/ Sharp slowdown in economy following Brexit...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 29 Nov 2017
18
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Timmd:

And that seems to be based on the assumption that we'll have a trade deal agreed with the EU, so considerably less negative than might turn out to be the case.

Could somebody please point me to a credible reason to think that this forecast, or worse, isn't going to come true.
11
jkarran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Sure. Forecasts like clocks are always wrong
jk
Post edited at 14:19
4
GrahamD - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Ian Duncan Who was on the Radio this morning still going on about putting our money back on shore as though the amount of money available was a fixed value, rather than being tied up with GDP.
1
jkarran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Timmd:

The winning continues http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-europol-michel-barnier-speech-kicked-out-europe...

That's us out of Europol now too despite assurances.
jk
4
Sir Chasm - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

But why can't we stay in the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation after we leave the eu? It's so unfair, how dare they punish us?
1
gallam1 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

From the comments section of that article, here is what the EU could have said:

"The security of the people of Europe is more important than point scoring between the two establishments, so we will come to an agreement on how the UK can stay in Europol as it is mutually beneficial"

Does it look to you like the EU is representing the interests of the people of Europe in this matter?
5
Sir Chasm - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Dear golf club secretary, i realise I have resigned from the golf club but would you mind awfully sending round your greenskeeper to sort out the moles in my garden?
13
alanblyth - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> That's us out of Europol now too despite assurances.

I would guess that a "leaver" would embrace this taking back of sovereignty...
3
jkarran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Are you surprised what you were repeatedly and desperately warned would happen is happening?
jk
7
ian caton on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Unfortunately this is probably the biggest bargaining chip the UK has.

According to the Economist, because of the size of the UK economy and the interconnected nature of the modern trade. If the UK tanks it is highly likely to take the world economy with it.

Hopefully they will save us from ourselves.
4
Spartacus on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Dear golf club secretary, i realise I have resigned from the golf club but would you mind awfully sending round your greenskeeper to sort out the moles in my garden?

Dear ex club member.
We appreciate you have left the club but you understand you will continue to pay subs for at least the next decade at the enhanced higher rate.
You will remember our ‘hotel California’ clause which you probably never agreed to.
10
Rob Exile Ward on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

'Does it look to you like the EU is representing the interests of the people of Europe in this matter?'

Absolutely, it looks the 27 nations in the EU are representing their interests over the interests of a single nation that has chosen to leave.

And can you imagine participating in an important collaborative organisation with legal, financial, and border implications where 27 of the participants are fully joined up and little Johnny-out-of-step is totally disconnected? Every financial implication, every legal nuance, no common court to act as arbiter...
6
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Dear golf club secretary,
I appreciate that I have, technically, committed to long-term ten year membership. However, this was at a time when I fully expected to have plenty of time to play. However, it now seems that my husband objects to our joint membership, wants me to sit at home more in the hope we'll find other interesting things to do, and has insisted I cancel. I think it's fair that I pay the rest of this month's fees but not for any of the new clubhouse that we together all agreed needs to be built. I look forward to continuing our excellent relationship and I'm sure you won't mind if I continue to enjoy similar privileges as if we hadn't chosen to cancel.
7
gallam1 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

OK, so just to be clear, you think that losing access to GCHQ's electronic intelligence gathering is a benefit to the people of Europe?

Are you there John Arran? Given that you live in France, how do you feel about this?

If it is not blatantly obvious to everyone already, the EU is not conducting these negotiations in the interests of the people of Europe. It is conducting them purely on the basis of the interests of the EU institutions themselves, and the people in charge of them. If you are not happy about that as an individual living in France, well, hard luck, because you cannot even cast a ballot to remove them.
9
Shani - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
> Could somebody please point me to a credible reason to think that this forecast, or worse, isn't going to come true.

Simples! https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

"It’s 24 June, 2025, and Britain is marking its annual Independence Day celebration. As the fireworks stream through the summer sky, still not quite dark, we wonder why it took us so long to leave. The years that followed the 2016 referendum didn’t just reinvigorate our economy, our democracy and our liberty. They improved relations with our neighbours.

The United Kingdom is now the region’s foremost knowledge-based economy. We lead the world in biotech, law, education, the audio-visual sector, financial services and software. New industries, from 3D printing to driverless cars, have sprung up around the country. Older industries, too, have revived as energy prices have fallen back to global levels: steel, cement, paper, plastics and ceramics producers have become competitive again.

[continues ad nauseum....] "
Post edited at 16:32
4
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> OK, so just to be clear, you think that losing access to GCHQ's electronic intelligence gathering is a benefit to the people of Europe?

> Are you there John Arran? Given that you live in France, how do you feel about this?

I feel absolutely shit about the whole sorry affair. Why wouldn't I? But I recognise that the EU's primary responsibility is to its members. I would hope that such security cooperation would be able to continue, and I suspect it will, but I would not see that as a given, to be taken for granted by a UK intent on extracting the best 'deal' possible from its relationship with the EU. Rather it's something that should be discussed and agreed in the same way as maybe discussing security cooperation with Serbia or one of the EU's other non-member neighbours, admittedly with a bit of a head start.

Can you remind me who got us into this mess before starting to point fingers of blame for it being difficult?
7
Ciro - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> OK, so just to be clear, you think that losing access to GCHQ's electronic intelligence gathering is a benefit to the people of Europe?

> Are you there John Arran? Given that you live in France, how do you feel about this?

> If it is not blatantly obvious to everyone already, the EU is not conducting these negotiations in the interests of the people of Europe. It is conducting them purely on the basis of the interests of the EU institutions themselves, and the people in charge of them. If you are not happy about that as an individual living in France, well, hard luck, because you cannot even cast a ballot to remove them.

There is lots of third party intelligence gathering that is of benefit to the EU, which is why they sign strategic and operational agreements with countries outside the EU - you can read more about them here:

https://www.europol.europa.eu/partners-agreements

I'm sure there are valid operational and logistical reasons why none of these third party countries have been made members of Europol, and those same operational and logistical reasons will apply with regard to why, upon leaving the EU, we will no longer be accepted as members and will instead have to arrange a third party agreement.

It's quite a leap to assume that treating us like any other third party country, after we decide to become just another third party country, is against the interests of the people of Europe.
4
ian caton on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani

His forcast for the first 12 months after the vote is completely wrong so that is probably true for the rest of it.

Ludicrous.
jkarran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

That link really deserves a "Warning: Not Satire!" banner
jk
Shani - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Yup, hashtag GOBSHITE
andyfallsoff - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Lusk:

You deleted your post before I could query it!
Lusk - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:



I was slightly hasty with the submit button.
The %age falls I posted were for 2018-2019 projections, not the complete picture I was feebly trying to portray!

Can't be bothered now.
Ridge - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> That link really deserves a "Warning: Not Satire!" banner

> jk

“Terms were agreed easily enough. Britain withdrew from the EU’s political structures and institutions, but kept its tariff-free arrangements in place. The rights of EU nationals living in the UK were confirmed, and various reciprocal deals on healthcare and the like remained. “

I don't know what drugs he's on, but it's a quality product.
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

> And that seems to be based on the assumption that we'll have a trade deal agreed with the EU, so considerably less negative than might turn out to be the case.

> Could somebody please point me to a credible reason to think that this forecast, or worse, isn't going to come true.

Well so far I've had 6 dislikes for this post. The first sentence is a simple statement of fact, so I don't see how it could reasonably be objected to. The second has received not one suggestion from the 6 people who presumably thought it was somehow worthy of a dislike. Is this really the level of reasoning of Brexit supporters? Please prove me wrong; I'd hate to think it really was as simple as that!
1
Stone Idle - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Forecasts are just that and they tend to start with a guiding premise. It looks as tho here the guru was a Remainer and so predicted gloom. In fact a look at over 20predictions in the past 10 years shows only one to be accurate - about the last crash. And the guy was howled down by his contemporaries. Thus this pr ediction may be correct but I suspect that much depends on how we approach Brexit. Embrace opportunities and it will go well. Succumb to the doom mongers and we are down the pan.

On the intel and policing front, guess who has the best? Correct if you said UK. Cut us off and we lose. Europe has much more to lose. Surely cooperation, which needs no super state, is the way forward.
6
Wanderer100 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Maybe people disliked your post because you're a miserable doom mongering tw*t and they're sick of hearing how bad life will be in the UK post Brexit and how great the EU is and what a wonderful set of institutions they are and what wonderful people Barnier and Von Rumpey and Jean Claude Van Damme are.


But I could be wrong.
24
deepsoup - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
> Well so far I've had 6 dislikes for this post.

You're assuming that the dislikes are from people objecting to your post, but perhaps they are from people who dislike the fact you are making a simple statement of. (I certainly do, though I didn't 'dislike' your post.)

You should really be ignoring the dislikes though.
Shani - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Maybe people disliked your post because you're a miserable doom mongering tw*t and they're sick of hearing how bad life will be in the UK post Brexit and how great the EU is and what a wonderful set of institutions they are and what wonderful people Barnier and Von Rumpey and Jean Claude Van Damme are.

Many of the principle Brexiteers have spoken of a post-Brexit 'bonfire of red-tape'; you know, the ripping up of environmental and employment laws (sick pay, severance pay, holiday pay, maternity & paternity rights etc...), that has been driven by EU legislation.

Your straw man (what wonderful people Barnier and Von Rumpey and Jean Claude Van Damme are), is just that. Most of us of whichever side will rue the loss of these laws post-Brexit.

2
Wanderer100 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:
To be fair I think Jean Claude Van Damme does a wicked Coors advert.
Post edited at 21:02
1
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Maybe people disliked your post because you're a miserable doom mongering tw*t and they're sick of hearing how bad life will be in the UK post Brexit and how great the EU is and what a wonderful set of institutions they are and what wonderful people Barnier and Von Rumpey and Jean Claude Van Damme are.

> But I could be wrong.

How about, instead of moaning about hearing uncomfortably negative predictions, you put forward a reasoned alternative for me to believe in? You may have noticed that's pretty much all I've been asking for for days now and I've so far drawn a complete blank. Or is that too much to ask?
1
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to deepsoup:

> You're assuming that the dislikes are from people objecting to your post, but perhaps they are from people who dislike the fact you are making a simple statement of. (I certainly do, though I didn't 'dislike' your post.)

> You should really be ignoring the dislikes though.

I usually don't mind the occasional dislike - even quite a few when it's clear there are different reasonable stances on a topic. What I really find difficult is that I've been trying to understand the other side of the Brexit prosperity argument for days now and I've got precisely nowhere, despite multiple requests for arguments I could seriously consider and balance against the ones I've heard in favour of remain. How are we supposed to be more understanding of Brexiters' position if nobody can be persuaded to even articulate it?
3
thomasadixon - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
If you want to look at the arguments for leaving the EU just look up the old threads, it's all been done - before the referendum. Why bother doing it again?
Post edited at 21:17
12
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Maybe because I don't recall anything convincing and it could take a very long time to wade through limitless threads. Help me out here - at least point me to where there's a reasonable economic or even social case been made.
3
Wanderer100 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

It's not for me to convince you either way. You've clearly taken your position and will do your best to talk down Brexit at any opportunity.

I have consistently stated I voted remain and couldn't believe the result when reported the following morning. However, I have taken the view that Britain still has a lot to offer the world and will survive, maybe even prosper in the future. I don't think the EU has a long term future in it current form and it's often stated ambition of ever greater union will eventuallt prove to be its undoing.
But wtfdik?
5
john arran - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> It's not for me to convince you either way. You've clearly taken your position and will do your best to talk down Brexit at any opportunity.


It's true that I've formed an opinion based on the reasoned argument and expert reports of expected outcomes, yes. But I'm a rational person wanting the other side of the story, if one exists. I'm sorry if wanting information on which to form a balanced judgement seems like an unreasonable request.
2
Shani - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> I have taken the view that Britain still has a lot to offer the world and will survive, maybe even prosper in the future. I don't think the EU has a long term future in it current form and it's often stated ambition of ever greater union will eventuallt prove to be its undoing.

There are plenty of nations of whom a significant proportion will derive a certain schadenfreud from Britain's situation, and Adam Smith's Invisible Hand ensures hard deals will be driven to exploit us (Russia, France, China, Ireland, Australia, US, several ME nations, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, several African states etc...). They won't necessarily want us ruined, just humbled somewhat (think of how many feel when we beat a bette noir nation in football/rugby/cricket). And the opportunity of poaching staff and business will be strongly appealing.

But here's a thing; will NI survive the negotiations? if we suffer economically, what are the chances of Scotland dissolving the Union? And if NI and Scotland split, will England seek independence from the economic drain that is Wales? Certainly the loss of EU money to Wales, Cornwall and the North is going to be acutely felt.
1
Wanderer100 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

>

> Your straw man (what wonderful people Barnier and Von Rumpey and Jean Claude Van Damme are), is just that. Most of us of whichever side will rue the loss of these laws post-Brexit.

You are making massive assumptions about what laws will be in place after Brexit. Isn't the great repeal bill just a transfer of EU law into UK law and if so then the laws will remain unchanged.
3
Wanderer100 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

> It's true that I've formed an opinion based on the reasoned argument and expert reports of expected outcomes, yes. But I'm a rational person wanting the other side of the story, if one exists. I'm sorry if wanting information on which to form a balanced judgement seems like an unreasonable request.

The truth is there is no way to accurately judge the outcome until after Brexit happens and only then after a period of 2 or 3 years. Anything forecast now is pure speculation.
4
Big Ger - on 29 Nov 2017
Dr.S at work - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> The truth is there is no way to accurately judge the outcome until after Brexit happens and only then after a period of 2 or 3 years. Anything forecast now is pure speculation.

More like 20-30
Shani - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> You are making massive assumptions about what laws will be in place after Brexit. Isn't the great repeal bill just a transfer of EU law into UK law and if so then the laws will remain unchanged.

Aha - you think Theresa May is driving brexit policy position! NOW I understand.
1
Wanderer100 - on 29 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Aha - you think Theresa May is driving brexit policy position! NOW I understand.

But do you understand?

Objectives:

A white paper published on 30 March 2017 stated three objectives for the proposed Repeal Bill:

Repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on the day the UK leaves the EU.
Copy up to 20,000 pieces of EU law onto the UK statute book by:[11]converting directly-applicable EU law (EU regulations) into UK law.
preserving all laws that have been made in the UK to implement EU obligations.
continuing to make available in UK law the rights in EU treaties, that are relied on directly in court by an individual.
giving ECJ/CJEU case law the same binding, or precedent, status in UK courts as Supreme Court decisions (and also as Scottish High Court decisions, in terms of Scottish criminal law).
ending the supremacy of EU law in the United Kingdom.[12]:ch.2Create powers to make secondary legislation[12]:ch.3 under statutory instrument procedures (informally called Henry VIII clauses).

1
David Martin - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> If it is not blatantly obvious to everyone already, the EU is not conducting these negotiations in the interests of the people of Europe.

Europe is best served by remaining strong, with no further disintegration. That is best secured by reinforcing the benefits of being "in" and making the costs high for those who decide to be "out". They are perfectly entitled to operate in such self-interest, especially as the self-interest here best supports the group interest. It is exactly the same self-interest that we deploy when claiming we will get great new trade deals when we leave the union. The institutions themselves are every bit the EU as the member states.
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

You've just identified the "Brexiters paradox" - it is repeatedly argued that the repeal bill won't change laws, because people object that they don't want them to be changed; yet wanting freedom to change laws because they criticise the EU's rules is one of the stated aims of th project!

If they didn't want to change anything, would we really be going through this?
1
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
He's responded to the idea that we're going to strip all employment rights, etc as soon as we leave. We currently have better rights than many EU countries, we go above EU requirements when we could - right now if we chose - change this. We don't. The idea that we're going to just because we're leaving the EU is wrong.

That doesn't mean we're not going to change anything in the future, and of course the major change which is happening is that we will be free to do so without asking the EU if it's okay first.

There's only a paradox if you think that there are two options - no change or all change.
Post edited at 09:18
4
john arran - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> The truth is there is no way to accurately judge the weather until after the storm hits.

Yes, I see that.
jkarran - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> ...We currently have better rights than many EU countries, we go above EU requirements when we could - right now if we chose - change this. We don't. The idea that we're going to just because we're leaving the EU is wrong.

Yet it's the avowed aim of several leading government and backbench conservative brexiteers plus of course the people who really matter, party funders. Accepting that you'd have to admit there's a chance laissaiz faire free marketeers gain control of the conservative government and get to implement these policies. Doing so will be especially easy to squeeze through parliament (and therefore past the public) in the aftermath of our departure if as seems quite likely we're facing a 'crisis'. You know the drill by now, how it happens: "short term emergency measures", "belt tightening for all", "the rich have most to lose" "efficiency and competitiveness", "all in it together" "blitz spirit", "no magic money tree for the inefficient failing NHS", "scroungers don't deserve support when strivers are suffering" etc etc.

> That doesn't mean we're not going to change anything in the future, and of course the major change which is happening is that we will be free to do so without asking the EU if it's okay first.

Bravo. So what do *you* want to change, what was worth all this risk?

> There's only a paradox if you think that there are two options - no change or all change.

So what do *you* want to tinker with and to what end?
jk
Post edited at 09:44
1
Jim C - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Dear golf club secretary, i realise I have resigned from the golf club but would you mind awfully sending round your greenskeeper to sort out the moles in my garden?

Or
Dear golf club secretary , when I was a member of the club living in a adjacent property, we has a mutual agreement to share the maintainence the fence around the property, I will be happy to continue that agreement.

( ps if any golf balls of yours does get into my garden, I will of course be happy to pass them over to you for you to dispose of under your rules.)
Sir Chasm - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Dear soon to be ex-member, thank you for your kind offer but the fence is for the security of golf club members, if you would like the fence to also surround your property you can apply to join the club.

P.s. if you find any of our golf balls you are welcome to keep them.
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> He's responded to the idea that we're going to strip all employment rights, etc as soon as we leave. We currently have better rights than many EU countries, we go above EU requirements when we could - right now if we chose - change this. We don't. The idea that we're going to just because we're leaving the EU is wrong.

The idea that significant changes would be made when we leave is one that has been floated by the Brexiters - Shani upthread mentions the "bonfire of regulations" that has been mooted by some Brexiters.

> That doesn't mean we're not going to change anything in the future, and of course the major change which is happening is that we will be free to do so without asking the EU if it's okay first.

So what comfort is it to those who don't want us to abandon the EU's standards to be told we may change things later? The EU standards in most areas work as a floor, not a cap, so the changes you identify are likely to be removal of protections...

> There's only a paradox if you think that there are two options - no change or all change.

No - the paradox (actually, more like dishonesty) is to try and reassure people that things will be the same whilst undertaking a massive campaign for change.
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Yet it's the avowed aim of several leading government and backbench conservative brexiteers plus of course the people who really matter, party funders.

The people who really matter are those in charge, which means all Tory MPs at the moment given their position. Evidence that the conservative party are planning to scrap maternity leave, for example? Or even reduce it to EU standards?

> Bravo. So what do *you* want to change, what was worth all this risk?

Making the country democratic is worth it by itself. Aside from that, immigration's an obvious one.
4
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> So what comfort is it to those who don't want us to abandon the EU's standards to be told we may change things later? The EU standards in most areas work as a floor, not a cap, so the changes you identify are likely to be removal of protections...

Sorry, what?

> No - the paradox (actually, more like dishonesty) is to try and reassure people that things will be the same whilst undertaking a massive campaign for change.

The black and white nature of the argument is daft, only specific issues can be discussed with any meaning. If you're concerned about maternity leave then the response is that our standards are currently higher and that there is no intention to reduce these. We cannot, no one can, state that nothing will ever change. If you're concerned about "rights" then you're waffling and nothing will convince you.
3
jkarran - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Evidence that the conservative party are planning to scrap maternity leave, for example?

None but I'd bet the shirt off my back it's in the sights of a few free marketeers. After all, what's free about a labour market in which you can't hire and fire anyone at any time for any reason including inconveniently needing time off to have a child? Will they go that far, will parliament stand for it? Probably not but 18 months ago that would have been a rock solid 'no'.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/brexiteers-who-hope-article-50-will-spark-bon...

> Making the country democratic is worth it by itself. Aside from that, immigration's an obvious one.

So why have you hitched your wagon to brexit rather than electoral reform?

What specifically would you do about 'immigration', how and why?
jk
Post edited at 10:30
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> None but I'd bet the shirt off my back it's in the sights of a few free marketeers.

So what? They can't make changes.

> So why have you hitched your wagon to brexit rather than electoral reform?

Because the EU is not democratic, whereas the UK is.

> What specifically would you do about 'immigration', how and why?

Reduce it by not giving everyone in the EU the right to move here to work. We've had the argument as to why.
6
jkarran - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So what? They can't make changes.

Yet. They were light years from power before you voted for this.

> Because the EU is not democratic, whereas the UK is.

I disagree, the EU clearly is democratic as is the UK. The Eu's democratic structure is probably as simple, robust and representative as is achievable given its nature. The UK's isn't.

> Reduce it by not giving everyone in the EU the right to move here to work. We've had the argument as to why.

*If* it could be reduced without doing significant economic harm by tightening restrictions why didn't the government act to do so previously when they clearly could have, what makes you think they could or indeed should now?
jk
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Sorry, what?

The EU in most cases sets minimum standards, so we already have freedom to go beyond these if we choose. Therefore the only flexibility we gain by leaving is to weaken the standards. That isn't what I want (and is also the very point that has been expressed as a concern above, to which the response was "but the repeal bill says we copy EU regs").

That isn't much comfort to those of us who don't want to take a path where the UK's standards are less stringent than the EU's, which logically must be some Brexiters or we wouldn't be damaging our economy in order to get to a place where we can do so.

> The black and white nature of the argument is daft, only specific issues can be discussed with any meaning.

Why can't we have a discussion based on principles? You are trying to do so above by referring to "making the UK democratic".

> If you're concerned about maternity leave then the response is that our standards are currently higher and that there is no intention to reduce these. We cannot, no one can, state that nothing will ever change.

I accept that, but I haven't argued that anyone should give that protection.

What I am arguing is that the UK's desire to be free from EU legislation which tends to set minimum standards (which I'd quite like to apply) should logically be evidence that the UK wants to be able to depart from EU standards where it sees fit - not something I want, and also means we have to accept other downsides (the more we reject EU rules the looser an economic connection we can have with the EU, which is likely to be an economic cost) if we do so.

> If you're concerned about "rights" then you're waffling and nothing will convince you.

It's telling that you think the concept of "rights" is waffle. I'd like to be pointed to some likely benefits of leaving the EU to balance against what we are losing (which, yes, includes rights, but since rights can be tangible - e.g. the right to live and work across the EU - I don't see why that can't be regarded). But no brexiter has a convincing argument about any tangible benefits.
Post edited at 11:21
1
Shani - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> If you can't identify what you want to do with your newfound sovereignty, why do you think you need it?

+1
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Because the EU is not democratic, whereas the UK is.

The black and white nature of the argument is daft, only specific issues can be discussed with any meaning.

....plus it isn't accurate.
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> That isn't much comfort to those of us who don't want to take a path where the UK's standards are less stringent than the EU's, which logically must be some Brexiters or we wouldn't be damaging our economy in order to get to a place where we can do so. Why can't we have a discussion based on principles? You are trying to do so above by referring to "making the UK democratic".

Rights are a collection of principles which conflict. The obvious one being privacy vs freedom of speech, and for that see all the ECj and ECHR cases on the issue. You can't have a discussion about abstract rights being reduced because increasing one reduces the other. Democracy isn't a collection of principles.

> I accept that, but I haven't argued that anyone should give that protection.

So what are you arguing? That the EU as an instution is better at knowing the right changes to make? If so, why do you think that?

> What I am arguing is that the UK's desire to be free from EU legislation which tends to set minimum standards (which I'd quite like to apply) should logically be evidence that the UK wants to be able to depart from EU standards where it sees fit - not something I want, and also means we have to accept other downsides (the more we reject EU rules the looser an economic connection we can have with the EU, which is likely to be an economic cost) if we do so.

Don't disagree. But any discussion of rights can only be in the specific.

> It's telling that you think the concept of "rights" is waffle. I'd like to be pointed to some likely benefits of leaving the EU to balance against what we are losing (which, yes, includes rights, but since rights can be tangible - e.g. the right to live and work across the EU - I don't see why that can't be regarded). But no brexiter has a convincing argument about any tangible benefits.

The concept of rights is fine. Rights as a whole increasing or decreasing is waffle. If we provide absolute freedom of speech then that right increases, privacy/right to confidence decreases accordingly.
1
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

He cut that line, presumably as I've pointed to a specific issue above!
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

The long discussion on whether the EU is democratic has been had. It's a specific issue. Can't be bothered to do it again.
2
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> *If* it could be reduced without doing significant economic harm by tightening restrictions why didn't the government act to do so previously when they clearly could have, what makes you think they could or indeed should now?

Have you heard of free movement?
1
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Rights are a collection of principles which conflict. The obvious one being privacy vs freedom of speech, and for that see all the ECj and ECHR cases on the issue. You can't have a discussion about abstract rights being reduced because increasing one reduces the other.

So you would argue that, if we didn't have any concept of human rights, say, we'd still have in aggregate the same amount of rights? I'm not sure that is correct, because there would be nothing protecting many facets currently protected. The only counteracting right we would gain would be the "right" to kill, torture, take others' property... When we identify and protect certain things we do give people rights that can be enforced. In some cases these may conflict with other rights, but not necessarily, and this is why human rights are divided into qualified and unqualified rights.

However, this is going off topic slightly, because the concern is not solely around broad brush rights (although the omission of the EU charter of fundamental rights does give rise to some concern in this regard) but also around specific rights which arise from EU law - e.g. working time directive, paid holiday rights, maternity, clean beaches, education under Erasmus, food standards, air quality, tobacco advertising, free movement around the EU, restrictions on cross-EU charging on certain things (e.g. telecoms).

> Democracy isn't a collection of principles.

Isn't it? Because it also isn't a single thing that is clearly defined; why is it that the UK is democratic in your eyes (despite having a voting system that rewards different parties differently, unelected lawmakers...

> So what are you arguing? That the EU as an instution is better at knowing the right changes to make? If so, why do you think that?

I'm saying that (a) being part of a bigger group moderates the acceptable standards and prevents us as a country from being in a position that is worse than our peers in terms of the protections / regulations detailed above. (B) As well as that, there are the trade and economic benefits from having the same rules on things as our neighbours (that's what allows the single market to operate). And (c) given the stated aim of many of those who want to leave the EU is to remove EU legislation, by leaving we at least increase the risk that they will get the radical deregulation that they want.

> Don't disagree. But any discussion of rights can only be in the specific.

Why?

> The concept of rights is fine. Rights as a whole increasing or decreasing is waffle. If we provide absolute freedom of speech then that right increases, privacy/right to confidence decreases accordingly.

See above - not all rights have a directly opposite right that is diminished if that right is protected.
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The long discussion on whether the EU is democratic has been had. It's a specific issue. Can't be bothered to do it again.

Fine. Don't present it as an argument you won, then, given you're very aware of the counter-arguments.
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> He cut that line, presumably as I've pointed to a specific issue above!

No - I cut it because I realised your example was the amorphous ideal of "democracy" not the amorphous ideal of "sovereignty".
jkarran - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Yes. Why if the cause of our malaise was immigrants did the government never manage to get close to their silly self defeating target even for non-EU migrants which they had complete control of and still do?

Perhaps because they knew it was silly and would be self defeating. Those same people are still in power. The woman who 'failed' year in year out to slash migration as she'd promised is now PM.
jk
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> So you would argue that, if we didn't have any concept of human rights, say, we'd still have in aggregate the same amount of rights? I'm not sure that is correct, because there would be nothing protecting many facets currently protected. The only counteracting right we would gain would be the "right" to kill, torture, take others' property... When we identify and protect certain things we do give people rights that can be enforced. In some cases these may conflict with other rights, but not necessarily, and this is why human rights are divided into qualified and unqualified rights.

Well, yes. Human rights are largely civil rights renamed. We already have the "right" to kill in certain circumstances - e.g. self defense. Human rights in their current legal form are new here, but the mechanism is just an import from the USA.

> However, this is going off topic slightly, because the concern is not solely around broad brush rights (although the omission of the EU charter of fundamental rights does give rise to some concern in this regard) but also around specific rights which arise from EU law - e.g. working time directive, paid holiday rights, maternity, clean beaches, education under Erasmus, food standards, air quality, tobacco advertising, free movement around the EU, restrictions on cross-EU charging on certain things (e.g. telecoms).

Anyone waffling on about rights and saying they're being reduced is not talking in the specific.

> Isn't it? Because it also isn't a single thing that is clearly defined; why is it that the UK is democratic in your eyes (despite having a voting system that rewards different parties differently, unelected lawmakers...

Democracy is, imo, the right and ability of the people to decide the direction of the country. How would you define it? As said, I can't be bothered to argue EU vs UK yet again (especially from the starting point of the House of Lords which is overruled by the elected house).

> I'm saying that (a) being part of a bigger group moderates the acceptable standards and prevents us as a country from being in a position that is worse than our peers in terms of the protections / regulations detailed above. (B) As well as that, there are the trade and economic benefits from having the same rules on things as our neighbours (that's what allows the single market to operate). And (c) given the stated aim of many of those who want to leave the EU is to remove EU legislation, by leaving we at least increase the risk that they will get the radical deregulation that they want.

We're in a worse position that the US in terms of protecting free speech. Partly this is because of EU standards. (b) is irrelevant, and (c) is too vague to be anything but waffle.

> Why?

Because otherwise it's meaningless waffle.

> See above - not all rights have a directly opposite right that is diminished if that right is protected.

Examples? Can you point to any right that doesn't affect anything else, ie is stand alone? I can't think of anything.

> Fine. Don't present it as an argument you won, then, given you're very aware of the counter-arguments.

We disagree on the answer. It's not an argument that can be "won".

> No - I cut it because I realised your example was the amorphous ideal of "democracy" not the amorphous ideal of "sovereignty".

Sovereignty's pretty clear cut. It's the right to make your own decisions without permission from others.
3
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

A lot of reductive nonsense in your reply! Calling anything you can't be bothered with "waffle" is particularly clarkson-esque, well done.

> Well, yes. Human rights are largely civil rights renamed. We already have the "right" to kill in certain circumstances - e.g. self defense. Human rights in their current legal form are new here, but the mechanism is just an import from the USA.

Odd perspective and you haven't engaged with the point I made - that having specific named rights protected is different to having a general right to do whatever you want (which must be the catch-all if you think every right infringes on another opposing right). You've just gone off on a tangent about the history of human rights legislation, I think. Not clear.

> Anyone waffling on about rights and saying they're being reduced is not talking in the specific.

That depends if you dispute the premise I've out forward which you haven't fully engaged with - I think that having specific protected rights does empower people by allowing them to assert those rights. Tell me what right a worker in the UK would gain if employment rights were weakened, as an example?

> Democracy is, imo, the right and ability of the people to decide the direction of the country. How would you define it? As said, I can't be bothered to argue EU vs UK yet again (especially from the starting point of the House of Lords which is overruled by the elected house).

Yes, but those rights can be exercised in different ways, subject to different vetoes, influences... it isn't black and white, much as you might like to pretend it is.

Besides, talking about democracy in the abstract isn't helpful - why does a different form of democracy benefit the people of the UK, in specific ways?

> We're in a worse position that the US in terms of protecting free speech. Partly this is because of EU standards. (b) is irrelevant, and (c) is too vague to be anything but waffle.

What is the EU's influence on our free speech?

Why is (b) irrelevant? It's a factor; you might not care about it but it still matters.

As for (c), what's vague about it? Should I find some Tories who've said that, would that help?

> Because otherwise it's meaningless waffle.

Each time I read you saying "waffle", I just think "can't be bothered to engage with the argument".


> We disagree on the answer. It's not an argument that can be "won".

So if it's a disagreement, don't present it as an unqualified fact. Do you even believe yourself that there is a binary line which means the UK = democratic and the EU = not, or do you appreciate that in both cases it is a question of degree?

> Sovereignty's pretty clear cut.

Ok, well as per the government's own paper, "we have been sovereign throughout our membership of the EU".

If it's clear cut, presumably you won't disagree?
wercat on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:


>Democracy is, imo, the right and ability of the people to decide the direction of the country.

as in mob rule?

No that is not an informed description of democracy.

The right and ability of people of sufficient capacity to elect their representatives who will, according to the rules governing those representatives, direct the running of the country. yours sounds like a barrack room lawyer's view,
1
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Odd perspective and you haven't engaged with the point I made - that having specific named rights protected is different to having a general right to do whatever you want (which must be the catch-all if you think every right infringes on another opposing right). You've just gone off on a tangent about the history of human rights legislation, I think. Not clear.

It was the perspective of my human rights lecturer, but hey ho. Yes the different mechanism is different.

> That depends if you dispute the premise I've out forward which you haven't fully engaged with - I think that having specific protected rights does empower people by allowing them to assert those rights. Tell me what right a worker in the UK would gain if employment rights were weakened, as an example?

Which right?

> Yes, but those rights can be exercised in different ways, subject to different vetoes, influences... it isn't black and white, much as you might like to pretend it is.

I'm saying that it's *not* black and white, that it's not more or less rights!

> Besides, talking about democracy in the abstract isn't helpful - why does a different form of democracy benefit the people of the UK, in specific ways?

Which form as opposed to which other possible form?

> What is the EU's influence on our free speech?

Data protection law for starters.

> Why is (b) irrelevant? It's a factor; you might not care about it but it still matters.

It's not relevant to a discussion on rights.

> As for (c), what's vague about it? Should I find some Tories who've said that, would that help?

Who cares if Tories have said it? You think they don't waffle? You haven't mentioned what regulation will be removed, or even the areas of law you're referring to. That's vague.

> Each time I read you saying "waffle", I just think "can't be bothered to engage with the argument".

Ive explained why vague conversations on rights in general are meaningless. Waffle is shorthand for repeating myself.

> So if it's a disagreement, don't present it as an unqualified fact. Do you even believe yourself that there is a binary line which means the UK = democratic and the EU = not, or do you appreciate that in both cases it is a question of degree?

I think that both Iceland and the UK are democratic, despite having different systems. I don't think the EU is democratic.

> Ok, well as per the government's own paper, "we have been sovereign throughout our membership of the EU".

So...?
4
thomasadixon - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to wercat:

Sufficient capacity? How'd you decide that? Representative democracy is the only practical way to run things as matters stand, it's not the be all and end all. You know in China they get to vote for local representatives? Do you think that makes it a democracy?
2
andyfallsoff - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It was the perspective of my human rights lecturer, but hey ho.

Wasn't the perspective of mine, or of the human rights lawyers I know.

> Yes the different mechanism is different.

I'm not talking about the mechanism, I'm talking about the substance. I think that a number of specific identifiable rights are of more benefit to individuals than a situation where they have no specific individual rights.

> Which right?

Ok, take the right to a certain amount of holiday whilst in employment. Under your theory, giving someone this right must curtail a different right they would otherwise have. However, I can't see much of an opposing right - there is the freedom of the employer to pick working relationships, but this isn't a true freedom, and is necessarily tied up with commercial power. The point of granting these kind of rights is to get away from a position where commercial power can overrule other considerations.

> I'm saying that it's *not* black and white, that it's not more or less rights!

But you are trying to argue that it is equivalent, and that any shift in legislated rights leave people in a net equal position. Which I dispute, for the reasons given above.

> Which form as opposed to which other possible form?

The UK form as opposed to the EU form. Both include a right for the population to vote for elected representatives, but you very clearly have decided that one is democratic and one is not. I'd argue that both are democratic *to some extent* but each have shortfalls - the difference is you're trying to say one *is* and one *isn't*.

> Data protection law for starters.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this (you've mentioned it in every response) - care to explain why? I'd argue that this is a right that I want protecting, because I gain no benefit from what you describe as a "freedom of speech" right for anyone who has my information to give it to whoever they want.

> It's not relevant to a discussion on rights.

But it is relevant to the overall position. Why should rights be considered in isolation?

> Who cares if Tories have said it? You think they don't waffle? You haven't mentioned what regulation will be removed, or even the areas of law you're referring to. That's vague.

Because the people who have said they want to reduce EU legislation don't often say what they want to remove. That is one of the things I have the main suspicion of!

> Ive explained why vague conversations on rights in general are meaningless. Waffle is shorthand for repeating myself.

> I think that both Iceland and the UK are democratic, despite having different systems. I don't think the EU is democratic.

But there are clearly democratic aspects of the EU system, and undemocratic aspects of the UK (I don't have any knowledge of Iceland so can't comment). So your decision must necessarily be a qualitative judgment based on how you weigh up those aspects. That's fine so far as it goes, yet you present it as some sort of binary line - one is in and one is out. It doesn't support your arguments above much, because drawing that as a complete black line where EU is bad and UK is good just makes you sound like you're driven by ideology not an assessment of the facts...

> So...?

Nothing - if you agree we've been sovereign whilst member of the EU, then great. We have a point of common ground.
Big Ger - on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Timmd:

The ten most prosperous nations, according to the Legatum World Prosperity Index:

Norway
New Zealand
Finland
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
Denmark
Canada
Australia
United Kingdom


http://www.prosperity.com/rankings

Notice anything?
5
Hairy Pete on 30 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Notice anything?
Half of them are presently in the EU.
1
Big Ger - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Hairy Pete:
As far as I can count, only Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, and Denmark are, with neither Denmark nor Sweden being in the Euro, and the UK in the process of leaving The EU.
Post edited at 00:08
6
Jim C - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> Dear soon to be ex-member, thank you for your kind offer but the fence is for the security of golf club members, if you would like the fence to also surround your property you can apply to join the club.

> P.s. if you find any of our golf balls you are welcome to keep them.

PPs as the fence is to stop unwanted people from encroaching on or damaging your course AND also to stop your members and or their balls damaging my property- to which your club would then be liable to pay to repair,- therefore as the fence is of mutual benefit to both , I am happy to pay the contribution towards the protection of your property and mine.

Otherwise any balls will be returned with a totally invented bill for damage that I did not incurr, and where no mention was made of any such damage bill in the agreement to share costs.
Post edited at 03:01
john arran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

While in the EU, according to that, the UK has become, or has maintained its position as, one of the ten most prosperous nations in the entire world. Indeed, half of these outstandingly prosperous countries achieve that status by being members of the EU.

Remind me again how this fact can be interpreted in any was as a justification for throwing away that advantage?
andyfallsoff - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So being in the EU but not in the Euro seems (from that table) to be a positive situation in terms of prosperity.

Sounds great, where do we sign up to that option...?
john arran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Otherwise any balls will be returned with a totally invented bill for damage that I did not incurr, and where no mention was made of any such damage bill in the agreement to share costs.

I'm guessing you think that this attitude would go down well in the pub with your mates, and depending on how stupid or pissed your mates are you might be right. But no doubt it would go down less well with the local Council when strategic planning permission in your area is being considered, such as whether to route the bypass through your house or through the 19th hole. The analogy, of course, is that it certainly would not go down well with multinational companies looking for the best place to site their European headquarters.


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

> As far as I can count, only Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, and Denmark are, with neither Denmark nor Sweden being in the Euro, and the UK in the process of leaving The EU.

I might be persuaded to vote for Brexit as long as we had a progressive tax system along the lines of those in Finland, Sweden, and Denmark!
The New NickB - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Notice anything?

Desperate clutching at straws from Brexiters!
1
andyfallsoff - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

I also noticed that the US, despite being the model many of the Brexiters seem keen to emulate, is relatively far down the table.

And if you scroll past the top ten, the rest of the EU are very well represented as well.
Sir Chasm - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> PPs as the fence is to stop unwanted people from encroaching on or damaging your course AND also to stop your members and or their balls damaging my property- to which your club would then be liable to pay to repair,- therefore as the fence is of mutual benefit to both , I am happy to pay the contribution towards the protection of your property and mine.

> Otherwise any balls will be returned with a totally invented bill for damage that I did not incurr, and where no mention was made of any such damage bill in the agreement to share costs.

Dear soon to be ex-member, it is the golf club fence, it surrounds the golf club, you have chosen to leave the golf club, it is no longer your fence, where and how you choose to build your fence on your land is your decision – perhaps you could use the space where the golf club’s chemist shop and bank used to be before we had to relocate them to golf club property. Your fence will be your responsibility and the club’s fence will be the club’s responsibility.
If you would like to come to some arrangement about taking advantage of the golf club fence I’m sure we could discuss that, I suspect the committee might look favourably on your proposals if you remained a member of the Single (Golfing) Market, the Custom (Golfing) Union and the European Economic (Golfing) Area.
jkarran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Sovereignty's pretty clear cut. It's the right to make your own decisions without permission from others.

Is it? I'm not so sure I'd argue one also needs the ability to implement that decision effectively, something we've diminished by leaving the EU. Take for example something like technical standards: It's all well and good defining a new super duper British standard but if everyone we want to trade with accepts European standards what's the point, we end up having to comply wit the European standard for practical reasons. Wouldn't we have been more 'sovereign' working collaboratively (indeed leading as we have for decades) to steer the European standard?

We live in a globalised world, sometimes we achieve more by pooling sovereignty and being relevant than by hoarding it and being irrelevant. Brexit doesn't change that, it just changes who we'll be pooling ours with.
jk
jkarran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> The ten most prosperous nations, according to the Legatum World Prosperity Index:
> ...
> http://www.prosperity.com/rankings
> Notice anything?

I'm genuinely confused, what do you think that list shows?
jk

Shani - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Is it? I'm not so sure I'd argue one also needs the ability to implement that decision effectively, something we've diminished by leaving the EU. Take for example something like technical standards: It's all well and good defining a new super duper British standard but if everyone we want to trade with accepts European standards what's the point, we end up having to comply wit the European standard for practical reasons. Wouldn't we have been more 'sovereign' working collaboratively (indeed leading as we have for decades) to steer the European standard?

+1.

Trade deals by their very nature constitute a loss of sovereignty.
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> Wasn't the perspective of mine, or of the human rights lawyers I know.

What do you think my perspective is?

> I'm not talking about the mechanism, I'm talking about the substance. I think that a number of specific identifiable rights are of more benefit to individuals than a situation where they have no specific individual rights.

All I said was that rights are too much a collection of differing things to be able to say simplistically that they increase or decrease. This is a different argument. Do I think that the human right to freedom from torture has had any affect on actual reality here, ie that it's stopped torture here? No. That was already illegal. Do I think it's improved our right to a fair trial? No. Freedom of speech? No. Etc. What it has done is hand over moral decisions on a huge range of issues to unelected judges, taking those decisions away from us.

> Ok, take the right to a certain amount of holiday whilst in employment. Under your theory, giving someone this right must curtail a different right they would otherwise have. However, I can't see much of an opposing right - there is the freedom of the employer to pick working relationships, but this isn't a true freedom, and is necessarily tied up with commercial power. The point of granting these kind of rights is to get away from a position where commercial power can overrule other considerations.

If the requirement is that 28 days of holiday must be given and must be taken, then it's a removal of your right to work more days should you choose. Either way, it's a removal of the employer's right to offer whatever terms they wish. What makes it not a "true" freedom? If you're an employer your rights have been curtailed. You might think that's a good thing (so do I, as it happens) but that doesn't mean there's no restriction in place.

> But you are trying to argue that it is equivalent, and that any shift in legislated rights leave people in a net equal position. Which I dispute, for the reasons given above.

I'm saying any increase in a given right is not necessarily an improvement. That any decrease in a right is not necessarily a bad thing. More than that really, that increase and decrease are fairly meaningless terms. Certainly when they're used for rights as a whole they mean nothing.

> The UK form as opposed to the EU form. Both include a right for the population to vote for elected representatives, but you very clearly have decided that one is democratic and one is not. I'd argue that both are democratic *to some extent* but each have shortfalls - the difference is you're trying to say one *is* and one *isn't*.

I'd say (and have before, don't think I have time to go into it in longer form) that the EU mechanism does not allow the populace of the EU to work together to achieve a goal, that it's not intended to do that, and that as the populace of the EU do not think or work as a group it wouldn't happen. All these things mean that it's not in reality a democracy. A few trappings, like China has with elected representatives, does not make it one. In the UK, on the other hand, we elect people who make changes. Our choices directly influence what happens with the government, and so the direction of the country. See the referendum.

> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this (you've mentioned it in every response) - care to explain why? I'd argue that this is a right that I want protecting, because I gain no benefit from what you describe as a "freedom of speech" right for anyone who has my information to give it to whoever they want.

You don't, others do. They lose the right to publish. It's just a clear and easy example.

> But it is relevant to the overall position. Why should rights be considered in isolation?

It's relevant, sure, but I'm not interested in going over it again. Rights is interesting.

> Because the people who have said they want to reduce EU legislation don't often say what they want to remove. That is one of the things I have the main suspicion of!

So one side waffles and the other waffles in response?

> But there are clearly democratic aspects of the EU system, and undemocratic aspects of the UK (I don't have any knowledge of Iceland so can't comment). So your decision must necessarily be a qualitative judgment based on how you weigh up those aspects. That's fine so far as it goes, yet you present it as some sort of binary line - one is in and one is out. It doesn't support your arguments above much, because drawing that as a complete black line where EU is bad and UK is good just makes you sound like you're driven by ideology not an assessment of the facts...

As above, I'd say that the EU isn't a democracy because in actual reality it does not operate as one. In the end though this is, as you say, a judgment call. I don't agree that these things are by degree though. China is not a democracy, regardless of a few trappings. Zimbabwe is the same. They're not 10% or 20% democracies, they're just not at all.

> Nothing - if you agree we've been sovereign whilst member of the EU, then great. We have a point of common ground.

We were talking about concepts. The argument there is about de facto reality vs technical law. There's no question as to the meaning of the sovereignty.
Post edited at 10:23
2
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Is it? I'm not so sure I'd argue one also needs the ability to implement that decision effectively, something we've diminished by leaving the EU. Take for example something like technical standards: It's all well and good defining a new super duper British standard but if everyone we want to trade with accepts European standards what's the point, we end up having to comply wit the European standard for practical reasons. Wouldn't we have been more 'sovereign' working collaboratively (indeed leading as we have for decades) to steer the European standard?

If we have standards for the UK then anyone *importing* into the UK will have to follow those standards. People might not want to bother, that's up to them, but they do have to follow our rules within our jurisdiction. Exports must follow the rules of other jurisdictions. That's sovereignty - not the ability to decide what rules others must accept.
GrahamD - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If we have standards for the UK then anyone *importing* into the UK will have to follow those standards. People might not want to bother, that's up to them, but they do have to follow our rules within our jurisdiction.

Of course they will bother. All that will happen is that the will pass on the cost of qualification to an obscure and generally not recognised standard onto the consumers. Us
RomTheBear on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> If we have standards for the UK then anyone *importing* into the UK will have to follow those standards. People might not want to bother, that's up to them, but they do have to follow our rules within our jurisdiction. Exports must follow the rules of other jurisdictions. That's sovereignty - not the ability to decide what rules others must accept.

We’ve always had sovereignty. The question is what you do with it. Do you use it to cooperate with others to make life better and easier, or do we use it to isolate ourselves and make our life harder ?

Anyway this vague argument around sovereignty is just philosophical bollocks to mask what is an exceptionalist and exclusive identiarian claim.
Post edited at 11:13
1
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

As per usual. It might put some off selling at all (ie be a non tariff barrier). I expect for most areas we'll keep EU standards anyway - which is also not a loss of sovereignty as it's our choice!
Rob Exile Ward on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

'Sovereignty' is one of the concepts, like 'personal freedom', that is rather less absolute than first appears. We all have personal freedom - but we're not free to shout 'Fire' in a crowded cinema.

A nations state may have sovereignty - but it still can't manufacture goods in sweat shops and with no environmental protection and expect other nations to trade with it.

As individuals and states we live in an interconnected web of obligations, responsibilities agreements.
gallam1 - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

"Indeed, half of these outstandingly prosperous countries achieve that status by being members of the EU."

Have you considered the possibility that these countries might have achieved prosperity for other reasons?
1
Dave Garnett - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If you would like to come to some arrangement about taking advantage of the golf club fence I’m sure we could discuss that, I suspect the committee might look favourably on your proposals if you remained a member of the Single (Golfing) Market, the Custom (Golfing) Union and the European Economic (Golfing) Area.

In the meantime, we wish you luck with designing and constructing the largest crazy golf game your admittedly limited garden will allow and hope you enjoy playing on it alone.
Dave Garnett - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Sovereignty's pretty clear cut. It's the right to make your own decisions without permission from others.

I'd really recommend reading the wikipedia page on 'sovereignty'. It's fascinating. I think you probably mean Westphalian sovereignty, although this sounds like a dangerously European idea to me.
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'd recommend a dictionary personally, but since you've said - this one?

"Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.."
1
MG - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> "Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.."

An obviously unattainable, and undesirable, situation. North Korea is perhaps closest to this of any country - no doubt in your myopic zealotry you such an absolute approach is worth it.
1
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

My zealotry: the dominant model in western society followed by such notable dictatorships as the US. Get over yourself MG.
3
Dave Garnett - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I'd recommend a dictionary personally, but since you've said - this one?

A dictionary is about trite definitions. An encyclopaedia is something else.

> "Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.."

Yes, I was kind of hoping you'd get beyond the introductory first two lines. How about the bits on the difference between sovereignty and independence, or shared and pooled sovereignty, for instance?

Good section on Views too? A lot of Leavers seem to claim the Realist line whereas they are pretty clearly Classical Liberals when you scratch the surface. As you've probably guessed, I'm a bit of an Internationalist.

Sovereignty might be a lot of things. The one thing it isn't is clear-cut or obvious.
1
MG - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

The US is affected by all sorts of external influences and bodies - NAFTA, UN, NATO etc. Further, when the US does have brexit like convulsions, as now with Trump, and previously in the 1930s and 1910s it rapidly goes downhill and discovers the problems this causes. The idea that a country can shut itself off from the rest of the world is laughable, that attempting to do this is seen by brexiters as good thing just depressing. The irony is that is in their obsession over sovereignty brexiters have actually landed the UK in situation where it will vastly less control and influence over practically everything.
2
RomTheBear on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> My zealotry: the dominant model in western society followed by such notable dictatorships as the US. Get over yourself MG.

Lol. The US have a federal model, in case you haven’t noticed.
If that’s an example of sovereignty to you, then you should be advocating an United States of Europe.
Post edited at 11:46
2
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I've read plenty on the subject, a wiki article isn't likely to be particularly enlightening. Your wiki article doesn't appear to back you up, and I'm not going to try and find what you're referring to.

MG - Like I said, get over yourself. Who on earth said I want to shut the UK off from the world?! Have fun with your straw men.
6
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
The US is the US! Individual states are not sovereign, and no one claims they are.
Post edited at 11:50
MG - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

>
> MG - Like I said, get over yourself. Who on earth said I want to shut the UK off from the world?!

You did, by advocating for your absolutist definition of sovereignty. Of course you won't see this, but it's true. Try moving away from your simplistic binary view of the world - democratic/not democratic; sovereign/not sovereign. You might learn something.
2
RomTheBear on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> The US is the US! Individual states are not sovereign, and no one claims they are.

so maybe it’s not such a good model for your “sovereignty” then.

As I’ve said before it’s a completely vague notion that has no practical applications, other than provide a layer of pseudo-philosophical frothing to mask the identitarian and exclusive claims of some.

What matters, in practice, is how we organise decision-making to be the most effective possible.
Post edited at 12:21
2
john arran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> "Indeed, half of these outstandingly prosperous countries achieve that status by being members of the EU."

> Have you considered the possibility that these countries might have achieved prosperity for other reasons?

Of course I have; do I look stupid? (Don't answer that!)

The correlation between nations' prosperity, according to this scale, and membership of the EU seems to be quite strong. While this doesn't demonstrate causality per se, when coupled with highly convincing arguments about unfettered internal trade and the bargaining strength of being part of the world's largest trading bloc, it does seem like it would take a determined approach to insist that it's entirely coincidental or all due to historical advantage.
1
gallam1 - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

OK, so going back to my leeches example from the last time around this topic, if I told you 4 or 5 out of 10 people had recovered from flu as a consequence of having leeches put on them, and you had flu, would you be happy to have me put the leeches on you?
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

The USA is the country. It's sovereign. The states aren't sovereign any more than Scotland or Cornwall are. Obviously.
RomTheBear on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> The USA is the country. It's sovereign. The states aren't sovereign any more than Scotland or Cornwall are. Obviously.

Exactly. And maybe something will click in your head and you’ll realise that what matters is not sovereignty for the sake of sovereignty, but it is where you place it to achieve the best outcomes.

Otherwise you may want to consider advocating Scottish and Cornish independence.
Post edited at 12:30
3
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

You are too funny Rom. I think the best place is the UK, rather than England, or Bristol, or the EU. Obviously.
4
john arran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> OK, so going back to my leeches example from the last time around this topic, if I told you 4 or 5 out of 10 people had recovered from flu as a consequence of having leeches put on them, and you had flu, would you be happy to have me put the leeches on you?

Well I seem to remember that last time it was shown that leeches do actually have a positive effect for some conditions, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it out of hand. However, I'd more likely bow to the expertise of those who know best, who certainly would tell me there are better options for recovery. What I'd probably find out is that your high rate of 4 or 5 couldn't be explained by the best medical experts we have available, without a significant slice of luck thrown in, so believing in leeches as a highly effective treatment wouldn't have strong justification.

By contrast, most of the economic experts (I'm sorry to bring those pesky creatures in again, I know it's inconvenient) I gather are united in the opinion that EU membership has been a very significant benefit to trade and prosperity these last decades, so of course the likelihood of that actually having been a major factor is far higher.

Do you have a convincing reason to believe otherwise - other than preferring it wasn't so?
1
The New NickB - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> The ten most prosperous nations, according to the Legatum World Prosperity Index:

> Norway

> New Zealand

> Finland

> Switzerland

> Sweden

> Netherlands

> Denmark

> Canada

> Australia

> United Kingdom


On face value, that list makes a good case for the EU. Of the 10, 5 are in the EU and a further 2 have what you might call preferential arrangements with the EU. I know correlation isn’t causation, but it makes the EU look pretty successful.

As Andy above points out, if you look at the top 20, so top 10% globally, there are 12 EU countries plus Norway and Switzerland.
Post edited at 13:11
1
Dave Garnett - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> On face value, that list makes a good case for the EU. Of the 10, 5 are in the EU and a further 2 have what you might call preferential arrangements with the EU. I know correlation isn’t causation, but it makes the EU look pretty successful.

No, you're missing the obvious. In each case it's because of their British connections and distance from the EU.

> Norway
Not in the EU, essentially English speaking, especially their pop groups
> New Zealand
Loyal member of the Empire, more British than we are.
> Finland
See Norway. Until recently benefited from a Prime Minister who was more British than we are.
> Switzerland
Not in the EU
> Sweden
Not in Eurozone, half-hearted EU members, essentially English speaking
> Netherlands
Shared a Royal Family with us, football, beer, essentially English speaking.
> Denmark
Beer, bacon, see Sweden
> Canada
Apart from slightly French bits essentially still part of the Empire.
> Australia
Admirably British, indeed in some ways worryingly so, especially the cricket.
> United Kingdom
Only at the bottom of the list because of the selfless way we have supported and encouraged our dependencies as listed above.
RomTheBear on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> You are too funny Rom. I think the best place is the UK, rather than England, or Bristol, or the EU. Obviously.

And that’s fine. But then you need to explain why some decision are better taken at U.K. level, rather than at EU level or regional level. You can’t just say “it’s because of sovereignty”. it’s meanignless.

I suspect that your claims as to where sovereignty is best placed are more based in identitarian claims than anything else.
Post edited at 13:18
2
summo on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> No, you're missing the obvious. In each case it's because of their British connections and distance from the EU.

Hardly, most them were prosperous before the eu or in spite of.

> Not in the EU, essentially English speaking, especially their pop groups.

A safe democratic ordered society with good education is what brings prosperity. Not what language they sing in... they have far more artists who sing in their native tongue you know; they just don't play them in the UK!?

> See Norway.

Oil, fisheries... and willingness of the population to not waste it and invest the money.

Sweden, iron ore, wood.... not wasting money on wars.

All the Nordics, taxing all the population heavily and investing it in them and their country with a long term view, rather then 1 parliamentary term.

Switzerland, tax haven and hidden money.

Etc
Etc.

If being in an empire and speaking a common language were the reasons for prosperity, the UK and France should have been 1 and 2 for decades.

summo on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> As Andy above points out, if you look at the top 20, so top 10% globally, there are 12 EU countries plus Norway and Switzerland.

Is that not more to do with the past two centuries being when the various industrial revolutions took place in Europe and North America. The countries which then developed stable democracies, education etc.. It's a given that Europe would feature, even if the eu was never dreamed of. The empire spread this wealth , education and workplace practices outwards to some colonies, where as others were just treated as a cheap source of labour & resources.

Think of the historical big trading centres, Amsterdam, Venice, lyon etc.. All long before the eu. New York was for a long time called New Amsterdam.
john arran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

I rather think you may have missed something.
1
summo on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

> I rather think you may have missed something.

some claim being in either the eu or having UK connections is the reason they are so prosperous. I'd suggest they each have their own reasons and being in the eu is irrelevant and if britishness was a factor, why isn't the UK first every time in that list?
john arran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

Yep, definitely missed something ;-)
1
MG - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:
Check your satire detection system
1
thomasadixon - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> You can’t just say “it’s because of sovereignty”. it’s meanignless.

Good thing I didn't say that then eh!
Post edited at 14:08
Gordon Stainforth - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

The last six posts are among the funniest I've seen on the internet all year.
2
jkarran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If we have standards for the UK then anyone *importing* into the UK will have to follow those standards. People might not want to bother, that's up to them, but they do have to follow our rules within our jurisdiction.

Great. So unless we set lower standards than the EU what's the point? I didn't think brexit was supposed to be about lowering our standards?
jk
1
jkarran - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Have you considered the possibility that these countries might have achieved prosperity for other reasons?

Quite clearly half of them have though none in glorious isolation. Equally clearly the EU hasn't held the other half back.
jk
1
RomTheBear on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Good thing I didn't say that then eh!

So what is it exactly that you are saying ?
1
John Stainforth - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I notice that this is from the Legatum Institute. Good article in The European this week about them and their support of the Brexiters in the Tory government.
1
Timmd on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> The ten most prosperous nations, according to the Legatum World Prosperity Index:
> Norway
> New Zealand
> Finland
> Switzerland
> Sweden
> Netherlands
> Denmark
> Canada
> Australia
> United Kingdom


> Notice anything?

Half are in the EU and two have preferential trading arrangements with it. I think that the effects of austerity on the UK need to be born in mind, too. Apparently, around a third of each class of 30 children can now be categorised as being 'poor'. With the history of the UK's prosperity since the 70's arguably being linked to it's membership of the EU (in the long term), and it's productivity being predicted to drop by 8%, even if we are in the top ten, to leave may still cause suffering for a large number of people, and put more families into poverty.

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/12/01/third-children-class-now-live-poverty-new-report-exposes/
2
Mr Lopez - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:

> I notice that this is from the Legatum Institute. Good article in The European this week about them and their support of the Brexiters in the Tory government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Institute

https://theferret.scot/doubts-raised-legatum-charity-work/

Yikes
1
Big Ger - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Despite being the EU, according to that, the UK has become, or has maintained its position as, one of the ten most prosperous nations in the entire world. Indeed, half of these outstandingly prosperous countries achieve that status despite being members of the EU.

FTFY

2
Big Ger - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> I think that the effects of austerity on the UK need to be born in mind, too.

Me too, we should stop paying into the EU more than we get out, and use the money at home.

4
Sir Chasm - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Me too, we should stop paying into the EU more than we get out, and use the money at home.

I don't see why we should spend the money in Australia.
Big Ger - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> I don't see why we should spend the money in Australia.

And there you have it folks, the level of debate we expect from him....

What will you do after Jan 17th? Seeing as this is your (rather pathetic) frequent response, you'll be robbed of a reply. Poor you, it must suck to be so sad.
Post edited at 23:10
9
Sir Chasm - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> And there you have it folks, the level of debate we expect from him....

> What will you do after Jan 17th? Seeing as this is your (rather pathetic) frequent response, you'll be robbed of a reply. Poor you, it must suck to be so sad.

Well, if you are the UK i won't pick up on you referring to "us" and "we" etc. But if you want to debate, fair enough. You say "we should stop paying into the EU more than we get out", putting aside you not being "we", how much do "we" get out of being in the eu?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 01 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> And there you have it folks, the level of debate we expect from him....

Lol... this is hardly Demosthenes:

> Despite being the EU, according to that, the UK has become, or has maintained its position as, one of the ten most prosperous nations in the entire world. Indeed, half of these outstandingly prosperous countries achieve that status despite being members of the EU.

FTFY

Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Nope, that's parody, with a sprinkling of sarcasm...
Post edited at 00:28
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Make your mind up!

Anyway, that’s not sarcasm- *this* is sarcasm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOZ3IzRaf4

Lusk - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Got any new railway tracks heading your way?
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That my friend, is genius.
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> Got any new railway tracks heading your way?

Wut?
Lusk - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I'll still be here when you've worked it out
john arran - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Despite being the EU, according to that, the UK has become, or has maintained its position as, one of the ten most prosperous nations in the entire world. Indeed, half of these outstandingly prosperous countries achieve that status despite being members of the EU.

> FTFY

You've excelled yourself this time Ger. You could equally argue that planes fly despite the finest work of scientists, that the sun sets despite the earth turning in the other direction, or that you arrive at work in the morning despite having a car. If this is the level of intelligent debate we're left with from Brexiters we should be retracting A50 by about next Thursday.
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

> or that you arrive at work in the morning despite having a car.

I do arrive at work each morning despite having a car.
4

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.