> This is where democracy comes in. What matters in democratic terms is that we get to make the decisions, not whether those decisions are to your mind good or bad. If you're happy with a benign dictatorship then democracy doesn't matter, sure, and the whole thing is meaningless.

Yeah, but given the EU isn't undemocratic (I for one remember voting for MEPs, do you?) then this argument is something of a nonsense.

Although if it came to it, would I prefer a well governed non-democracy over a democratic shambles? Maybe.
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
So treaties you like: no effect.on sovereignty. Treaties you don't like: terrible effects of sovereigty, interfering foreigners, yuck.

Got it.
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to tony:
> Banging on about how it doesn't happen in your world doesn't mean it doesn't happen:

> A clear case of the EU over-riding a UK parliamentary decision. And in this case, the UK was definitely trying to do the right thing - unless you can think of a reason why increasing VAT on energy-saving products is remotely smart.

You'll find that this is not the case, Parliament was not overridden. It is the UK parliament that voted to bring those VAT rates in line with the rest of the EU as part of the finance bill 2016, amending the VAT act 1994.

Here is the relevant legislation, voted by our very own MPs: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483500/Draft_clause_48.pdf

Try again.
Post edited at 16:59
1
Graeme Alderson on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I don't think that signing trade agreements affects parliamentary sovereignty.

So you obviously weren't following what was going on with the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty.

1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I would guess from their replies that they do get the point you're trying to make, they just disagree...

Disagree with what, precisely? I think they just don't understand, personally.

> You know that we are sovereign though as an EU member, right? If you want to be a purist and disregard effective sovereignty then you have to also acknowledge that the right to pull out of the EU means we were always entirely sovereign.

We have the right to leave in the same way Texas can technically leave the US. Would you say that Texas is a sovereign country?

> As above - you've got the basic premise wrong (we always were sovereign), so clearly not *that* clear and simple. And in any event - isn't it a bit daft to base our approach on only one isolated, ideological point, rather than the practical impact it has on us overall?

The practical impact is what matters. That impact is that we have to check that we're allowed to make law before we make it, and that we cannot make whatever laws we like.
1
tony on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You'll find that this is not the case, Parliament was not overridden. It is the UK parliament that voted to bring those VAT rates in line with the rest of the EU as part of the finance bill 2016, amending the VAT act 1994.

Because they were told to by the ECJ, not because they wanted to. F*ck, you can't half be obtuse when you try.

There's this weird thing going on when even ardent pro-remainers admit the EU isn't perfect, then when someone comes along and points out a fault, they go straight into denial mode. If it's imperfect, it's imperfect, it gets things wrong sometimes.
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

No. Legal power to override UK courts and statutes, problem. No legal power to override UK courts and statutes, no problem. Get it?
damhan-allaidh on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I suspect these posts are written by people who have never successfully negotiated anything themselves in life, and therefore have no idea or direct experience of 'give and take' - any of the ingredients of negotiation: understanding/empathising with other parties or interests; compromising - having options and alternatives, communicating, building relationships, developing objective success criteria, clear and reasonable commitments, etc. etc,
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Yes it does "Member found to be in violation of its WTO obligations must comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) immediately". If a UK court.says otherwise, tough.

And if Parliament won't pass the necessary legislation to comply with the WTO ruling? What happens? I'll save you time - the UK court ruling remains the binding and relevant law.
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> So all judgements from the ECJ are good?

It is actual a question of whether they are 'just'.

> I'm happy with the UK courts having the final say.

You understand that UK representatives shape and inform EU law and populate the courts there?

> Best enjoy the rulings of the ECJ while it still has some influence.

Looks like we'll have to comply for years after Brexit - but we'll have given away our influence to shape policy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/u-k-won-t-escape-shackles-of-eu-laws-after-brexit...
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No. Legal power to override UK courts and statutes, problem. No legal power to override UK courts and statutes, no problem. Get it?

Yes. You clearly don't. Also, in case you missed it, we are leaving the EU. Texas can't leave the US. They had a war over this question. You are a dangerous deluded zealot.
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Not if we want to stay in the WTO it doesn't.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Yeah, but given the EU isn't undemocratic (I for one remember voting for MEPs, do you?) then this argument is something of a nonsense.

The EU is not democratic.

> Although if it came to it, would I prefer a well governed non-democracy over a democratic shambles? Maybe.

Well governed means nothing more than run the way you want, and being run the way you want trumps democracy. Fair enough if that's what you think, but don't claim to be a democrat.
8
damhan-allaidh on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

You do know about the ISDS, ICS, ICSID, LCIA, ICC, HKIAC, etc. don't you?
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Yes. You clearly don't. Also, in case you missed it, we are leaving the EU. Texas can't leave the US. They had a war over this question. You are a dangerous deluded zealot.

Lol. If you get it then why did you say what you said above?

Thankfully we're not in a position where the EU can force us to stay. I'll leave the childish insults to you.
1
damhan-allaidh on 02 Aug 2017
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

Not according to some of these WTO arbitration cases.
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Either

1) You regard us a sovereign if we can leave a treaty. In this case, since we are leaving the EU, your sovereigty based objections to it are nonsense.

Or

2) You accept we aren't fully sovereign if we pool decisions within a treaty. In this case since we are party to many such treaties, your feigned objections the EU due to loss of sovereigty within it are ridiculously inconsistent because we are party to many such treaties.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

Except the obvious difference that EU law is directly applicable in UK courts, and can be used to rule UK statute invalid. I'm off to the pub, instead of going round in circles.
5
tony on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The EU is not democratic.

Why do you say that? Genuinely interested - we vote for MEPs using a more proportional system than the UK parliament, EC commissioners are nominated by member governments. EU legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament.
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to tony:
> Because they were told to by the ECJ, not because they wanted to. F*ck, you can't half be obtuse when you try.

Yes they wanted to. Nothing, absolutely nothing, prevents them from being in contravention with EU law if they wish to.
They simply made the assessment that overall, being in compliance with EU law is better than the possible economic and political consequences of being in breach.

> There's this weird thing going on when even ardent pro-remainers admit the EU isn't perfect, then when someone comes along and points out a fault, they go straight into denial mode. If it's imperfect, it's imperfect, it gets things wrong sometimes.

Yes it's imperfect, of course, none of these organisations are.
I am simply trying to explain to baron that the EU doesn't override the UK parliament. Rather, this UK parliament choses to be compliant with EU law, but it can also chose not to (which of course would be very bad for our international relations and standing, hence why they tend not to).

This is a different situation for example, with Scotland in relation to the UK, the Scottish parliament can be overridden by UK law. If he was to stick to his ideology, really he should be advocating Scottish independence.
Post edited at 17:25
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Your link is about what the EU would like.
What they get might be different.
If the ECJ rules on european matters thats fine.
Not so when it wants to influence UK internal affairs.
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Except the obvious difference that EU law is directly applicable in UK courts, and can be used to rule UK statute invalid. I'm off to the pub, instead of going round in circles.

Only by virtue of the European communities act 1972, which is, you guessed it...UK law.
1
tony on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes they wanted to. Nothing, absolutely nothing, prevents them from being in contravention with EU law if they wish to.

> They simply made the assessment that overall, being in compliance with EU law is better than the possible economic and political consequences of being in breach.

So you agree that they did something that they wouldn't otherwise have done, had it not been for the ECJ decision. As I say, you can't half be obtuse at times.

1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> And if Parliament won't pass the necessary legislation to comply with the WTO ruling? What happens?

Well if parliament doesn't comply with WTO court, there there is a sanction mechanism, we have to pay fines, and if we don't pay the fines, ultimately we can be ejected of WTO.
Roughly the same thing happens with the EU.

If we follow your doctrine, we should be out of WTO as well.
Post edited at 17:30
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to tony:
> So you agree that they did something that they wouldn't otherwise have done, had it not been for the ECJ decision. As I say, you can't half be obtuse at times.

Yes, absolutely, this is the whole point of having an international agreement, you pledge to abide by the terms of it.
But nobody forces you to or overrides parliament, you can always disobey and face sanction or terminate the agreement.

That is why the argument of "sovereignty" in the case of the UK in regards to the EU is such utter complete nonsense. We never have given up any sovereignty, we just made a sovereign decision that it was better for us to pool some decisions with others, as we do in all sorts of international treaties.

Now of course he can make an argument as to why this agreeement doesn't work for us, but simply saying we should leave the treaty because we don't like abiding by the rules we ourselves committed to is just plain stupid and shallow, you have to explain why the rules are not good for us.
Post edited at 17:58
1
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> Not so when it wants to influence UK internal affairs.

Examples please.
1
Hugh Janus - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
What I'd really like to know is; what's AyrshireRunner's view on Brexit?
Post edited at 17:43
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
Wanting to have a say in the treatment of EU nationals living in the UK post brexit.
Post edited at 18:02
2
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

Chortle. You now want to stay, then!?
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> Wanting to have a say in the treatment of EU nationals living in the UK post brexit.

This is a UK request : the UK gov said they wanted a reciprocal agreement, to protect the rights of UK nationals in the EU. if you don't want the EU to have a say in the treatment of EU nationals, then don't seek such an agreement.
Nobody forces us, we can leave the EU, have UK nationals deported back to the UK if the host countries want to and vice-versa.

Of course it would be completely stupid, hence why nobody is suggesting it, appart from you and a few other absolutists.
Post edited at 18:16
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Jeez, you can twist any point to suit yourself.
So it's OK for the ECJ to have oversight of EU nationals living in post Brexit UK but not the UK to have the same for UK nationals living in the EU.
Yes, that seems reasonable!
5
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:

> Jeez, you can twist any point to suit yourself.

> So it's OK for the ECJ to have oversight of EU nationals living in post Brexit UK but not the UK to have the same for UK nationals living in the EU.

> Yes, that seems reasonable!

Your just making stuff up, nobody ever suggested that ECJ oversight would apply to EU nationals in the UK and and not the other way around. Please, stop digging, it's getting pathetic.

1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

So UK courts will have a say in EU countries post Brexit?
Of course not!
You've either misread or misunderstood my point.
5
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> So UK courts will have a say in EU countries post Brexit?

> Of course not!

Well of course not because two different courts with different legal systems may reach different rulings, hence why you need a common arbitration system of some sort if you want a reciprocal agreement.

Sheesh, are you playing stupid for the sake of the argument ? It's not playing out very well.
Post edited at 18:26
1
baron - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
You want the ECJ to be the arbitration system, that bit I understand.
You don't seem/want to understand that it's not going to happen.
You can leave the personal insults out of this, can't you?

3
Ramblin dave - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well if course not because two different courts with different legal systems may reach different rulings, hence why you need a common arbitration system if you want a reciprocal agreement.

Arbitration systems are an affront to our sovereignty, though! We can't have our democratically elected government being forced to respect treaties that they signed up to just because some foreign judge says so, can we?

This is why I never play football. I'm not having some self-appointed "referee" tell me I can't handle the ball. I'm a free man, dammit, and I'll handle whatever I like!
2
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> You want the ECJ to be the arbitration system, that bit I understand.

No, you obviously don't, personally don't give a damn whether it's the ECJ or anything else, as long as everybody agrees it will be fair and effective.
It does seem stupid to replicate something that already exists though, but I don't see any problem with replicating if that satisfies the bee in the bonnet of the brextremists.

> You don't seem/want to understand that it's not going to happen.

Nobody knows yet what will happen on that one. I suspect the talks will either break down, and there will be no reciprocal agreement with dire consequences for individuals on all sides, or there will be an ad-hoc mechanism which will do exactly the same thing as the ECJ.

> You can leave the personal insults out of this, can't you?

Nah, sorry, can't do, rules, who needs them, this is an attempt to my sovereignty !
Post edited at 18:40
1
Ramblin dave - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to baron:
> You don't seem/want to understand that it's not going to happen.

Yes, because the current government are a bunch of staggeringly incompetent monomaniacs who've so far lost touch with reality that they're willing to jeopardise the welfare of large numbers of British citizens living abroad, not to mention adding an extra impediment to our chances of a secure economic future, over a frankly obtuse point of principle that will have literally zero discernable impact on anyone who hasn't been conditioned to projectile vomit their own skull every time they hear the word "European".

Edit: I mean, I might think that leaving the EU because you want to reduce immigration or avoid "pointless regulation" is short-sighted and poorly thought out, and I might think that expecting to make better trade deals outside the EU than we had inside it is wildly optimistic, but at least I can see where those arguments are coming from. Getting into the fundamentalist position that the UK must never be bound to any decision of the ECJ even if it's only arbitrating a mutually beneficial agreement that we've voluntarily signed is just straight-up bonkers.
Post edited at 19:10
1
RomTheBear on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> Yes, because the current government are a bunch of staggeringly incompetent monomaniacs who've so far lost touch with reality that they're willing to jeopardise the welfare of large numbers of British citizens living abroad, not to mention adding an extra impediment to our chances of a secure economic future, over a frankly obtuse point of principle that will have literally zero discernable impact on anyone who hasn't been conditioned to projectile vomit their own skull every time they hear the word "European".

The most amazing thing is that all the organisations representing UK nationals in the EU, without exception, have said they are broadly statisfied with the EU terms, and disappointed with the UK offer, and yet the UK government seems dead set on getting a worse deal for them.
You just wonder what goes on in the head of these people, for them to go out of their way to screw the people they are supposed to protect. It's just plain madness.
Post edited at 19:12
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Apparently 70% of people in Britain are now in favour of freedom of movement:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-free-movement-support-brexit-british-people-leave-e...

1
tony on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, absolutely, this is the whole point of having an international agreement, you pledge to abide by the terms of it.

So you agree that as a result of a complaint made by the EC and upheld by the ECJ, the UK Parliament increased VAT rates on items which, frankly, should be promoted as cheaply as possible, and over which there is no need for the EU to have any input and you don't think it's a bad thing? It should not be necessary for the UK Parliament to disobey and face sanctions in such a case - there should never have been a case in the first place.

You would do your argument a great deal more credit if you did admit that the EU does stuff up completely sometimes.
1
MG - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Better be careful of thought crime in this new sovereign democratic nirvana

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/02/replace-anti-brexit-uk-trade-envoys-says-iain-dunca...
1
Jim C - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Apparently 70% of people in Britain are now in favour of freedom of movement:

" commissioned by the EU Commission "
What a surprise that they happened to get the result their client wanted.

Let's say I wanted to get the opposite result, how would I do that, simple just target areas to sample that were very high leavers, there is a good chance that the majority of people asked will be against freedom of movement.

But I'm sure the reputable company the EU commissioned did not do that, but who were they, and what was their methods?
5
Shani - on 02 Aug 2017
In reply to tony:

> So you agree that as a result of a complaint made by the EC and upheld by the ECJ, the UK Parliament increased VAT rates on items which, frankly, should be promoted as cheaply as possible, and over which there is no need for the EU to have any input and you don't think it's a bad thing? It should not be necessary for the UK Parliament to disobey and face sanctions in such a case - there should never have been a case in the first place.

Best to read the judgement in detail to understand WHY this case was decided he way it was.
1
thomasadixon - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to tony:
> Why do you say that? Genuinely interested - we vote for MEPs using a more proportional system than the UK parliament, EC commissioners are nominated by member governments. EU legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament.

In short because it doesn't operate as one. To me a democracy is a country where the people's votes decide what happens in that country. References to Scotland or NI being un/democratic don't work in that sense - they're not democracies, they're regions of a democracy, the UK. In a way you could say the same of the EU, it's not a democracy and that's fine because it's a club made up of democracies and not a country at all - but that's part of the problem, it doesn't know what its supposed to be, and it wants to be a country.

In the UK we elect people and they make the decisions that affect our lives. We voted for Blair and, say, there was the massively increased spend on the NHS. We voted for Thatcher, and she weakened the power of the Unions. Our politicians can make decisions for a time, but before they can do that they have to come to us, tell us what they'll do and ask for our support. As they're running things they have to talk to us to keep us on side for when the next vote comes. Our MPs are elected to act as they've promised, and we pick them on the basis of those promises. The UK's not perfect, but I think you'd find it hard to say that our vote doesn't decide what happens here.

The EU doesn't work like that, and the EU constitution's the clearest example of how the EU works in practice. The EU makes a decision, it asks people for their support, they vote the wrong way so you reword it and remember not to ask this time. The EU runs itself and makes law as it sees fit and people who like the law say that this makes it good, but I can't see where the democratic input really is. The signing of the Treaties technically I suppose, but one vote once doesn't make a democracy.
Post edited at 00:20
4
thomasadixon - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Roughly the same thing happens with the EU.

Roughly the same thing?! EU law overrides UK law and is enforced by our institutions against us as individuals in this country, as opposed to the country being required to pay a fine? You're too much Rom.
7
RomTheBear on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Roughly the same thing?! EU law overrides UK law and is enforced by our institutions against us as individuals in this country, as opposed to the country being required to pay a fine? You're too much Rom.

You just amaze me. You manage to get everything completely wrong, every time.

No, again, EU law does not override UK law. EU law is automatically implemented in UK law through the European communities act, which is UK law, but it does not override UK law.
You don't even seem to get this basic principle of the UK legal system and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

And yes, if countries are found to be in breach, there is a sanction mechanism, which go from fines, to suspending voting rights and exclusion.
3
RomTheBear on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to tony:
> So you agree that as a result of a complaint made by the EC and upheld by the ECJ, the UK Parliament increased VAT rates on items which, frankly, should be promoted as cheaply as possible, and over which there is no need for the EU to have any input and you don't think it's a bad thing? It should not be necessary for the UK Parliament to disobey and face sanctions in such a case - there should never have been a case in the first place.

I agree, but nowhere EU law was overriding UK law, as thomas suggested.

Note that this whole story is simply the result of the UK being in contravention with the VAT directive, which was voted in the council at the unanimity by the representatives of each member state, including the UK.
I agree that the directive has not entirely caught up with reality, but really, you can't blame the EC and the ECJ for simply enforcing the shitty rules we give them.

> You would do your argument a great deal more credit if you did admit that the EU does stuff up completely sometimes.

Yes, the EU does stuff up, but it's not some kind of foreign power, it's just a creature of law.. We are as much responsible for all the fuck ups of the EU as anyone else.
Post edited at 01:22
1
SenzuBean - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Which has what to do with anything? The point is, and I really don't understand what is so hard for you to get, that we can make whatever laws we like.

As has been pointed out to you - we cannot make whatever laws we like unless we have no trade deals at all. Most trade deals these days feature ISDS clauses. These give rights to corporations to sue foreign governments for law changes that affect business (or potential business revenue).

Here are just some examples of ISDS in action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Examples

Any deal with the US is likely to be absolutely full of these clauses to enable their businesses to fully penetrate the UK market (the Trump cabinet is/was full of people who've made good use of ISDS clauses to ensure American businesses are protected).
The TTIP was rejected by the EU largely due to opposition to the ISDS clauses - we're in a very weak position to challenge these clauses and ultimately we'll be given the choice between taking ISDS clauses (or their modern replacement) or having no deal. Guess which option we'll take.
1
wercat on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I think you'd find it hard to say that our vote doesn't decide what happens here.

As someone who made the mistake of voting for Blair in 1997 I can tell you you need to tidy up your ideas. Yes we voted and chose a government but there was no way that I voted to allow the government to mount an illegal attack and invasion on Iraq, in other words waging a war of aggression (q.v.)

I find it incredibly easy to say that my vote does not decide what happens here.

As to alleging that a government can introduce any laws it wants, yes it can but can you remember Rhodesia and Sout Africa who operated legal systems that divided the population. Can you remember the international sanctions?

As is often discussed in legal tutorials and seminars Sovereignty beyond a certain point is severely limited by our need to operate within a community of nations. Don't do that and there will be an escalating level of international sanctions with a spectrum reaching from diplomatic actions through trade sanctions and embargos, legal actions and finally military action.

We took decades to be admitted to such a community (I was an adult by the time we were admitted) and to participate in its decision making after years of being vetoed by former allies.

Now we want to abandon our part in the willing, limited and agreed sovereignty of the EU over its participants to act as a stranger with our sovereignty with respect to the EU now limited by the need to interact with it as a stranger and with no say in its running.

Result!







2
wercat on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
Furthermore, in speaking of Parliamentary Sovereignty, should we look back to the 1970s and remember life when any Government was subject to the sanctions/sovereignty of Trades Unions, whatever the voters had said?
The days when we had power cuts every evening and Fire Brigade strikes? Gurkhas falling over trying to hold the pumps of Green Goddesses? Governments falling because of union disputes?

The level of annual inflation then, fuelled by endless disputes about parity, pay differentials etc?

I believe that one reason, Thatcher apart, that the UK unions have stayed down is that the EU has replaced the need for them with respect to workers rights etc. Many reforms (eg the Working time Directive) have been introduced over the years to benefit UK workers. Despite the relative weakness of UK unions the EU has responded to aspirations of workers unions right across the EU which is why they have represented the interests of workers here too.

I put it to you that if we remove that beneficial EU influence then there will be a requirement for stronger and more powerful internal unions here in the UK with all that follows, trade disputes, inflation etc.
Post edited at 10:55
1
jonfun21 on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Tyler:

"you can't ascribe any view to those who did not"

Totally agree, but what about the value of those who were not allowed to vote:

- 16 & 17 year olds
- EU citizens living in the UK
Shani - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

We discussed this on a previous thread where i suggested as much - knowing how government contracts are so poorly negotiated (and despite assurances from UKC brexiteers otherwise):

"The agency failed to negotiate a 'break clause', which means EU taxpayers are locked into a rent contract for its offices until June 30, 2039."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-european-medicines-agency-move-london-eu-cost-bill-520-million-nhs-europe-a7873226.html

1
thomasadixon - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to wercat:

> As someone who made the mistake of voting for Blair in 1997 I can tell you you need to tidy up your ideas. Yes we voted and chose a government but there was no way that I voted to allow the government to mount an illegal attack and invasion on Iraq, in other words waging a war of aggression (q.v.)

I'm afraid you did. You may wish to be more careful who you vote for. On the other hand he was returned to power so your personal vote may not be the issue. I said *our* vote, not your vote personally. I didn't vote for Blair, but we certainly did.

> I find it incredibly easy to say that my vote does not decide what happens here.

Again, our vote. Who else was responsible for putting Blair into power other than those who voted for him? I suppose I should have said hard to justify saying.

> As to alleging that a government can introduce any laws it wants, yes it can but can you remember Rhodesia and Sout Africa who operated legal systems that divided the population. Can you remember the international sanctions?

No, I was a child, but I understand what happened. Are you seriously comparing the UK leaving the EU to SA operating Apartheid?

> As is often discussed in legal tutorials and seminars...

Clearly you had different tutors to me. What does sovereignty with respect to the EU mean? What does the word sovereignty mean to you? Yes, other countries will want to try and dictate and, depending on the country, that might even escalate to physical force to try and impose their will. That's why we have an army.

> Result!

Absolutely.

On trade unions, they'd become powerful because we kept electing people who allowed them to keep that power. Thatcher got rid of that, and the only way they can get that power back is if we give it to them. The EU is an irrelevance to the issue.
4
RomTheBear on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Clearly you had different tutors to me. What does sovereignty with respect to the EU mean? What does the word sovereignty mean to you? Yes, other countries will want to try and dictate and, depending on the country, that might even escalate to physical force to try and impose their will. That's why we have an army.

Sovereignty with respect to the EU means that we can shape EU policy to our advantage instead of simply sitting on the sidelines.

Your vision of sovereignty is totally archaic, you need to get out of the Victorian era, the times when we could dictate the world order just because we had a big empire and a big army are behind us.
What we have is soft power, and membership of the EU is a multiplier of our soft power.

In fact that's in large part why we joined in the first place, the UK was in relative decline with the rest of Europe, totally unable to shape EU policy to our advantage.
Post edited at 12:15
1
MG - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

He also seems to regard his simplistic, antediluvian views of democracy and sovereignty as aims in their own right, rather than a means to an end. Utter zealotry. In earlier times he would have been witch hunting and such like.
1
J Brown - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

I'd really like to hope that it could happen - or, rather, not happen!

But having said that, we voted - and that was the outcome. If we were going to stay in I guess it would require another vote, and then the leavers could (probably quite justifiably) agitate for another vote, and so on, and so on...

I'm afraid it'll all just become a bit of a farce.
2
Shani - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to J Brown:

But as the paucity for the argument to leave withers on the vine, the appetite to leave will diminish accordingly.
1
John Stainforth - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

The vines have been withered from the start. Brexiters seem eager to buy a duff vineyard that they haven't seen yet.
baron - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

Don't hold your breath
2
john arran - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:

> The vines have been withered from the start. Brexiters seem eager to buy a duff vineyard that they haven't seen yet.

Surely better to have your own vineyard with withered vines, with freedom to sell the poor crop to anyone at whatever price you can get for it, than to have a healthy vineyard with an agreement to sell your grapes for a price you're happy with when they're harvested ...

... or maybe not.
1
Tyler - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> But as the paucity for the argument to leave withers on the vine, the appetite to leave will diminish accordingly.

But not by enough to reverse it. No one is listening to reason and people are getting more entrenched. I have to remind myself at times that the EU wasn't without fault
1
andyfallsoff - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> I have to remind myself at times that the EU wasn't without fault

Do you?
Tyler - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Do you?

Yeah, if you spend time defending it against nonsensical criticism (which I think much of it is) there's a tendancy to default to dismissing all crticism but in fact there is/was much wrong with the EU but it's almost irrelevant compared to the positives. For me anyway, sounds like you're better able to maintain a sense of perspective with out having to remind yourself.
1
John Stainforth - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to john arran:

But you have to factor in all those "new markets" of new wine drinkers who may not be able to distinguish good wine from plonk or vinegar.
1
Jim C - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Surely better to have your own vineyard with withered vines, with freedom to sell the poor crop to anyone at whatever price you can get for it, than to have a healthy vineyard with an agreement to sell your grapes for a price you're happy with when they're harvested ...

> ... or maybe not.

Or maybe , if we don't take a a pessimistic view , you could change that to be young vines that given their roots time to establish and spread, that will mature in time and bear healthy fruit that others will be happy to pay good prices.
It just depends on your viewpoint.
1
john arran - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Or maybe , if we don't take a a pessimistic view , you could change that to be young vines that given their roots time to establish and spread, that will mature in time and bear healthy fruit that others will be happy to pay good prices.

> It just depends on your viewpoint.

Yes it does, doesn't it.

One viewpoint is that we've had decades of successful winegrowing, working as part of a group including the oldest and most experienced winegrowers in the world, and benefitting from hassle-free sharing of personnel and ideas to maximise the potential of our vineyards, such that our wine and industry is now better than ever, and better than most would ever have thought possible.

An alternative viewpoint is that we can do much better by making stuff up ourselves as we go along and, because we're British, it's sure to be much better that anyone's ever managed before.
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> It just depends on your viewpoint.

But how much weight you give to your personal viewpoint should depend on how much you know about the subject.

I spent about 10 years doing due diligence for venture capitalists on tech startup business plans. One thing I noticed was that I was initially far less skeptical about plans in areas where I had less experience than those in areas where I had worked personally. If something is new to you then the pitches sound better than if you have been working in the area for years and have heard the sh*t before, tried it yourself and know why the last ten people who tried that idea got killed. Conversely, if the pitch is in an area which is new to you it can get too much of a free ride because you aren't so familiar with the counter-arguments and history.

A lot of the Brexit arguments seems really familiar to me from this time. The hard-line Brexiters like Fox look to me like people who are being naively optimistic about something they don't know much about.
1
John2 - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I disagree with your line on the Brexit arguments, but I'm in total agreement on the issue of businesses investing in things which they don't understand. When Lotus 123, the first widely used spreadsheet program, came out bank managers all over the UK were so convinced by the splendour of the spreadsheets that they were willing to lend money to any business that had such a convincingly presented business plan. Eventually all of the major UK High St banks instructed their managers to pay no attention whatsoever to a spreadsheet when deciding whether or not to lend money.
1
Lusk - on 03 Aug 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:

"Peter Clingeleffer, group leader at Australia’s CSIRO Plant industry said “while rare, in Australia there are vines that are one hundred years old that are still in production. However the economic life of a vine is generally considered to be around 40 years, provided there is still demand for the fruit. In contrast,

25 years would be considered to be the economic life of a vineyard in Europe."

c/o http://www.winewisdom.com/techie/old-vines-do-they-make-the-best-wines/

Time for new vines per chance?
3
Mark Bannan - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I don't think employing the "fascist" slur is generally a brilliant ploy but since you started it: if there is "fascism' it lies on the side of the EU.

Fascism is right-wing dictatorship coupled with racism and political terror (including torture and execution of opposition groups); has not existed in Europe since 1975 (and 1945 bar Spain). I don't think it is likely to rise again in Europe, although perhaps a bit more likely in the US at the moment (I hope not, though).

>One of the great problems of our era is the alienation of the mass of the people from what they regard as distant, undemocratic and arrogant governments. Hence the rise of populist demagogues of left and right providing simplistic solutions to complex problems: Trump, Le Pen, Corbyn etc.

Lumping Corbyn in with Trump and Le Pen is the height of ridiculousness. Indeed, I'm not sure that any "populist demagogues" exist in genuine Left-wing politics in the EU, North America and Australasia. To propose egalitarian policies against the current right-wing consensus does not make one a "populist demagogue of left..."

> The EU is the archetype of such governments: largely appointed rather than elected and largely unaccountable to the people. Controlled by a cadre of technocrats appointing their own to run constituent countries (eg.Italy, Greece) above the heads of the electorates when they deem it necessary, and blatantly ignoring or demanding to overturn of the wishes of the electorates.

As a previous poster mentioned, the EU is more democratic than the UK. Both have elected parliaments, both have a large body of unelected civil servants (it would be a bit tedious to elect all of these people!) but is is the UK that has an unelected (and highly undemocratic) upper house, with large numbers of aristocratic landed gentry.

I am still hopeful (although not entirely optimistic) that Brexit (whatever that is!) will not happen.

M
Post edited at 11:49
4
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Mark Bannan:

> Fascism is right-wing dictatorship coupled with racism and political terror (including torture and execution of opposition groups); has not existed in Europe since 1975 (and 1945 bar Spain).
>
There is no consensual definition of fascism so conjuring one up that suits one's personal position is not convincing. No, it hasn't existed it Europe since the death of Franco, unless of course one wants to classify the States such as East Germany as essentially fascist. And no, I am not calling the EU "fascist". Only that it shares certain attitudes and characteristics of fascism.

> >

> Lumping Corbyn in with Trump and Le Pen is the height of ridiculousness. Indeed, I'm not sure that any "populist demagogues" exist in genuine Left-wing politics in the EU, North America and Australasia. To propose egalitarian policies against the current right-wing consensus does not make one a "populist demagogue of left..."

Using the Stephen Kinnock solution of promoting simplistic solutions to to complex problems Corbyn is obviously a populist. His public speaking skills are not optimal for a demagogue but at Glastonbury he showed potential. Go Jezzer!

> As a previous poster mentioned, the EU is more democratic than the UK. Both have elected parliaments, both have a large body of unelected civil servants (it would be a bit tedious to elect all of these people!) but is is the UK that has an unelected (and highly undemocratic) upper house, with large numbers of aristocratic landed gentry.

>
Agreed on the limitations of UK democracy but for all its failings the lower house has powers to check the executive and represnts the electorate in a way that the EP simply doesn't. (see my later post on the topic)

9
wercat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

There are universally agreed elements of fascism as suggested by the name, derived from the fasces carried by the Lictors, keepers of public authority, in ancient Rome. It is pretty well agreed that one of those elements is ultra-authoritarianism.
1
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to wercat:
> It is pretty well agreed that one of those elements is ultra-authoritarianism.
>
Yes, to reflect "the will of the people". So what?
Post edited at 12:53
3
Shani - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Using the Stephen Kinnock solution of promoting simplistic solutions to to complex problems Corbyn is obviously a populist.

Such as?
1
Mark Bannan - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> There is no consensual definition of fascism ...

Not so. Just look at any dictionary.

>...so conjuring one up that suits one's personal position is not convincing.

Looks like that's what you were doing.

>...unless of course one wants to classify the States such as East Germany as essentially fascist.

East Germany was totalitarian Communist.

>And no, I am not calling the EU "fascist". Only that it shares certain attitudes and characteristics of fascism.

Such as?

> Using the Stephen Kinnock solution of promoting simplistic solutions to to complex problems Corbyn is obviously a populist. His public speaking skills are not optimal for a demagogue but at Glastonbury he showed potential. Go Jezzer!

I think several leading Tories at the moment are far more like "demagogues" than Corbyn.

M
Post edited at 13:15
2
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Mark Bannan:

> Not so. Just look at any dictionary.

Read any book on politics.

> Looks like that's what you were doing.

Well yes, except that I never gave a definition

> >...

> East Germany was totalitarian Communist.

East Germany was "a dictatorship coupled with racism and political terror (including torture and execution of opposition groups)"

> >And no, I am not calling the EU "fascist". Only that it shares certain attitudes and characteristics of fascism.

> Such as?

A commitment to the ever growing power of the "State" supposedly in the name of the people but actually with disregard and disdain for the views of the people, by an unelected executive and its associated institutions. A belief that "technocracy" trumps democracy.

7
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Such as?

The idea that taking money from the rich to be spent at the the discretion of the State is a solution to inequality and that greater State control is necessarily the best mechanism for growing the economy and allocating resources.
2
MG - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

You're just making stuff up.

It's all very reverse-Hooker - Tory good, therefore all Tories and all Tory policy and government good. Non-Tory bad, therefore all non-Tory policy and government bad. So much so you you would rather blow up one of the most successful social-political groupings ever because it's not Tory.
1
Shani - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The idea that taking money from the rich to be spent at the the discretion of the State is a solution to inequality and that greater State control is necessarily the best mechanism for growing the economy and allocating resources.

Straw man or a miserably poor understanding of economics. Corbyn proposes to take money from all of us to be spent on services and infrastructure which underpin the wellbeing of the country and which allow fortunes to be made.

Where does he say "greater State control is necessarily the best mechanism for growing the economy and allocating resources" - because this also seems to be a fast and loose understanding of his economic ideas?
2
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Straw man or a miserably poor understanding of economics. Corbyn proposes to take money from all of us to be spent on services and infrastructure which underpin the wellbeing of the country and which allow fortunes to be made.

> Where does he say "greater State control is necessarily the best mechanism for growing the economy and allocating resources" - because this also seems to be a fast and loose understanding of his economic ideas?
>
He's an old time socialist. He (or you) can dress it up anyway you want but it's obvious where he comes from and where he wants to go (and more the point where his cronies are and where they want to go).

For Christ sake, he's a fan of Hugo bloody Chavez and his old mucker Livingstone expresses what appears to be regret that good old Hugo didn't exterminate his "enemies" when he had the chance.
Get your head out of the sand!

5
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> You're just making stuff up.

> It's all very reverse-Hooker - Tory good, therefore all Tories and all Tory policy and government good. Non-Tory bad, therefore all non-Tory policy and government bad. So much so you you would rather blow up one of the most successful social-political groupings ever because it's not Tory.

I haven't even mentioned the bloody Tories. Don't get me started!

The main reason I generally support the Tories is not, as people seem to commonly suppose, that I like them. It's to keep the country out of the hands of dangerous idiots like Tony Benn Corbyn.
6
RomTheBear on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I haven't even mentioned the bloody Tories. Don't get me started!

> The main reason I generally support the Tories is not, as people seem to commonly suppose, that I like them. It's to keep the country out of the hands of dangerous idiots like Tony Benn Corbyn.

There are lib dems.
3
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There are lib dems.

Yes, and this time around I was sorely tempted despite their position on brexit!
1
Mike Stretford - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Essentially it is a system whereby key roles-presidents and commissioners are largely appointed rather than elected-so I vote for an MP in the UK, who by some odd process chooses the PM for me and that PM chooses some failed politician to be a commissioner in Brussels. The power in the EU lies with these executive actors and they are essentially unaccountable to national parliaments (or anyone else).

> Theoretically, the European Parliament should be the check on the powers of the executive actors.It is true that it has many of the necessary powers but the problem lies in the detachment of the electorate from the elections and the elected. All over Europe the participation rate in EP elections is falling and those that do vote do so not on European issues but on domestic issues and often a protest vote, hence the large number of fringe groups in the EP.

> The result is that the EP acts largely in its own interests or those of Brussels lobbyists, rather than in those of the electorate.

> In a nutshell, the system is such that vast powers, not least the power to initiate legislation, lie with unelected factotums, and the elected Parliament doesn't represent the electorate.

This is how it actually works (simplified, if we went for full explanation there's even more checks on the commission)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Ordinary_legislative_procedure_majorityrules.svg

You either haven't heard of the Council of the EU, or omit to mention it as it doesn't suit your argument. I agree with you on the EU Parliament as it is, it is basically a parliament in waiting if they do go for ever closer political union.

As things stands the Council of the EU gives national governments power. A minority of national governments can block proposals and a decent majority is required for them to go through.
Post edited at 14:21
1
Mark Bannan - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The main reason I generally support the Tories is not, as people seem to commonly suppose, that I like them. It's to keep the country out of the hands of dangerous idiots like Tony Benn Corbyn.

And instead let dangerous idiots like Teresa "No-Principles" May, Boris "Gobshite" Johnson and Michael "Backstabber" Gove run the country instead?

2
Mark Bannan - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The idea that taking money from the rich to be spent at the the discretion of the State is a solution to inequality...

So if this is not the solution, what is? Presumably the nonsensical "rising tide lifts all boats" theory is not the answer.

1
Bob Hughes - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The main reason I generally support the Tories is not, as people seem to commonly suppose, that I like them. It's to keep the country out of the hands of dangerous idiots like Tony Benn Corbyn.

Earlier this year i would have agreed with you. But after the election farce and shambolic start to the Brexit negotiations I think the whole lot of them are dangerous morons.
1
krikoman - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I haven't even mentioned the bloody Tories. Don't get me started!

> The main reason I generally support the Tories is not, as people seem to commonly suppose, that I like them. It's to keep the country out of the hands of dangerous idiots like Tony Benn Corbyn.

Yes, who in their right mind would want a NHS, and a national rail, a national bank or even a national energy company!!!

Meanwhile we've given £1bn to Virgin Healthy out of the NHS budget, a company who open use offshore banking as part of their company strategy.

So not only does £1bn leave the NHS, probably most of the profits won't be taxes because the money will be hidden offshore somewhere. Who'd not vote for this??? FFS!

You're constant harping about how a weak pound is good for business does absolutely nothing for the ordinary bloke in the street, who's now paying 20% more for food in the supermarket.

A weak pound helps exporters only, it doesn't help me buy my courgettes and tomatoes from Tescos. The business will make extra profits but they won't be passed down to the workers, so who benefits?

And how does this help net importers, which the country as a whole is?

The dangerous idiots are the one's propping up the shower we have in power now, who are bleeding us dry and making a shitstorm of a Brexit, which can only end badly.
1
RomTheBear on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The result is that the EP acts largely in its own interests or those of Brussels lobbyists, rather than in those of the electorate.

> In a nutshell, the system is such that vast powers, not least the power to initiate legislation, lie with unelected factotums, and the elected Parliament doesn't represent the electorate.


Well you forgot to mention that EU policy agenda is set not by commission, but by the council, voting at unanimity or qmv.

I share your assessment about the weakness of the European demos, but the fact that the EU Council is effectively where the big decisions are made reflects that balance quite neatly.

When you look at most of the things people don't like about the EU, almost invariably you find out that this is policy the UK governement supported and voted for, or even shaped and pushed.

I suspect a lot of the complaints are not really down to the EU structures, but down to the member states with archaic and creaking democratic systems, which put people in power who end up doing the exact opposite at EU level of what the electorate wants at home, and then blame the EU for it.
If there is one meagre benefit of leaving the EU, it's that this scapegoat goes away, although I'll suspect we'll probably still blame the continentals for everything anyway.

At the end of day, the EU is just a bunch of democratic countries getting together to do things in common, on the back of a formidably efficient, large, and powerful single market.
Post edited at 15:12
1
krikoman - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I suspect a lot of the complaints are not really down to the EU structures, but down to the member states with archaic and creaking democratic systems, which put people in power who end up doing the exact opposite at EU level of what the electorate wants at home, and then blame the EU for it.

I suspect not even anything to do with the EU, the Pimlico Plumbers bloke was so confused, yet it was all to do with our own system, nothing to do with the EU. He's not alone in complaining about "our" system and blaming the EU for it.
1
neilh - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to krikoman:
In certain respects the EU is an abject failure. Greece is a prime example of where it had failed the population. The unemployed under 30's in places such as France, Spain and Italy are another example. Grenfell tower is an illustration of poor EU wide product standards( why was the cladding banned in Germany and other countries when there are EU wide safety rules and standards).germanys continued unchecked exporting prowess which appears to be rigged on the basis of cartels amongst for example the car manufacturers is another case.

Even as a remainer I have serious doubts about the EU.
Post edited at 16:35
4
krikoman - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Even as a remainer I have serious doubts about the EU.

Not really the point I was making.

I was trying to point out how people blame the EU from non-EU problems, the example I gave was about British law, and funding for industrial tribunals, none of the issues had anything at all to do with the EU. It was British law and the charging for tribunals was against British law, and yet it was "blamed" on the EU and our lack of sovereignty.

Many of the people I know that voted out, have the same misconceptions, but hardly any of their issues if you ask them what they don't like are anything to do with the EU.

I know it's not perfect and there are lots of issues, but at least people should know what they are voting either for or against, not some bullshit illusion or false information.
3
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Council of the EU? Never heard of it

The council does give individual States representative powers but it it remains the fact that even a major player such as the UK can often be outvoted or outmanouvred. And in reality much of the decision making is in bilateral meetings in smoke filled rooms usually dominated by the Germans. Being outvoted is of course part of the game but nevertheless the Counicil is hardly a solution to the democratic deficit. It is , of course, a relic of when the EU was still basically an intergovernmental organisation..

Your comment on th EP that " it is basically a parliament in waiting if they do go for ever closer political union." gives the game away.

The EU is dysfunctional because it is neither meat nor veg, neither an inter-governmental organisation or a federal State. The result is that most of its representative institutions are neutered by extra-democratic insitututions or processes.

As Macron and Merkel have made clear, the way is now clear for ever greater union and a federal state. Good luck to them!
4
Shani - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The council does give individual States representative powers but it it remains the fact that even a major player such as the UK can often be outvoted or outmanouvred [sic].

You mean like a DEMOCRACY!
2
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> You mean like a DEMOCRACY!

Yes, but you've chosen to ignore the caveat. Why would that be?

Are you under the illusion that the dubious machinations of the council endow the whole chabang with democratic legitimacy?
Post edited at 20:30
2
elsewhere on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
I prefer (as do most eu citizens?) the dubious machinations to be between sovereign democratic states rather than having a single sovereign democratic eu superstate.
Post edited at 20:44
1
Ramblin dave - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, but you've chosen to ignore the caveat.

The bit where they try to find mutually acceptable compromises and build consensus as well as just voting on stuff? You're right, that's just not British.
2
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

No the bit where the big players stiff the small ones behind their backs
2
Shani - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I was distracted by the arrogance of your claim that the UK was a major player. The UK is "two legs good and more equal" eh?
2
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> I was distracted by the arrogance of your claim that the UK was a major player. The UK is "two legs good and more equal" eh?

Are u of the opinion that the UK was not a major player in the EU?
Post edited at 22:17
Shani - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

1/28.
Democracy.
2
Postmanpat on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:

> 1/28.

> Democracy.

That, of course, is not how it works either theoretically or in practice. I am sure the hobbit's blog explains it somewhere.

Do you think Germany has equal power to Luxembourg or Latvia?

But whatever, are you of the opinion that the UK has not been a major player and regarded as such in the EU?
John Stainforth - on 04 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I too am beginning to think you just make things up, e.g., " in smoke filled rooms usually dominated by the Germans". My understanding is that smoking is no longer allowed in any meeting rooms in Europe.

Perhaps the question to ask is what are you smoking?!

1
Postmanpat on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:

> I too am beginning to think you just make things up, e.g., " in smoke filled rooms usually dominated by the Germans". My understanding is that smoking is no longer allowed in any meeting rooms in Europe.

>
Lol. Its a figure of speech John. The point is that much of policy gets made outside the official channels and "he who pays the piper calls the tune".ie. frau Merkel. I cant believe that any even questions that proposition

You never actually even replied to my reply to you which is a bit naughty.

1
MG - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No the bit where the big players stiff the small ones behind their backs

All those poor bullied countries like, err, Luxembourg and Ireland and Denmark? You now seem to be getting offended on the part of other countries whose populations are strongly pro EU, while claiming its undemocratic! Good job they've got you to tell them what to think.
1
Shani - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The point is that much of policy gets made outside the official channels and "he who pays the piper calls the tune"

This directly contradicts your points about the UK being both a major player, and being outmanoeuvred.
1
Shani - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:
> I too am beginning to think you just make things up, e.g., " in smoke filled rooms usually dominated by the Germans". My understanding is that smoking is no longer allowed in any meeting rooms in Europe.

Made me chuckle!

Many UKCers have said that the EU is a work in progress. It does need to evolve, and continues to do so. At least that need to change is recognised:

http://t.co/p69uMJO5Jj
Post edited at 08:54
2
Mike Stretford - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The council does give individual States representative powers but it it remains the fact that even a major player such as the UK can often be outvoted or outmanouvred.

That's true, the UK couldn't always get its own way...... as the Americans say, 'Do the math!'.

> And in reality much of the decision making is in bilateral meetings in smoke filled rooms usually dominated by the Germans.

That's what David Davis thought but it it is not the reality

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/day-one-brexit-talks-david-davis-learning-fast/

> Being outvoted is of course part of the game but nevertheless the Counicil is hardly a solution to the democratic deficit. It is , of course, a relic of when the EU was still basically an intergovernmental organisation..

> Your comment on th EP that " it is basically a parliament in waiting if they do go for ever closer political union." gives the game away.

There's no game to give away, they are open about it and have the institution in place to do it democratically. That institution could also be used presently to kick the Commision out if the EU populations decided they did not want it (an additional check independent of the national governments),

> The EU is dysfunctional because it is neither meat nor veg, neither an inter-governmental organisation or a federal State. The result is that most of its representative institutions are neutered by extra-democratic insitututions or processes.

> As Macron and Merkel have made clear, the way is now clear for ever greater union and a federal state. Good luck to them!

Yeah, they need to decide how far it's going to go, and who's in. As I said before, it will be the national populations who decide, not the Commission, or Merkel, or Macron.

What you can't do is use a national vote the change EU policy as a whole, as Greece found out and the UK probably will. The nations states can decide if they do or do not want to participate in the greater democracy, as Greece and the UK did respectively.
Post edited at 10:27
1
Postmanpat on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> This directly contradicts your points about the UK being both a major player, and being outmanoeuvred.

Only in your head. Do you or do you not brlieve that the UK was a major player in the EU?
Post edited at 11:16
tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But whatever, are you of the opinion that the UK has not been a major player and regarded as such in the EU?

Not only has the UK been a major player within the EU it was one of the main proponents of many of the EU policies which the Brexit lobby are using as reasons to leave the EU. For example, expanding eastwards towards Russia and most hypocritically of all reaching out to Turkey.

1
Jim C - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Not only has the UK been a major player within the EU it was one of the main proponents of many of the EU policies which the Brexit lobby are using as reasons to leave the EU. For example, expanding eastwards towards Russia and most hypocritically of all reaching out to Turkey.

I'm not sure the reaching out to Turkey was the Brexit Brigade, was it not David Cameron ?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/camerons-support-for-turkeys-eu-membership-should-worry-us-all...
Jim C - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
" in smoke filled rooms"

Is there not an EU directive against this, you highlight a shocking disregard for EU policy at the highest level ;)
https://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/smoke-free_environments_en
Post edited at 13:06
John Stainforth - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I apologise for not replying to "your reply to my reply". I can't find one; must be something that I missed very early in this very log thread.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> I'm not sure the reaching out to Turkey was the Brexit Brigade, was it not David Cameron ?

And Boris: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/boris-johnson-turkey?utm_term=.ggV7EXnzm#.ss2dvV5gp

"I believe our generation has a historic chance not just to reunite the two halves of the Roman Empire, but to build a bridge between the Islamic and the Christian worlds," is what he said in a documentary in 2006 when he was campaigning for Turkey to join the EU.

Then all kinds of scaremongering about Turkey and getting flooded with muslim immigrants if we stay in the EU during the Brexit referendum campaign and straight back to the UK will help Turkey get in the EU after he was made foreign Secretary in 2016.

Totally shameless.



2
Jim C - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well Boris is part Turkish.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Well Boris is part Turkish.

Well yes, which is presumably why he is pushing for Turkey to be allowed into the EU. Which is fair enough for someone who is part Turkish to want.

The shameless bit is to then use a scare story about immigration from Turkey in the event Turkey joins the EU (something the UK could veto) as a scare story to motivate the UK to leave the EU.
1
Big Ger - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Do you think Germany has equal power to Luxembourg or Latvia?

You have to laugh, the very idea!!

Germany alone (96 MEPs,) can out vote any UK (72 MEPs) interests

Germany and France (73 MEPs,) can run roughshod over any UK interest with their combined 169 MEps.

Germany, France, Italy (72 MEPs) Spain (55 MPs) and Poland (51 MEPs,) these 5 countries alone, have a majority vote over the remaining 23 countries.

Democracy? You're having a giraffe old mate.

10
Dr.S at work - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Just out of interest, how would you define democracy?
cb294 - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Precisely, but also Germany could be outvoted by Uk and France, etc. What do you want? Same number of MPs for Poland and Luxemburg regardless of the population of these countries?

In fact, the EU already recognizes that finding a compromise between the interests of different member countries and the interest of the overall population / parliamentary majority can be tricky.

Certain decisions in the council thus require qualified majorities of countries as well as overall populations 55% of states representing 65% of people)

CB.
MG - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:


> Democracy? You're having a giraffe old mate.

So there are more Germans and therefore more German MEPs than UK ones. And the combined population of France and Germany is even bigger so they have even more. And your problem with this is what exactly?

2
Ian W - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

And that assumes MEP's vote along national lines rather than political lines, which is rather naive......
1
Graeme Alderson on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So you don't think coalitions are democratic?
1
summo on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Wouldn't worry about Poland, they taken all the benefits of eu membership and as they become more prosperous they don't feel the need to play ball & contribute. Curious to see how the eu deals with them. The polish stance on accepting migrants etc.. isn't exactly great either. Whilst the UK is breaking new ground by leaving, will they punish or expel Poland... If they did that would be even more complex.
TobyA on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Germany, France, Italy (72 MEPs) Spain (55 MPs) and Poland (51 MEPs,) these 5 countries alone, have a majority vote over the remaining 23 countries.

I'm not sure if you understand that qualified majority voting only applies to certain aspects of EU decision making processes. Other issues remain intergovernmental requiring unanimity - that all governments (the European parliament has no real say on these issues) have to agree, and one country disagreeing can then veto the whole policy.


1
john arran - on 06 Aug 2017
In reply to TobyA:

It's also a little odd to be using that reasoning to demonstrate how the EU is less democratic that the UK, when the combined representatives of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland wouldn't come close to out-voting England alone.
1
Big Ger - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to cb294:

> Precisely, but also Germany could be outvoted by Uk and France, etc.

But are hardly likely to be, seeing as they want to be part of the Big EU superstate.

> In fact, the EU already recognizes that finding a compromise between the interests of different member countries and the interest of the overall population / parliamentary majority can be tricky.

Good, end the disastrous experiment then.


6
Big Ger - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> So there are more Germans and therefore more German MEPs than UK ones. And the combined population of France and Germany is even bigger so they have even more. And your problem with this is what exactly?

My problem is this, the UK should not be under a superstate which does not work in it's favour. We should not cede control over our country, our people and our future to the Germans and French.
9
Big Ger - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> And that assumes MEP's vote along national lines rather than political lines, which is rather naive......

Really? Or does it assume that MEP in France Germany etc, vote along EU lines rather than national ones.
Big Ger - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> So you don't think coalitions are democratic?

Reductio ad absurdum.
1
Big Ger - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to TobyA:

> I'm not sure if you understand that qualified majority voting only applies to certain aspects of EU decision making processes. Other issues remain intergovernmental requiring unanimity - that all governments (the European parliament has no real say on these issues) have to agree, and one country disagreeing can then veto the whole policy.

None of which detracts from the point that it is buy voting along EU lines, rather than national lines, which keep the MEPs troughs filled and their gravy dispensed.
4
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> None of which detracts from the point that it is buy voting along EU lines, rather than national lines, which keep the MEPs troughs filled and their gravy dispensed.

Are Labour and SNP MEPs supposed to vote the same way as Tory or UKIP MEPs on 'national lines' because they are all from the UK? Doesn't seem likely.
1
Big Ger - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Haven't got the hang of parliament have you?
8
MG - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger: So nothing to do with democracy but xenophobia. At least you are honest.

john arran - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

I'm very glad I'm not one of those people who sees every 'other' as a rival to be bettered, rather than a potential partner to work together with.
1
andyfallsoff - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So you accept that the issue isn't that the EU is undemocratic, but that within its democratic structures we might not always get our own way?

Seems extreme given that the UK has only been outvoted on 3% of the votes it has been subject to: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

cb294 - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

You have no clue at all about the EU. You do not understand how it works, and understand even less how much it is valued outside Brexitland, especially among the younger generation (and that includes countries like Poland and Greece).

The anti EU nutters a la FN or AfD are a loud and noisy minority in most countries on the continent, possibly a few more in the new member states that are nevertheless happy to take the EU funding and still have to learn that rights also generate duties.

Ideas like Frexit only ever were a thing in the UK press and have been blown way out of proportion.

Anyway, in any political organization from a village council upwards there will always be conflicts of interest that are derived from the membership structure. Establishing procedures for identifying compromises is a hallmark of a civilized political process. Rubbishing this idea simply disqualifies your comments, either as poor trolling or genuine stupidity.

CB
1
RomTheBear on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Lol. Its a figure of speech John. The point is that much of policy gets made outside the official channels and "he who pays the piper calls the tune".ie. frau Merkel. I cant believe that any even questions that proposition

Not only your posts reek of anti German sentiment, but the argument doesn't make sense anyway.
Not only Germany's been more often that not on the UK side of the EU, but if your criticism is that Germany had too much influence, they'll have even more influence when we leave. European policy will be set without us, to our disadvantage.

As for your criticism of decisions being taken in smoke filled room... well I suggest you look at home first because the situation is ten times worse.
Post edited at 08:47
1
Postmanpat on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:


> There's no game to give away, they are open about it and have the institution in place to do it democratically. That institution could also be used presently to kick the Commision out if the EU populations decided they did not want it (an additional check independent of the national governments),

> Yeah, they need to decide how far it's going to go, and who's in. As I said before, it will be the national populations who decide, not the Commission, or Merkel, or Macron.

>
So you appear to agree that the EU as it currently stands is dysfunctional and undemocratic because it is neither an intergovernmental organisation nor a federal State.
You also acknowledge that the direction of movement is toward to the latter, despite the denial of this by much of the remain campaign.

In the past the direction of travel has been maintained by subverting democracy-holding no referendums, demanding second referendums etc

To repeat Juncker's words:
"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

It is probably true that in the light of brexit and Le Pen et al's showing at recent elections that Brussels will think twice before railroading unwilling populations in future. But, if so, the EU is left with is existing democrat deficit: a set of of inappropriate institutions, a lack of accountability and a populace detached from the governmental process.

6
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Germany does have a huge influence, but not because of its MEPs. It's economy is huge 20%+ of the EU' s GDP, large population, stable strong economy, large volume of eu exports, stable politically with a calm but influential leader, centrally located within Europe so shared borders with other nations, a generally rule loving disciplined work force, a population that's
perhaps a little less selfish and sees the benefits of working collectively for the good of the nation, good education and training ....

Everything is stacked in its favour, they are the financial glue that holds the euro together. If any other country exited the euro could probably survive, the euro would collapse if Germany even hinted that it might exit.
Post edited at 09:25
TobyA on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> None of which detracts from the point that it is buy voting along EU lines, rather than national lines,

What are "EU lines"? There is no EU line at this point - it is still being decided on - that's the whole point! You are also missing the main point that in major areas of EU policy making the EP remains marginal because of the unanimity system.

I like the sound of "Troughs filled with gravy" but it might be a metaphor too far, but remind me, all those UKIP MEPs who have been done over the years for cheating on their already generous allowances - did they get all that money for voting along EU lines?
andyfallsoff - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So you appear to agree that the EU as it currently stands is dysfunctional and undemocratic because it is neither an intergovernmental organisation nor a federal State.

Why is it dysfunctional just because (if) it doesn't meet your idea of one of those two things?


Shani - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So you appear to agree that the EU as it currently stands is dysfunctional and undemocratic

Not unlike the BREXIT process itself - but without the economic overhead.

> You also acknowledge that the direction of movement is toward to the latter, despite the denial of this by much of the remain campaign.

The EU project is a work in progress. The UK is not unique in its concerns about loss of soverignty and a democratic deficit, both between countries and within them. Let's steer the project accordingly.
John2 - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:

Actually a number of reasonably respectable commentators suggested a few years ago that the best way to solve the euro crisis would be for Germany to quit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11752954/Why-its-time-for-Germany-to-leave-the-eurozone...

The German economy is out of step with the economies of the other euro nations - it makes a lot of sense.
1
Postmanpat on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:

> Everything is stacked in its favour, they are the financial glue that holds the euro together. If any other country exited the euro could probably survive, the euro would collapse if Germany even hinted that it might exit.
>
I don't actually think that it is a role they particularly want but they've been reluctantly forced into it by circumstances. This is partly why they are unhappy to see the UK leave and are prepared to humour the great power delusions of the French ( )

2
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to John2:

> The German economy is out of step with the economies of the other euro nations - it makes a lot of sense.

I agree. Germany can only prop up the euro whilst its economy holds out.
1
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I don't actually think that it is a role they particularly want but they've been reluctantly forced into it by circumstances. This is partly why they are unhappy to see the UK leave and are prepared to humour the great power delusions of the French ( )

Of course. But when they turned a blind eye to all the nations cooking the Euro entry books, it should not take a genius to predict the future.
1
RomTheBear on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> So you appear to agree that the EU as it currently stands is dysfunctional and undemocratic because it is neither an intergovernmental organisation nor a federal State.

So it's dysfunctional just because it doesn't fit those two boxes ?
That's just stupid, just look at the UK, it's not a federal state nor an intergovernmental organisation either. There is not just two models to chose from.

> You also acknowledge that the direction of movement is toward to the latter, despite the denial of this by much of the remain campaign.

The direction of movement if whatever all members unanimously agrees to.
The irony is, with the UK leaving, we have now no control whatsoever.

> In the past the direction of travel has been maintained by subverting democracy-holding no referendums, demanding second referendums etc

This is up to the member state as to whether they want to have referendums or not, they are free to do what they want.
As for second referendums, what's the problem with that ? If people reject what's on offer, you make changes to address the concerns, and then ask again. What is so terribly undemocratic about this ? I
Post edited at 10:22
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> The EU project is a work in progress.

That would imply that it's an organisation that changes and evolves. The eu seems to more set in its ways, with a permanent march towards total integration of all types.
Post edited at 10:19
andyfallsoff - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:

There is something of an irony in that you criticise the EU for not changing, citing its continual progress as the reason!
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> There is something of an irony in that you criticise the EU for not changing, citing its continual progress as the reason!

Its unblinking progress toward total unity, that's not exactly change or reform. That's single track, single goal..
RomTheBear on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:
> Its unblinking progress toward total unity, that's not exactly change or reform. That's single track, single goal..

Not only it's evidently wrong, given that every change to the EU needs all countries to agree, but even if you were right and this utopia would be possible, what would be so wrong about pursuing European about unity ?
Post edited at 10:53
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> what would be so wrong about pursuing European about unity ?

Nothing wrong with the pursuit of it, but the idea that you can merge 27 countries with different economies, political systems, geography, culture, history. . in the time scale of a one life time. It will take a few centuries, or perhaps it's simply not possible because of tribal human nature.

Instead we see them trying to merge and standardise everything within a couple of decades. It's little wonder it isn't working.
6
Shani - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:

> Nothing wrong with the pursuit of it, but the idea that you can merge 27 countries with different economies, political systems, geography, culture, history. . in the time scale of a one life time. It will take a few centuries, or perhaps it's simply not possible because of tribal human nature.

> Instead we see them trying to merge and standardise everything within a couple of decades. It's little wonder it isn't working.

Ironically this is what TRADE agreements try to do - and you are advocating a BREXIT that involves individual trade negotiations with tens of countries in the space of 2 years (of which 1 year reamains). Brilliant.
RomTheBear on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:
> Nothing wrong with the pursuit of it, but the idea that you can merge 27 countries with different economies, political systems, geography, culture, history. . in the time scale of a one life time. It will take a few centuries, or perhaps it's simply not possible because of tribal human nature.

You don't need to erase differences to achieve unity.
It's perfectly possible to achieve unity in diversity, unless indeed we pander to our tribal nature, like you can't stop doing.

> Instead we see them trying to merge and standardise everything within a couple of decades. It's little wonder it isn't working.

Actually it's been working pretty extraordinarily well. we have peace and relative economic prosperity.
Is it perfect ? No, it can never be, it will always involve give and take - and it can go only at the pace we chose. Is it better than the old ways of exerting power and sovereignty through threats and coercion ? Yes, it is many times better.
Post edited at 11:16
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to Shani:
> Ironically this is what TRADE agreements try to do - and you are advocating a BREXIT that involves individual trade negotiations with tens of countries in the space of 2 years (of which 1 year reamains). Brilliant.

I'm advocating? Quote me...

Keep the current trade and free movement agreements. Bin CAP, Fisheries, Strasbourg etc.. if I'd be a happy man. (I'm happy anyway, but you get my drift)
Post edited at 11:30
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You don't need to erase differences to achieve unity.

But you have to. Currency union can't work unless everything else is merged.

> It's perfectly possible to achieve unity in diversity, unless indeed we pander to our tribal nature, like you can't stop doing.

Is the EU not just a bigger tribe? Are you too insecure in your smaller more individual and unique tribe, that nations must conform to the new EU tribal ideals?

> Actually it's been working pretty extraordinarily well. we have peace and relative economic prosperity.

It's only working because nothing has happened to test it. More testing times now though and it's hardly excelling.

> . Is it better than the old ways of exerting power and sovereignty through threats and coercion ?

You mean like threatening Poland now, or bribing Turkey... the eu plays the same games, you just see it as being different because it's not individual nations.
4
MG - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:

> But you have to. Currency union can't work unless everything else is merged.

Rubbish. The USA, India, Canada, even Switzerland show otherwise.
summo on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to MG:

> Rubbish. The USA, India, Canada, even Switzerland show otherwise.

None of those use the euro though?

Switzerland had to unpeg it's currency from the euro recently, caused a drop in value. Denmark modified their krona too.
1
MG - on 07 Aug 2017
In reply to summo:

> None of those use the euro though?

So what? You claimed "But you have to. [erase all differenes] Currency union can't work unless everything else is merged. " All those countries clear show it can.

1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.