Brexit - the final throes....

We were in France last week, and spoke to various people about Brexit. One was a winemaker, who is already suffering a sales drop to the U.K. due to the exchange rate, and who is really worried about how changes to borders will affect his business. Another was a British lorry driver on his way back to the UK with a huge lorry full of chemicals. He explained that he breezes through customs with no delays, and there were random checks for security. He said that if he ends up having to sit in his lorry for hours each journey for customs checks he would stop driving. Everyone else looked at us with pity and couldn’t understand why we are doing this. This isn’t about party politics, it’s about ordinary people being affected and being worried about their lives. 

So again, how will Brexit improve my life?

thebigfredc posted:

IB

I didn't say nor did I imply that Oxford Professors or  brick layers were stupid. I was pointing out the egalitarian nature of our democracy to Ghris-epl who seems to believe in an IQ bar.

If that was not what you meant my apologies for taking it that way, though even reading with explanation the implication to me is that you assume a difference in IQ between an Oxford professor and a bricklayer, which may be the case, but need not necessarily be so, though in at least the vast majority of cases there is likely to be a big difference in education. (N.B. I accept that stupidity and low IQ are not the same thing, though it is possible that your interpretation of Chris_epl’s use of the word stupidity may have meant too low an intelligence.)

ynwa250505 posted:

1. Remaining in the single market is most definitely NOT leaving the EU.

2. Accepting free movement of people means we are not in control of our own destiny - the EU and the ECJwould be.

We should simply leave. All this discussion about a “deal” is missing the point - the fundamental issue is not economic - it is about the UK deciding and managing our own destiny and affairs - everything else is secondary.

The irony in all this is that all the UK wants to do is simply trade - as we agreed to do many decades ago, but the Barnier, Juncker, Merkel, Macron cabal aren’t interested, unless it is on their terms using their rules. So, let’s stop worrying about the unknown and let’s just get out now - we have the ability and the resources to succeed outside the EU - JFDI ...

I suspect that a sizeable number, if not most of your fellow Brexit supporters would not agree with your statement that economic issues are secondary, and that 'a deal' is not important. It strikes me as being fundamentally idiotic to hold that point of view irrespective of whether or not one wants to be in or out of the EU.

It would also be useful if someone from the 'hard-core' Brexit stance (and I assume that you would be happy to be classified in this way) would explain just what it is that you think we will gain by " being in charge of our own destiny and affairs". Is it simply the restriction of the number of Eastern European working incomers to our workplace, is it something else of a tangible nature, or is it just something hypothetical that you feel would be a 'nice to have' just in case - of what?  

On the first of these, we certainly are not going to have the hordes of Turkish workers entering our shores when Turkey joins the EU (as postulated by Farage and others) anytime soon, are we, so what are the real issues as far as you are concerned? To be really facetious, perhaps you were upset by the infamous Sun's article about potential restrictions on the legal shape of our bananas?

It would be really useful to know, because most of us on the 'Remain' side genuinely don't understand your rationale.

The point about managing our own affairs is interesting. We have various Brexit supporting friends and every time they start saying the Brexit will ‘give us back control’ we ask them to name one EU rule that they want to get rid of. Never have any been able to name a single one. Their desire to leave is based on a gut instinct that we should be free - but free from what they cannot say. 

It seems to me that national income will drop as the economy contracts, and indeed the statistics already point to a degree of contraction. If national income drops, the government has two choices - spend less of tax more. For the life of me I cannot see how either of these would make the lives of ordinary people better. 

At the end of the day, once we have left, as we surely will, the high ideals will be forgotten and everyday matters will take over. Will the fact that the country is free make up for poorer services and increased bureaucracy? Will people celebrate paying more for goods? Will they delight in finding it harder to go to Europe on their summer holidays? Will UK pensioners in the EU enjoy having less to spend? Will they be happy to wait longer for their hospital appointment? Of course they will!! They will be free!!

The Government will never give us another vote and we can all argue until we are blue in the face but Brexit is going to happen and forcing people who voted to leave the EU to give tangible examples of how our lives will improve after Brexit is also pointless and achieves nothing except perhaps a feeling of I'm right and you are wrong.

It is this being at loggerheads that divides us and in turn allows things like Brexit to occur we need to stop arguing about who is right and who is wrong and come together as a country and deal with the issues that lead us here.

Firstly the lack of opportunities afforded to young people who for whatever reason did not attend University and also to many of those that did has created a vacuum in the skilled and semi skilled labour market that has been filled by workers both from in and outside the EU.  There has not been hordes of 'foreigners' flooding into this country over the past decade or so taking are jobs and living the high life on benefits they have come to fill a huge gap in our labour market created by the fact that successive governments and UK businesses run by the older generation have failed to invest in the training of skilled and semi skilled workers amongst the younger generation and these economic migrants as a group have paid  thousands of times more in taxes than they have taken out in benefits or by using U.K services like the NHS or by educating their children, children mostly born in the U.K.

Also the broken housing market that we now have in this country means that young adults cannot buy their own homes anymore and where needed cannot access council or welfare housing we have a generation of renters who rightly feel they are just putting money up to a half of their salaries in many cases into the pockets of an older generation who have benefitted from and have in many ways caused this broken housing market.  

These are the issues we should be debating and fighting for investing in long term solutions because Brexit is happening deal or no deal so lets have a debate about what we do now not who was right or wrong and who voted for what.

There is a divide between the ages in this country young adults born in and after the last decade of the 20th century feel and quite rightly so that they have been let down badly by those born in the mid to late 20th century and the baby boomers in particular.  I have spoken to lots of young adults who feel very aggrieved and let down by an older generation and who as a final kick in the teeth have now voted for them to leave the European Union.  It is very ironic that most of the people I have spoken to who voted to remain and who will have to live through the long term consequences good or bad were under 40.

 

 

hungryhalibut posted:

The point about managing our own affairs is interesting. We have various Brexit supporting friends and every time they start saying the Brexit will ‘give us back control’ we ask them to name one EU rule that they want to get rid of. Never have any been able to name a single one. Their desire to leave is based on a gut instinct that we should be free - but free from what they cannot say. 

To me, one thing that has been of concern has been EU courts being able to overule the UK’s judicial system in certain areas, which other than if specifically about compliance with EU law I have felt is a step too far, though I readily admit that I have not followed any cases closely so this is an impression rather than something of substance. Another thing that concerns me is an apparent creeping of power to the EU, which by extrapolation means that in a few decades time UK central Government will have no function other than being a local EU compliance body, which really is a Civil Service function not a political one. This presumably is the ‘freedom’ issue. Personally I this effective shift of soverignty is wrong - however I am hard pressed to identify any tangible reason why it would necessarily be a bad thing, as long as EU unity remained in perpetuity. Otherwise my criticism of the EU is that it has grown to be a bureaucratic quagmire, and is therefore probably inefficient and unnecessarily costly to run.

But where I differ fundamentally from the Brexiteers is that I believe that overall the EU has benefit, and it would be better to be in and seek to influence/improve/limit these things from the inside, rather than exclude ourselves. (That would require strong negotiating and influencing skills true skills, which appear to have been sadly lacking at least in the recent past, but that is another matter.)

You need to distinguish the Court of Justice of the European Union - which deals solely with European Union law; from the European Court of Human Rights, which has a much wider scope of jurisprudence and is not technically part of the EU, instead being formed by signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now we've seen through the rhetoric of both sides who used arguments, that shall we say, bent the truth to suit their own political ends, I think we do need another referendum. I say this as an exit supporter although I might be persuaded to change my mind. Rich 

As a remain supporter, I agree that there are issues with the EU, and that we’d have been better pushing for reform from within. But I don’t actually think we should have another referendum. It’s just not tenable to keep having referendums on the same issue. If the vote went the other way but was really close, there would be continuing cries for a third. I think there should have been a requirement for a 60% majority, and that we should have had real information to go on, but we didn’t and we are where we are. I’d much rather stay, but we won’t, and it’s finding the best way to make it work. 

I think Bob’s points are very well made: those are the issues that matter, and the fact that those in power have failed working people over many years is what led to people giving them a kick in the teeth. The referendum issues were part of a much broader unhappiness with power and politics. Brexit isn’t a party political issue and nor is it just about Europe. How do we address those important things that Bob raises? People need a decent job and a decent home, not a zero hours contract and a damp infested private let. What is depressing is that if leaving really does depress the economy, and it looks like it will, it’s not going to make meeting those challenges any easier. 

Whilst I do feel that a confirmatory referendum once the final choices are clear is not only highly desirable, but a democratic imperative given the shockingly bad information available to people at the time they Cast their votes, I do recognise it as a pretty forlorn hope given the political stance taken by those in power. Of course, the more people push for ot the greater the chance of it happening, so being highly unlikely does not make it not worth arguing for.   

Meanwhile BtB has indeed raised some extremely valid issues. These of course are not directly to do with Brexit, though as HH suggests Brexit is unlikely to do anything other than make things worse. In terms of Brexit the question here is, perhaps, what can be done to minimise irs negative effects?

I too think the chances of a second referendum look slim given that both Conservative and Labour say one is not needed.  However, the political environment might change.  If May's Chequers deal gets past the EU and is presented to Parliament but cannot command a majority what then? There will be those MPs who argue for a 'no deal' exit but that too is unlikely to command a majority in the HoC.  Labour of course would seek a General Election, but both parties would still be left with the problem of working out on what terms they would take the UK out of the EU to honour the result of the referendum.  That difficulty might conceivably lead to one party (more likely Labour) from committing to a confirmatory referendum, if only to present a difference from  their political opponents.        

As Nigel says above, "I agree that there are issues with the EU, and that we’d have been better pushing for reform from within".

I do think, though, that many of the folk who voted to leave felt that that particular horse had long since bolted, and that either successive UK Governments had done little to promote any such reforms, or that their attempts had been merely brushed aside.

Also, many came to the conclusion that, as the EU juggernaut continued to roll on, with broad hints of a future pan European superstate, that this no longer reflected the original intention, which had been simply the creation of the Common Market, an entity based on making trade between members easier and more cost effective.

It also seemed that, rather than all EU members being seen as equals, some were more "equal" than others, viz. the treatment of Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contradicted somewhat the concept of a united Europe.

Many Leavers therefore see "Project Europe" as a failing concept, and that the UK would be better off jumping ship sooner, rather than later.

The current intransigence on the part of  the EU to find a mutually satisfactory outcome merely serves to bolster this point of view.

 

If the reporting is right, it seems that the EU is rejecting the Chequers deal, and is saying that the only option that could retain anything like the current economic relationship would be to follow the Norway model, under which there would be both freedom of movement of people and large payments to Brussels. Whether they move from this and treat us a a special case is anyone’s guess. But if they did, Norway wouldn’t be happy and would surely seek a revised deal. Maybe, as Norway is a lot smaller than the UK, the EU would consider it a price worth paying.  Who knows?

Bob the Builder posted:

The Government will never give us another vote and we can all argue until we are blue in the face but Brexit is going to happen and forcing people who voted to leave the EU to give tangible examples of how our lives will improve after Brexit is also pointless and achieves nothing except perhaps a feeling of I'm right and you are wrong.

It is this being at loggerheads that divides us and in turn allows things like Brexit to occur we need to stop arguing about who is right and who is wrong and come together as a country and deal with the issues that lead us here.

Firstly the lack of opportunities afforded to young people who for whatever reason did not attend University and also to many of those that did has created a vacuum in the skilled and semi skilled labour market that has been filled by workers both from in and outside the EU.  There has not been hordes of 'foreigners' flooding into this country over the past decade or so taking are jobs and living the high life on benefits they have come to fill a huge gap in our labour market created by the fact that successive governments and UK businesses run by the older generation have failed to invest in the training of skilled and semi skilled workers amongst the younger generation and these economic migrants as a group have paid  thousands of times more in taxes than they have taken out in benefits or by using U.K services like the NHS or by educating their children, children mostly born in the U.K.

Also the broken housing market that we now have in this country means that young adults cannot buy their own homes anymore and where needed cannot access council or welfare housing we have a generation of renters who rightly feel they are just putting money up to a half of their salaries in many cases into the pockets of an older generation who have benefitted from and have in many ways caused this broken housing market.  

These are the issues we should be debating and fighting for investing in long term solutions because Brexit is happening deal or no deal so lets have a debate about what we do now not who was right or wrong and who voted for what.

There is a divide between the ages in this country young adults born in and after the last decade of the 20th century feel and quite rightly so that they have been let down badly by those born in the mid to late 20th century and the baby boomers in particular.  I have spoken to lots of young adults who feel very aggrieved and let down by an older generation and who as a final kick in the teeth have now voted for them to leave the European Union.  It is very ironic that most of the people I have spoken to who voted to remain and who will have to live through the long term consequences good or bad were under 40.

 

 

I don't have too much sympathy for aggrieved young adults in this country. As far as I'm concerned, "they've never had it so good". I left school in the mid-eighties, unemployment was nearly triple what it is today in the UK with a lower population and interest rates were sky-high, making home ownership very challenging. I may be wrong but I think the UK has one of the highest rates of home ownership in Europe. Rents are high but so are mortgages and to blame that on previous generations who got onto the property ladder, (probably during the Thatcher era), isn't really fair IMHO because I don't believe these are the people who are turning home ownership into a business. They bought their homes and raised families and are leaving them in their wills to the same children and grandchildren who are now crying "foul". If there's a finger to be pointed, it's probably at landowners and property developers IMHO.

As an example, I have recently bought a 2 bed flat. It's in a newly converted building of 20 apartments. The average price is £200k. The developer bought the building for £1.3m. All are sold. Even if he spent £200k on the conversion that would still mean a staggering profit of £2.5m. On top of that he makes a profit on the leashold and the maintenance. The whole system needs regulating.

As for the referendum, my understanding is that around 35% of 18-24 year olds voted, had more turned out then it could have made a difference so to claim the older generation sold them down the river isn't really fair IMHO - they were just out-voted is all. 

The second paragraph raises all sorts of subjects, many of which could be discussion threads in their own right. I'm going to pick one, which is the impact of migrant workers.

I watched a documentary a few years back where a TV crew went to rural Lincolnshire to understand how migrants were affecting the local economy and community. They started off by interviewing an Asparagus farmer. He employed EU migrants exclusively on the basis they were far harder working than UK citizens. He made the point that the supermarkets set the price he sells at. The less that's picked, the higher the price and that gets passed on to Joe Public at the tills. They then interviewed some of the workers. All were paying taxes of course but some were over on their own, living in cheap shared accommodation and sending the bulk of their earnings home. Taxes are being paid but the local economy isn't necessarily benfitting. The ones with families sent their children to the local schools which is where the TV crew went next. They interviewed the Head Teacher at a local primary school. She showed them a typical classroom with 35-odd kids but 3 teachers. The was one for English, one for Polish and another for Romanian children and that was sucking up her budget so she was struggling for funding in other areas. For people living in communities like these, who send their children to school where sometimes English is the minority language, these are overlooked repercussions which probably played a hidden part in the outcome of the referendum. 

dave marshall posted:

As Nigel says above, "I agree that there are issues with the EU, and that we’d have been better pushing for reform from within".

I do think, though, that many of the folk who voted to leave felt that that particular horse had long since bolted, and that either successive UK Governments had done little to promote any such reforms, or that their attempts had been merely brushed aside.

I understand that view - though I think that the problem was compounded by poor negotiating and influencing ability. But I don’t see the past failures as precluding hope of progress, though what it needs is political nounce and a reduction in posturing. Negotiations should be assigned to professional negotiators, and likely requires time spent over several years patiently engaging with most or all other member states on a one-to-one basis trying to persuade them why it is beneficial to them to change the direction of the EU and reform the problem areas, and doing that long before the political meeting where decisions are formally made.

Simply going into a meeting /conference of that sort of makeup and expecting to come out successful without putting in the spadework is either arrogant or stupid, and any threat or posturing - such as saying UK will have a referendum on leaving - is guaranteed to failure, as indeed happened. And the general British lack of engagement with the EU politically (very low election turnouts - and many people even know the name of their MEP, let alone communicate their concerns?) is unlikely to have helped.

dave marshall posted:

 

Also, many came to the conclusion that, as the EU juggernaut continued to roll on, with broad hints of a future pan European superstate, that this no longer reflected the original intention, which had been simply the creation of the Common Market, an entity based on making trade between members easier and more cost effective.

Agreed

dave marshall posted:

It also seemed that, rather than all EU members being seen as equals, some were more "equal" than others, viz. the treatment of Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contradicted somewhat the concept of a united Europe.

I had not recognised that - good points, though from the BRitish point of view we were in the upper echelon and had more influence than most. ...back to my point re negotiating ability.

dave marshall posted:

Many Leavers therefore see "Project Europe" as a failing concept, and that the UK would be better off jumping ship sooner, rather than later.

The current intransigence on the part of  the EU to find a mutually satisfactory outcome merely serves to bolster this point of view.

If it weren’t for the negative consequences of leaving I might be persuaded to agree, but I think that it will be an unmitigated economic disaster that will  cause misery for lots of people, though probably proportionately more for the more disadvantaged in society.

As for the current EU intransigence, that is only to be expected - they cannot let a member leave and it be seen to others as favourable.

100% Dave Marshall,  summed it up exactly as I see it.     I know its all been said before;  in 2013 Cameron announced a plan to have a referendum but prior to that,  & with the EU fully aware that  the outcome would be put to referendum,  he would renegotiate the UK terms & that UK would vote to remain in a reconfigured EU.    Obviously he failed on most all counts, but was that down to his negotiating skills or EU intransigence.  At the time I had the impression it was a bit of both,  but now as the Brexit negotiations run their course I'm more inclined to think it was more down to EU intransigence.      It was obvious at the time that both Cameron & EU did not foresee that the referendum result would vote leave,  I got the impression that morning they were shocked.   Now after reading the transcript of Michel Barnier's interview in the German press,  its the same old no compromise.   I see this maybe as brinkmanship,  but its a dangerous game & it could well be that Barnier's intransigence might be the issue that persuades UK.Gov to leave without a deal.    And that Mr Barnier,  means that you are the pawn in opening gambit in the end of 'Project Europe'

Hi IB,

To take your responses in order:

1. Our elected representatives' default setting is one of posturing, and therefore, the absence of negotiating skills is the unfortunate natural outcome.

We've seen this down the decades in the UK Parliament, so it's no surprise that they're carrying such stupidity in the current EU discussions.

2. We seem to be in agreement that the transition from the Common Market into the EU was something which was not part of the original brief, and was something over which the electorate had no say.

3. Again, the treatment of some of the "lesser" members highlights the entrenched posturing mindset of our politicians, who simply want to guard what they see as being in their own best interests ........... united Europe? I don't think so.

4. The economic outcome for the UK could be so much more favourable, were it not for the current intransigence of the EU, which many view as being deliberately obstructive, "pour decourager les autres".

This is a club for which many no longer wish to renew their membership.

Mike-B posted:

100% Dave Marshall,  summed it up exactly as I see it.     I know its all been said before;  in 2013 Cameron announced a plan to have a referendum but prior to that,  & with the EU fully aware that  the outcome would be put to referendum,  he would renegotiate the UK terms & that UK would vote to remain in a reconfigured EU.    Obviously he failed on most all counts, but was that down to his negotiating skills or EU intransigence.  At the time I had the impression it was a bit of both,  but now as the Brexit negotiations run their course I'm more inclined to think it was more down to EU intransigence.      It was obvious at the time that both Cameron & EU did not foresee that the referendum result would vote leave,  I got the impression that morning they were shocked.   Now after reading the transcript of Michel Barnier's interview in the German press,  its the same old no compromise.   I see this maybe as brinkmanship,  but its a dangerous game & it could well be that Barnier's intransigence might be the issue that persuades UK.Gov to leave without a deal.    And that Mr Barnier,  means that you are the pawn in opening gambit in the end of 'Project Europe'

100% agree, and this entrenched position on the part of the EU was so predictable, even pre-referendum, that our attempts at negotiation were always doomed.

dave marshall posted:

As Nigel says above, "I agree that there are issues with the EU, and that we’d have been better pushing for reform from within".

I do think, though, that many of the folk who voted to leave felt that that particular horse had long since bolted, and that either successive UK Governments had done little to promote any such reforms, or that their attempts had been merely brushed aside.

Also, many came to the conclusion that, as the EU juggernaut continued to roll on, with broad hints of a future pan European superstate, that this no longer reflected the original intention, which had been simply the creation of the Common Market, an entity based on making trade between members easier and more cost effective.

It also seemed that, rather than all EU members being seen as equals, some were more "equal" than others, viz. the treatment of Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contradicted somewhat the concept of a united Europe.

Many Leavers therefore see "Project Europe" as a failing concept, and that the UK would be better off jumping ship sooner, rather than later.

The current intransigence on the part of  the EU to find a mutually satisfactory outcome merely serves to bolster this point of view.

 

Just a couple of observations on Dave's points.

On the first, while I think Dave captures a view held by many in the UK e.g. 'we thought the EEC/EU was about free trade but it turned into a project to create a European superstate', I'm not so sure that such a view is held so strongly in other member states. Many, especially the southern and eastern member states, have seen their internal infrastructure and economies flourish with EU funding.  That must be a good thing.  We in the UK as one of the richest member states have of course paid for much of this investment, as has Germany, but HMG is still committed to spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid so clearly supports the general principle that rich countries should help those less well off.  Similarly, I think many other member states have suffered in the past e.g. through two world wars, much more than the UK and so perhaps see the EU as a project which will help prevent any possibility of such conflict occurring again. I don't think we in the UK see the EU in that same light.

Second, and a narrower point. The EU has never really been about "equals". The voting system in the Council of Ministers has always been weighted towards the bigger member states, initially by Qualified Majority Voting where the big member states got more votes, and currently under the double' voting system where a percentage of the total population of the EU needs to be in favour of a measure which of course means the member states with the biggest populations like the UK get a bigger say.

MDS posted:
dave marshall posted:

As Nigel says above, "I agree that there are issues with the EU, and that we’d have been better pushing for reform from within".

I do think, though, that many of the folk who voted to leave felt that that particular horse had long since bolted, and that either successive UK Governments had done little to promote any such reforms, or that their attempts had been merely brushed aside.

Also, many came to the conclusion that, as the EU juggernaut continued to roll on, with broad hints of a future pan European superstate, that this no longer reflected the original intention, which had been simply the creation of the Common Market, an entity based on making trade between members easier and more cost effective.

It also seemed that, rather than all EU members being seen as equals, some were more "equal" than others, viz. the treatment of Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contradicted somewhat the concept of a united Europe.

Many Leavers therefore see "Project Europe" as a failing concept, and that the UK would be better off jumping ship sooner, rather than later.

The current intransigence on the part of  the EU to find a mutually satisfactory outcome merely serves to bolster this point of view.

 

Just a couple of observations on Dave's points.

On the first, while I think Dave captures a view held by many in the UK e.g. 'we thought the EEC/EU was about free trade but it turned into a project to create a European superstate', I'm not so sure that such a view is held so strongly in other member states. Many, especially the southern and eastern member states, have seen their internal infrastructure and economies flourish with EU funding.  That must be a good thing.  We in the UK as one of the richest member states have of course paid for much of this investment, as has Germany, but HMG is still committed to spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid so clearly supports the general principle that rich countries should help those less well off.  Similarly, I think many other member states have suffered in the past e.g. through two world wars, much more than the UK and so perhaps see the EU as a project which will help prevent any possibility of such conflict occurring again. I don't think we in the UK see the EU in that same light.

Second, and a narrower point. The EU has never really been about "equals". The voting system in the Council of Ministers has always been weighted towards the bigger member states, initially by Qualified Majority Voting where the big member states got more votes, and currently under the double' voting system where a percentage of the total population of the EU needs to be in favour of a measure which of course means the member states with the biggest populations like the UK get a bigger say.

Not entirely sure that average citizen in Portugal, Greece, Spain, or, for that matter, Italy would be in agreement that their economies have flourished as a result of their membership of the EU.

Innocent Bystander posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

In the “Are we sleepwalking” thread I repeatedly challenged people to offer any valid argument against my assertion that given the incomplete, inaccurate & misleading (at best) information that was available to voters at the time of the referendum 2 years ago, a confirmatory referendum once details of what  Brexit really means in practice are known is the only logical, sensible, wise and, above all. democratic thing to do before actually taking the last steps to leave the EU . Whilst it is obvious that numbers of people don’t want it because they believe the outcome would thwart their personal desire,, and a declaration olong the lines of “we won you lost, the country has decided” was trotted out ad nauseam, completely ignoring the argument I presented, not a single person advanced any reasoned argument in response. 

My challenge stands.

Your assertion is irrelevant because there isn’t going to be another referendum on this matter and we ARE going to leave the EU - which renders your challenge meaningless (imho) ...

You would be better, (again imho), using your energies to pursue an immediate departure so that we can get out from the yoke of EU bureaucracy and make our own way in the world.

But you can’t answer the challenge, can yo? So why should there be no referendum? (I accept that it is an uphill struggle to get UK Gov to run one).

Are you in tne camp that doesn't want one because you believe in your heart of hearts that what you want would indeed be reversed if there was one?

To me, your “challenge” is meaningless ...

I don’t want another referendum because we’ve already had one. Everybody had their chance to vote and the matter has been decided and it won’t be revisited.

Now we need a set of politicians with the will and determination to implement that decision - which (unfortunately, imho) is currently sadly lacking. That is the area which, I believe, should be getting your attention.

Hmack posted:
ynwa250505 posted:

1. Remaining in the single market is most definitely NOT leaving the EU.

2. Accepting free movement of people means we are not in control of our own destiny - the EU and the ECJwould be.

We should simply leave. All this discussion about a “deal” is missing the point - the fundamental issue is not economic - it is about the UK deciding and managing our own destiny and affairs - everything else is secondary.

The irony in all this is that all the UK wants to do is simply trade - as we agreed to do many decades ago, but the Barnier, Juncker, Merkel, Macron cabal aren’t interested, unless it is on their terms using their rules. So, let’s stop worrying about the unknown and let’s just get out now - we have the ability and the resources to succeed outside the EU - JFDI ...

I suspect that a sizeable number, if not most of your fellow Brexit supporters would not agree with your statement that economic issues are secondary, and that 'a deal' is not important. It strikes me as being fundamentally idiotic to hold that point of view irrespective of whether or not one wants to be in or out of the EU.

It would also be useful if someone from the 'hard-core' Brexit stance (and I assume that you would be happy to be classified in this way) would explain just what it is that you think we will gain by " being in charge of our own destiny and affairs". Is it simply the restriction of the number of Eastern European working incomers to our workplace, is it something else of a tangible nature, or is it just something hypothetical that you feel would be a 'nice to have' just in case - of what?  

On the first of these, we certainly are not going to have the hordes of Turkish workers entering our shores when Turkey joins the EU (as postulated by Farage and others) anytime soon, are we, so what are the real issues as far as you are concerned? To be really facetious, perhaps you were upset by the infamous Sun's article about potential restrictions on the legal shape of our bananas?

It would be really useful to know, because most of us on the 'Remain' side genuinely don't understand your rationale.

Calling me an idiot only reminds me why I left the other thread a long long time ago - it certainly doesn’t improve the quality of your argument ...

I don’t need you to understand my rationale.

hungryhalibut posted:

We were in France last week, and spoke to various people about Brexit. One was a winemaker, who is already suffering a sales drop to the U.K. due to the exchange rate, and who is really worried about how changes to borders will affect his business. Another was a British lorry driver on his way back to the UK with a huge lorry full of chemicals. He explained that he breezes through customs with no delays, and there were random checks for security. He said that if he ends up having to sit in his lorry for hours each journey for customs checks he would stop driving. Everyone else looked at us with pity and couldn’t understand why we are doing this. This isn’t about party politics, it’s about ordinary people being affected and being worried about their lives. 

So again, how will Brexit improve my life?

Leaving the EU isn’t about you and your life.

A great many ”ordinary people” have already considered the matter and the majority voted to leave the EU.

What the French think is irrelevant - that is a matter for French politicians.

hungryhalibut posted:

The point about managing our own affairs is interesting. We have various Brexit supporting friends and every time they start saying the Brexit will ‘give us back control’ we ask them to name one EU rule that they want to get rid of. Never have any been able to name a single one. Their desire to leave is based on a gut instinct that we should be free - but free from what they cannot say. 

It seems to me that national income will drop as the economy contracts, and indeed the statistics already point to a degree of contraction. If national income drops, the government has two choices - spend less of tax more. For the life of me I cannot see how either of these would make the lives of ordinary people better. 

At the end of the day, once we have left, as we surely will, the high ideals will be forgotten and everyday matters will take over. Will the fact that the country is free make up for poorer services and increased bureaucracy? Will people celebrate paying more for goods? Will they delight in finding it harder to go to Europe on their summer holidays? Will UK pensioners in the EU enjoy having less to spend? Will they be happy to wait longer for their hospital appointment? Of course they will!! They will be free!!

All the EU rules can go. Parliament will then determine how and to what extent the UK regulates the various areas. As an aside, it is well known that our regulations are often of a higher standard than those of the EU.

Free from the yoke of the EU.

National income may well drop - but adverse economic effects are an inevitable consequence of divorce - in exchange for a better future life.

Innocent Bystander posted:
hungryhalibut posted:

The point about managing our own affairs is interesting. We have various Brexit supporting friends and every time they start saying the Brexit will ‘give us back control’ we ask them to name one EU rule that they want to get rid of. Never have any been able to name a single one. Their desire to leave is based on a gut instinct that we should be free - but free from what they cannot say. 

To me, one thing that has been of concern has been EU courts being able to overule the UK’s judicial system in certain areas, which other than if specifically about compliance with EU law I have felt is a step too far, though I readily admit that I have not followed any cases closely so this is an impression rather than something of substance. Another thing that concerns me is an apparent creeping of power to the EU, which by extrapolation means that in a few decades time UK central Government will have no function other than being a local EU compliance body, which really is a Civil Service function not a political one. This presumably is the ‘freedom’ issue. Personally I this effective shift of soverignty is wrong - however I am hard pressed to identify any tangible reason why it would necessarily be a bad thing, as long as EU unity remained in perpetuity. Otherwise my criticism of the EU is that it has grown to be a bureaucratic quagmire, and is therefore probably inefficient and unnecessarily costly to run.

But where I differ fundamentally from the Brexiteers is that I believe that overall the EU has benefit, and it would be better to be in and seek to influence/improve/limit these things from the inside, rather than exclude ourselves. (That would require strong negotiating and influencing skills true skills, which appear to have been sadly lacking at least in the recent past, but that is another matter.)

 

ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

 

 

To me, your “challenge” is meaningless ...

I don’t want another referendum because we’ve already had one. Everybody had their chance to vote and the matter has been decided and it won’t be revisited.

Now we need a set of politicians with the will and determination to implement that decision - which (unfortunately, imho) is currently sadly lacking. That is the area which, I believe, should be getting your attention.

A very significant problem here is that the "it" wasn't defined and still hasn't been. Simply asserting that the UK will leave the EU is insufficient, even for hard-line Brexiteers. Look at the current political debate with Johnson throwing his weight around (but avoiding offering anything constructive). A number of Brexiteers are currently saying they won't support the PM's Chequers proposal.  The PM would no doubt argue that, should the EU and Parliament accept her proposal, the referendum result to leave the EU would have been satisfied. But some Brexiteers will argue it would be a betrayal.  So even among those politicians trying to implement the result of the referendum, they can agree what the "it" is.  

Para 1 - well said. However, I would go further in my condemnation of EU bureaucracy and cost.

Para 2 - the EU could (should) have been beneficial if the Brussels bureaucrats and various continental politicians ceased trying to create a federal Europe via political union and simply maintained a low cost trading bloc - then that should indeed be beneficial.

“A rising tide floats all boats”. But they just don’t get that, so it isn’t happening and so we are leaving.

hungryhalibut posted:

If the reporting is right, it seems that the EU is rejecting the Chequers deal, and is saying that the only option that could retain anything like the current economic relationship would be to follow the Norway model, under which there would be both freedom of movement of people and large payments to Brussels. Whether they move from this and treat us a a special case is anyone’s guess. But if they did, Norway wouldn’t be happy and would surely seek a revised deal. Maybe, as Norway is a lot smaller than the UK, the EU would consider it a price worth paying.  Who knows?

The Chequers “deal” is not a departure from the EU - that is undeniable. We should ignore the positions of other European countries, because they don’t suit the UK, and we should simply leave.

All matters/issues that require some negotiation should be addressed after departure, from a position of strength ... 😀

ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

But you can’t answer the challenge, can yo? So why should there be no referendum? (I accept that it is an uphill struggle to get UK Gov to run one).

Are you in tne camp that doesn't want one because you believe in your heart of hearts that what you want would indeed be reversed if there was one?

To me, your “challenge” is meaningless ...

I don’t want another referendum because we’ve already had one. Everybody had their chance to vote and the matter has been decided and it won’t be revisited.

Now we need a set of politicians with the will and determination to implement that decision - which (unfortunately, imho) is currently sadly lacking. That is the area which, I believe, should be getting your attention.

There hasn’t already been a confirmatory referendum once the real facts of Brexit are known. What there has been is a referendum - more than 2 years ago - when there had been a lot of lies, deceit, mis-information and absence of information about  what Brexit woukd entail, information that will have influenced people’s choices . Yes, everyone had a chance to vote - but other than those with a dogmatic view, their decisions could only have been based on the information available to them at the time.

 It seems to me that you don’t want a confirmatory referendum simply because you are afraid the will of the people has changed and a the result would not  give you what you want.

Innocent Bystander posted:
dave marshall posted:

As Nigel says above, "I agree that there are issues with the EU, and that we’d have been better pushing for reform from within".

I do think, though, that many of the folk who voted to leave felt that that particular horse had long since bolted, and that either successive UK Governments had done little to promote any such reforms, or that their attempts had been merely brushed aside.

I understand that view - though I think that the problem was compounded by poor negotiating and influencing ability. But I don’t see the past failures as precluding hope of progress, though what it needs is political nounce and a reduction in posturing. Negotiations should be assigned to professional negotiators, and likely requires time spent over several years patiently engaging with most or all other member states on a one-to-one basis trying to persuade them why it is beneficial to them to change the direction of the EU and reform the problem areas, and doing that long before the political meeting where decisions are formally made.

Simply going into a meeting /conference of that sort of makeup and expecting to come out successful without putting in the spadework is either arrogant or stupid, and any threat or posturing - such as saying UK will have a referendum on leaving - is guaranteed to failure, as indeed happened. And the general British lack of engagement with the EU politically (very low election turnouts - and many people even know the name of their MEP, let alone communicate their concerns?) is unlikely to have helped.

dave marshall posted:

 

Also, many came to the conclusion that, as the EU juggernaut continued to roll on, with broad hints of a future pan European superstate, that this no longer reflected the original intention, which had been simply the creation of the Common Market, an entity based on making trade between members easier and more cost effective.

Agreed

dave marshall posted:

It also seemed that, rather than all EU members being seen as equals, some were more "equal" than others, viz. the treatment of Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contradicted somewhat the concept of a united Europe.

I had not recognised that - good points, though from the BRitish point of view we were in the upper echelon and had more influence than most. ...back to my point re negotiating ability.

dave marshall posted:

Many Leavers therefore see "Project Europe" as a failing concept, and that the UK would be better off jumping ship sooner, rather than later.

The current intransigence on the part of  the EU to find a mutually satisfactory outcome merely serves to bolster this point of view.

If it weren’t for the negative consequences of leaving I might be persuaded to agree, but I think that it will be an unmitigated economic disaster that will  cause misery for lots of people, though probably proportionately more for the more disadvantaged in society.

As for the current EU intransigence, that is only to be expected - they cannot let a member leave and it be seen to others as favourable.

The UK has been trying to reform the EU from within for decades, without any success. The Brussels bureaucrats and continental politicians are not interested in reform, quite the opposite. They are seeking greater political union and greater control over national policies and decisions.

and yes, the UK has to be punished for it temerity. WTF!!!

 

ynwa250505 posted:!

All the EU rules can go. Parliament will then determine how and to what extent the UK regulates the various areas. As an aside, it is well known that our regulations are often of a higher standard than those of the EU.

Free from the yoke of the EU.

National income may well drop - but adverse economic effects are an inevitable consequence of divorce - in exchange for a better future life.

Well, right now the UK Government machine is busy redoing laws to make sure the EU ones are indeed fully watertight after Brexit, and making sure tbat  some that were never fully implemented before will be in the future.

And ‘the yoke of the EU’ is what exactly! What will UK be free to do?

and in what way will the British public at large have a better future life? I think it will be worse, and for the forseeable future.

Innocent Bystander posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

But you can’t answer the challenge, can yo? So why should there be no referendum? (I accept that it is an uphill struggle to get UK Gov to run one).

Are you in tne camp that doesn't want one because you believe in your heart of hearts that what you want would indeed be reversed if there was one?

To me, your “challenge” is meaningless ...

I don’t want another referendum because we’ve already had one. Everybody had their chance to vote and the matter has been decided and it won’t be revisited.

Now we need a set of politicians with the will and determination to implement that decision - which (unfortunately, imho) is currently sadly lacking. That is the area which, I believe, should be getting your attention.

There hasn’t already been a confirmatory referendum once the real facts of Brexit are known. What there has been is a referendum - more than 2 years ago - when there had been a lot of lies, deceit, mis-information and absence of information about  what Brexit woukd entail, information that will have influenced people’s choices . Yes, everyone had a chance to vote - but other than those with a dogmatic view, their decisions could only have been based on the information available to them at the time.

 It seems to me that you don’t want a confirmatory referendum simply because you are afraid the will of the people has changed and a the result would not  give you what you want.

Lies, deceit and misinformation? From politicians and the media? Surely not!

It seems to me you want a confirmatory referendum because you believe the will of the people has changed and the result of the last referendum didn’t give you what you want.

I think you under-estimate the capability of the British public.

ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
As for the current EU intransigence, that is only to be expected - they cannot let a member leave and it be seen to others as favourable.

and yes, the UK has to be punished for it temerity. WTF!!!

 

For the avoidance of doubt, just in case necessary, my comment was what I believe to be the inner EU position - and it is not to do with the UK’s temerity, rather they won’t want any other member states to think there can be a better life outside, and especially not one with so e benefits of EU membership but at less cost and commitment. 

Innocent Bystander posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
As for the current EU intransigence, that is only to be expected - they cannot let a member leave and it be seen to others as favourable.

and yes, the UK has to be punished for it temerity. WTF!!!

 

For the avoidance of doubt, just in case necessary, my comment was what I believe to be the inner EU position - and it is not to do with the UK’s temerity, rather they won’t want any other member states to think there can be a better life outside, and especially not one with so e benefits of EU membership but at less cost and commitment. 

But it is the “inner EU” who run the entire show, so it is everything to do with the UK’s temerity!

We have decided to leave and so “they” want to punish us.

What sort of club is it that acts in this way? Hotel California?

Add Reply

Likes (2)
fathings catPcd
×
×
×
×