Brexit - Merged Threads

[Laird Lugton]

Oowee with Qualified Majority Voting the eastern states might not get a say and according to Schulz if they refuse then they can be thrown out the EU.

[12gauge82]

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

Neutron a  good response to my rather short post. I largely agree with your text. I guess where we differ is I would go further to try to change the structure and nature of the EU model. To my mind the idea of European co-operation and integration around trade, defence, environmental standards, citizens rights (and more) is the right approach but as you say we need to have the flexibility to make more of our own decisions as to what is best for the UK and in return best for our partners. Having an overarching structure perhaps provides a framework to curb government excess and hopefully short term thinking. The UK can be more competitive free as you say from the teat of the EU, what concerns me is our short term political structure that that will not allow long term strategic thinking and policy.

Unfortunately the EU executive is lacking a coherent constitution or 'board' direction which has allowed the model to grow in an unregulated way taking on a life of its own. This will need to change at some point particularly with regards the Euro currency that will demand wealth redistribution. The federal Europe model is one way but I can't see the former Eastern European countries signing up to this approach.

In short co-operation is the way forward but the EU model will need to change drastically to achieve it. The UK can't do it on its own and will need the support of other member nations. The task of change more difficult from the outside perhaps or maybe it sets a marker for others to champion change from within. 

The EU is behaving exactly as it always intended and as was hidden from the public all these years, it will never change and the further we are from it when the house of cards comes crashing down the better we will be.

[JRDS]

The traitorous bitch is about to have a 2nd go at selling us down the river.  Pray to God Arlene hasn't been bought off.

Edited December 7, 2017 by JRDS

[Granett]

The pro-Brexit Sun reporting on a stunning win for May... 

WE WIN, EU LOSE - Theresa May WINS as EU backs down and agrees time-limit on Euro judges

 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5091682/theresa-may-time-limit-eu-citizens-rights/

The European Court of Justice will only have a role in the UK for 10 more years. 

Really sticking it to the EU. I suppose this is what having all the cards in the negotiations looks like. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[Granett]

Also in the Sun today... It sure doesn't sound like business wants a hard Brexit:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5087590/businesses-warn-they-will-start-to-move-jobs-out-of-uk-within-weeks-if-britain-and-eu-dont-start-brexit-trade-talks/

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

Businesses warn they will start to move jobs out of UK within weeks if Britain and EU don’t start Brexit trade talks

The boss of the CBI said 60% of companies were preparing to activate emergency plans by Easter

JOBS will start to leave Britain within a few months if Brexit trade talks don’t get the green light next week, business bosses warned last night.

Lobbying group the CBI said more than half of companies were planning to kickstart their emergency plans by Easter unless negotiations move forwards.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

10 hours ago, oowee said:

Neutron a  good response to my rather short post. I largely agree with your text. I guess where we differ is I would go further to try to change the structure and nature of the EU model. To my mind the idea of European co-operation and integration around trade, defence, environmental standards, citizens rights (and more) is the right approach but as you say we need to have the flexibility to make more of our own decisions as to what is best for the UK and in return best for our partners. Having an overarching structure perhaps provides a framework to curb government excess and hopefully short term thinking. The UK can be more competitive free as you say from the teat of the EU, what concerns me is our short term political structure that that will not allow long term strategic thinking and policy.

Unfortunately the EU executive is lacking a coherent constitution or 'board' direction which has allowed the model to grow in an unregulated way taking on a life of its own. This will need to change at some point particularly with regards the Euro currency that will demand wealth redistribution. The federal Europe model is one way but I can't see the former Eastern European countries signing up to this approach.

In short co-operation is the way forward but the EU model will need to change drastically to achieve it. The UK can't do it on its own and will need the support of other member nations. The task of change more difficult from the outside perhaps or maybe it sets a marker for others to champion change from within. 

And just how do you propose to do that?

We have been hampered by our membership of the burgeoning white elephant for decades.

Cameron went to the EU in order to get the immigration controls changed, got his **** kicked and then eventually made the momentous decision to hold a referendum.

The EU will not change to suit us, the German led requirement for central control, removal of individual countries identities and the unnecessary European Defence Force will happen within the next 10 or 20 years.

[oowee]

Eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And just how do you propose to do that?

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

So you do see the impossibility of your chosen task then.

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And just how do you propose to do that?

We have been hampered by our membership of the burgeoning white elephant for decades.

Cameron went to the EU in order to get the immigration controls changed, got his **** kicked and then eventually made the momentous decision to hold a referendum.

The EU will not change to suit us, the German led requirement for central control, removal of individual countries identities and the unnecessary European Defence Force will happen within the next 10 or 20 years.

Or round 3 as it could be called.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Round 3 should be Theresa May, David Davis and all the Civil Servants walking away after telling Michel Barnier and the rest of them that they are taking the ****.

[neutron619]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

 

The trouble with your analagy is not that it's wrong, but that it holds.

Eat one bite at a time by all means, but by the time you get a week in, having made a decent start, the whole thing will be a festering mess which will end up poisoning you from the inside out as you try desperately to finish the job.

[Granett]

Anyone reading about what's been agreed overnight?

It looks like Brexiteers are going to have chosen for us to remain bound by the rules, but to give up the powerful say we had about what those rules were. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Granett said:

Also in the Sun today... It sure doesn't sound like business wants a hard Brexit:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5087590/businesses-warn-they-will-start-to-move-jobs-out-of-uk-within-weeks-if-britain-and-eu-dont-start-brexit-trade-talks/

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

Businesses warn they will start to move jobs out of UK within weeks if Britain and EU don’t start Brexit trade talks

The boss of the CBI said 60% of companies were preparing to activate emergency plans by Easter

JOBS will start to leave Britain within a few months if Brexit trade talks don’t get the green light next week, business bosses warned last night.

Lobbying group the CBI said more than half of companies were planning to kickstart their emergency plans by Easter unless negotiations move forwards.

Mmm where to start ...?

TIME IS RUNNING OUT - For who ? Have you not got it round your head yet that EUropean countries risk losing just as much as UK ones ?

Businesses warn they will start to move jobs out of UK within weeks if Britain and EU don’t start Brexit trade talks
Where to ? So theyre going to make all their employees redundant or relocate them abroad ? Really ?

The boss of the CBI said 60% of companies were preparing to activate emergency plans by Easter
The CBI ..... 60% of companies , of ALL UK companies, how many actually have emergency Brexit plans ? CBI BS.

Which companies? Who wants to sound off and see their share price plummet.
Form an orderly queue to be first 

At best its a EU stooge CBI exaggeration, at worst its an outright lie

3 minutes ago, Granett said:

Anyone reading about what's been agreed overnight? t

It looks like Brexiteers are going to have chosen for us to remain bound by the rules, but to give up the powerful say we had about what those rules were. 

Youre beginning to sound desperate Grannet.
Nothings happened until that inks on the paper, plenty of time for the whole thing to collapse.
Were still dancing.

[TriBsa]

Quote

In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

That's not leaving the EU. Ulster is no longer a special case, we are now all in Ulster. May has sold us down the river, this is no Brexit. The door to mass immigration is still open and the EU gets a blank cheque on payments till 2020.

As Nigel Farage says:

Quote

A deal in Brussels is good news for Mrs May as we can now move on to the next stage of humiliation.

 

[Granett]

40 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Mmm where to start ...?

TIME IS RUNNING OUT - For who ? Have you not got it round your head yet that EUropean countries risk losing just as much as UK ones ?

Businesses warn they will start to move jobs out of UK within weeks if Britain and EU don’t start Brexit trade talks
Where to ? So theyre going to make all their employees redundant or relocate them abroad ? Really ?

The boss of the CBI said 60% of companies were preparing to activate emergency plans by Easter
The CBI ..... 60% of companies , of ALL UK companies, how many actually have emergency Brexit plans ? CBI BS.

Which companies? Who wants to sound off and see their share price plummet.
Form an orderly queue to be first 

At best its a EU stooge CBI exaggeration, at worst its an outright lie

Youre beginning to sound desperate Grannet.
Nothings happened until that inks on the paper, plenty of time for the whole thing to collapse.
Were still dancing.

LOL. Desperate? Not at all. Just increasingly amused at just how closely this shambles is turning out to match exactly what was predicted.

The ironies just come almost too thick and fast...

Much was wrongly made of a Sovereignty the Brexit team acknowledged we had all along. The fallacy there was a mistaken and delicate feeling among Brexiteers that we didn't have control of our own laws, when in fact we did, and now, as a result of Brexit, we're giving up the powerful control we had over EU rules we're agreeing to be bound by and yet now won't have a say in anymore.

And it's frequently said on here, that this foot-shooting, nation-emasculating Brexit is somehow the patriotic choice.

Ah well. This might be a genius negotiating ploy by David Davis, Brexit Bulldog and Master Negotiator. He's probably spent the last year slaving away to complete "50, no, nearly 60" negotiating wargames in "excruciating detail" and has a cunning plan.

As you say, despite all sides presenting pretty much a consensus view that this is where negotiations are at, it might all be untrue..."jusqu'ici tout va bien"

 

(Oh and the irony of a dismissal of UK business voices, when we're all relying on their German counterparts at BMW to sway Merkel et al! - Good stuff!)

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[Rewulf]

'now, as a result of Brexit, we're giving up the powerful control we had over EU rules'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662422/EU-referendum-Brexit-Britain-outvoted-EU-Council-VoteWatch-Europe-study-MEPs

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/the-eus-court-is-picking-apart-our-laws/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648899/Britain-loses-most-cases-taken-to-European-Court-EU-referendum-Vote-Leave-Gove

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532727/UK-taxpayers-face-50bn-bill-EU-judges-overrule-tax-laws-exposing-multinationals-use-EU-courts-claw-taxes.html

I could go on, but Im wasting my time as it is.
The fact is, we either get outvoted, overruled or ignored.
Thats our 'powerful' voice in the EU.

 

 

[Newbie to this]

Anyone thinks that this group of great countries that make up the UK, can't hold it's own in the world needs to do some history lessons. And yes I understand we can't live in the past but we sure as hell can learn from it.

If the EU is so great, then why hasn't USA, China, Japan, Australia and any other countries with decent economies tried to join? It is after all such a great institution designed to bring like minded countries closer together. Just think they could rebrand it to WU! Lets see how many Americans would pipe up about how great it is then!

[Granett]

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said, but perhaps not the tone of some of it, or the implication.

We did indeed exploit and subjugate others during our "Imperial" period. In fact, perhaps ironically, that happened to a much greater degree in the 19th century than with earlier trade successes (e.g. outdoing the Dutch mercantilists at their own game) where political desire drove unfortunate behaviours in the many which - when it was just individuals running handfuls of ships for profit 200 years earlier - didn't really occur. They didn't need an empire for a comfortable life - just uninterrupted trade. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the pressures of large-scale, organized working driven by politics led to abuse.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this.

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

I don't know if you meant to imply it or not, but I detected an undercurrent of "and that was unacceptable" in your first paragraph. Of course abuses occurred, but recent western empires - even the German ones - haven't been wholly bad. The balance has fallen in different places dependent on the particular case, but whereas the Third Reich was - in one sense - a throwback to the ancient Egyptian / Sumerian empires ("kill everyone or enslave them, and steal their land and stuff"), many more recent empires have had a benign streak too.

As you say, you've interpreted a implication, but in doing so you've also created a bit of a strawman - the argument that something must be utterly without merit to be unacceptable, and you've countered that strawman, it seems, by pointing to benefits and saying that because these empires results in some benefit(s) empires aren't unacceptable. Again, I'm unsure of the relevance.

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

The British Empire subjugated, but brought education, the rule of law, sanitation and a semblence of freedom to many societies that had never experienced them. Interestingly, note the locations where we failed to subjugate: Pakistan and Afghanistan remain in outlook and philosophy, somewhere between the 7th and 12th centuries, whereas India (subjugated, granted independence) is now a thriving, modern (mostly democratic) country and economy.

Or, to use a more modern example, the current American "empire" of colonies (e.g. Puerto Rico), vassal states (e.g. Haiti) and dependents (NATO members, most of Europe) is generally credited (correctly and much to the EU's disgust, no doubt) with keeping the peace in two thirds of the globe for the last 70 years. Yes, there have been a few pressure points, but generally we don't feel oppressed by the Americans (though I believe some people may feel rather opressed by the current president).

Remember too, that people will put up with a lot if they think it benefits them - which explains some remainers' attachment to the EU in spite of the obvious and overwhelming evidence of abuse of individual freedoms.

Take Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela: he keeps getting "elected" (though it is a dictatorship), even if thousands of people suspected of taking drugs disappear every month. Or Aung Aan Suu Kyi in Burma: a rather large number of muslims are being forcibly exiled or starved to death by the machinery of the state, but she's as popular as ever. In losing relatives, friends, rights to congregate / associate or speak out, everyone in those countries is affected - subjugated to the state - but they'll tolerate it because their lives seem to be improved by it. The same was / is particularly true of the more benign recent empires (Napoleonic France, Imperial Britain, Modern American) where even if the subjugated are opposed to their rulers in principle, they are accepted or even treated with affection in practice. (Perhaps that's why we keep electing our own politicians!?)

I agree with you that we and they have been protectionist and, via our membership of the EU, continue to be so. We are, generally in the West, lucky to experience the living standards that we do - but we have also had the good sense to put in place the structures, laws and institutions which allow them to occur. In supporting the EU however, we are not opposing or preventing the abuses of old empires, but repeating them. Protectionism damages everyone in the end, except perhaps those lucky enough to be in the right place to profit from it (perhaps the overseers of the scheme, in their ivory towers in Brussels?)

The bold section seems to be your first pro-Brexit argument. Having argued for why empires were beneficial, now you're saying the EU is an empire. I know you go on to flesh this out, and I'll get on to that, but it seems worthwhile pointing out that to this point you appear to argued against yourself. 

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

The example that resonates with me is the grain tariffs. Africa is not - no matter how much some third world development charities and environmental campaigners might like to pretend - a basket case full of dictators who eat babies and where everybody starves before the age of 5 or dies of ebola. Yes, there are problems, but to take Ethiopia - which my wife knows reasonably well as an example - it's lush, green and amazingly rich in life. Often, it produces a surplus of grain and many other agricultural goods. Famines do sometimes still occur, but this is partly caused by underdeveloped infrastructure and distribution networks which means that the food can't get to where it's needed.

What do they do with that surplus? Well currently, they tend to feed it to the animals. Sensible, perhaps, but when you look at it another way, you ask yourself - what if they could sell the grain to buy machinery to improve their yeilds to produce more grain and feed the animals? Ethiopians (Africans) know about capitalism too and they aren't just waiting for the next handout - they want to improve their living standards just like the rest of us. So they go to Europe, with a shortage of grain and farming land and offer to sell us some in return for machinery and what does Europe say? "There'll be a 40% surcharge on the grain to protect our uncompetitive French farmers and we can't sell you any machines because it violates export regulations."

Can you show me where the 40% surcharge on grain can be found? I've had a look because I don't know the exact figures, and wanted to know out of interest. I can't find it anywhere.

Notwithstanding that evidential point, it's unclear how Brexit fits into your reasoning. You are saying EU tariffs are unfair, and yet Brexit means we no longer have a say about them. The only way I can see there being consistency in your argument is if you believe Brexit will bring down the EU project. If the argument is going down that route, then we end up at that Brexit "End of the World" style fallacy about the EU end days - "Just you wait"... "Just a little longer"... "And a little longer..."

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

So it goes elsewhere and someone else gets to enjoy cheap bread, or stays in Ethiopia and feeds the family cow, literally eating any possible profit, or investment in their own wellbeing which could have been made, if the market had been undistorted. Why? The surcharge makes their grain uncompetetive and they can't sell it. Being refused advanced machinery prevents them from getting better yeilds and so improving their living standards through their own hard work. They may as well wait for another handout from Geldof and his groupies.

So yes - Britain has probably benefited from these "protections", but they aren't morally justifiable in my book. If I believe in anything, I believe in people being able to support themselves and have the chance at self-improvement and better living standards - if that's what they want - and being left along to live their lives, in peace, without interference from others or the state unless it's invited. Essentially, I'm a classical liberal, though no-one in politics today seems to understand or remember what that is - I'm certainly not a "liberal" by the modern or the pejorative definitions.

As above. Brexit (and taking the UK out of the room when decisions about the EU are being made) is a very odd solution to the problem you set out (and it's a problem not many of your fellow Brexiteers seem to recognise - more on this later).

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

The implication I talked about at the top is the one that says "we can only survive outside if we do X, Y and Z, but we can't so we have to stay in". I don't believe that. We do have to do the things you described to make a success of Brexit, but I'm an optimist (apparently - it's news to me!) and I think we can do them. I believe that putting people in the position where they have to do something to make things better or suffer more badly usually results in them making things better. I have a (very slightly) chequered past myself and I can say without a doubt that the worst thing my parents ever did for me was to try to protect me from the consequences of my actions. As soon as they stopped doing that, my life got better because I had to solve my problems myself. The same is true on a national level, I believe.

This is where the Brexit argument has gone through most revision. Before the referendum, Brexit was going to deliver immediate unicorns - we were instantly going to be £350m better off a week. That segued to long-term benefits without cost, then at some short term cost. Now it's "We can survive".

The question that line of thought begs is, "Why?" What can we do outside the EU, that we couldn't do inside?

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

The British have grown fat on the past and we need a good shake up, frankly. There are too many people here who think that it's someone else's job to provide what they need, free of charge. I don't want to get into a discussion about what the state should and shouldn't provide (my own answer is not "nothing" but probably a bit less than it does now, or at least, the same with different priorities) but our place at the Brussels "teat" has made us lazy. We haven't felt the need to compete, healthily, with our close neighbours and friends, so we haven't. On one level - fine. If we don't want to work any harder, we won't and we'll live with it whilst they get better off and we don't. But on the other hand, we do need a bit of motivational therapy I think, because we've also become unprepared to compete with (or stand up to) those who are not our friends or who do not treat us favourably, to the detriment of more than just ourselves.

This for me is the most staggering part (or rather, it's the "+1" comments this post - with this section in it - has garnered, that is mind-boggling.

I haven't the energy to look back and find some quotes, but there was incredible consensus on here before the ref that the EU were bloodsuckers milking the UK dry, and holding us back. Now, all of a sudden, "we were growing fat and lazy at the teat of Brussels"!

You may always have had this view, but it is a cringe-worthy volte-face for most here.

The notion that each Brexiteer voting was reading, "I am not working hard enough, yes or no?" and placing a big tick in the box. Whether the laziness is true or not, the self-awareness and self-deprecation is without any evidence I have seen whatsoever. 

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

We can "do" high academic standards and high productivity.

Again - Brexit as a defence of our universities? It's a new one on me. On the contrary, the "McCarthyite" letter from Tory MP Chris Heaton-Harris to universities was far more inline with what has been stated here.

On productivity, I'd love to see you expand more, and in particular address the disparity between the effect you state EU membership has had on UK productivity, versus its effect on other member states.

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

We do still have institutions and a society which allow for them, though they are under attack from "harmonization" and regulations which do not help us make the best choices for ourselves. Brexit gives us the chance to escape the people of dangerous character that I described above and to justify our (still, in spite of recent failings) high place in the world. We are a small country and not the richest or the most productive, but people still flock here (tourists and immigrants) and want to know about "England" because that word represents something to them and exists in their consciousness as more than just a place on a map. It's a place they view as better than their own and that's almost unique to us. English is the language that everybody speaks.

This is a little unclear, but appears to be an argument against homogenisation, which argument I've seen before in support of Brexit. What  I've not seen is any analysis on the relative effect of EU membership in this area versus, say, our worldwide accelerated globalisation as the result of technological advances such as physical and information transport.

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

When people ask the oppressed overseas "where would you feel free?" or "where could you have a better life?", the answer is more often than not "England". Sometimes "America"; rarely "France; usually "England". I know it's really "Britain", but in spite of us all falling apart over Brexit, we are still seen as the ones "getting it right", no matter what the doomsayers tell us. In fact, the falling apart over it but not resorting to civil war about it shows how strong we still are as a society and how well we disagree! Lesser nations would have started a coup or a bloodbath by now.

This seems a bit anecdotal, and in any event, even before we formally leave the EU, the vote for Brexit has demonstrably diminished this, with numbers down, and the reasons given being "the UK no longer seems that hospitable". 

On 07/12/2017 at 09:39, neutron619 said:

In spite of some deliberate efforts to change it, our national character hasn't much changed: we still value fairness, tolerance, decency, representative democracy and the rule of law as ever we did (even though we forget that we do sometimes) and people still admire us for that. Some of the folk in Ethiopia my wife has met treat "seeing England" as a life goal - I just feel that, at the moment, they might be a bit disappointed if they did. Brexit could - if it's done wholeheartedly - be our chance to change that.

It remains unanswered how an improvement in "fairness, tolerance, decency, representative democracy and the rule of law" is best served by Brexit.

[Granett]

23 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

'now, as a result of Brexit, we're giving up the powerful control we had over EU rules'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662422/EU-referendum-Brexit-Britain-outvoted-EU-Council-VoteWatch-Europe-study-MEPs

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/the-eus-court-is-picking-apart-our-laws/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648899/Britain-loses-most-cases-taken-to-European-Court-EU-referendum-Vote-Leave-Gove

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532727/UK-taxpayers-face-50bn-bill-EU-judges-overrule-tax-laws-exposing-multinationals-use-EU-courts-claw-taxes.html

I could go on, but Im wasting my time as it is.
The fact is, we either get outvoted, overruled or ignored.
Thats our 'powerful' voice in the EU.

Oh good Lord.

"Powerful control over EU rules" =/= "EU courts will always find in favour of UK Govt"

Legislature =/= Judiciary

EDIT: LOL. One of those cases you've cited is the one that was brought by David Davis against HMG! Given that this is PW, had it gone the other way, no doubt you'd be using it to "prove" the EU had it in for Brexiteers!

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[Rewulf]

Granett , your logic in respect to Neutrons posts and mine defies any kind of reasoning.
Maybe were just not clever enough for you ?
Im still not sure why you post on this topic to be fair, you arent going to change peoples minds unless you at least attempt to see their point of view.

"The question that line of thought begs is, "Why?" What can we do outside the EU, that we couldn't do inside?"

If you need to ask that question, then I cant really go on with you anymore.

[Granett]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Granett , your logic in respect to Neutrons posts and mine defies any kind of reasoning.
Maybe were just not clever enough for you ?
Im still not sure why you post on this topic to be fair, you arent going to change peoples minds unless you at least attempt to see their point of view.

"The question that line of thought begs is, "Why?" What can we do outside the EU, that we couldn't do inside?"

If you need to ask that question, then I cant really go on with you anymore.

Your efforts to justify not engaging with the argument are nothing if not incessant!

If my point "defies all reasoning" it'd be a simple job for you to quote one line from Neutron's post that can only be achieved outside the EU. Why haven't you done that, then?

Because I asked a question! Which you've answered with an appeal to self-evident truth.

LOL. In that case, how about you just explain what relevance the judiciary have on a point about legislature.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, Granett said:

Your efforts to justify not engaging with the argument are nothing if not incessant!

If my point "defies all reasoning" it'd be a simple job for you to quote one line from Neutron's post that can only be achieved outside the EU. Why haven't you done that, then?

Because I asked a question! Which you've answered with an appeal to self-evident truth.

LOL. In that case, how about you just explain what relevance the judiciary have on a point about legislature.

As Ive said, Im not arguing with you any more, Ill not be replying to your comments again.
If others want to ,thats fine, but its just not worth it for me.
Good luck.

[yod dropper]

From some of the childish grizzling running through this thread there seem to be some very bored and unfulfilled people out there.  If it's genuine, it's just another upside of Brexit.

[neutron619]

I suspect this will be rather dull, but ok, here goes.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

I'm not sure of the relevance of this.

I suspect you didn't read the earlier post. The point was that the introduction of politics and political motivation into trade usually results in abuses of power, inequality and empire building of one sort or another. The Dutch mercantilists and later ours were essentially pure capitalists - they went where the money was to be made but they didn't look to establish cartels or trade dominance (or not until much later) and I was holding this up as an example of a desirable kind of trade in contrast to the way we sometimes behaved during the Empire.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

As you say, you've interpreted a implication, but in doing so you've also created a bit of a strawman - the argument that something must be utterly without merit to be unacceptable, and you've countered that strawman, it seems, by pointing to benefits and saying that because these empires results in some benefit(s) empires aren't unacceptable. Again, I'm unsure of the relevance.

Yes, a straw man of sorts, but if you didn't follow the inference, it was an attempt at balance with what followed. The EU has not been wholly bad and I wanted to recognise that to find common ground with owwee. Much of the rest of this section is recognising that even the worst empires can benefit their citizens (e.g. the economic resurrection and industrialization of Germany during the Third Reich) as well as the best of them. It's also to emphasise that I think that the British Empire was a good example of Imperial rule, largely a success for the folk owwee implied were "the subjugated" and to highlight that history as a demonstration of the values which I believe many British people hold, but which seem regularly to be anathema to the EU and it's "elite".

1 hour ago, Granett said:

The bold section seems to be your first pro-Brexit argument. Having argued for why empires were beneficial, now you're saying the EU is an empire. I know you go on to flesh this out, and I'll get on to that, but it seems worthwhile pointing out that to this point you appear to argued against yourself. 

Again, this is called balance. The EU has done some good. I wish we could get shot of it like a lot of people, but it's not fair to say that it's 100% bad. Recall please, that I turned up here to agree with the point that it was not a dictatorship but that by it's structure and behaviour, appears to be and often acts like one.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

Can you show me where the 40% surcharge on grain can be found? I've had a look because I don't know the exact figures, and wanted to know out of interest. I can't find it anywhere.

Notwithstanding that evidential point, it's unclear how Brexit fits into your reasoning. You are saying EU tariffs are unfair, and yet Brexit means we no longer have a say about them. The only way I can see there being consistency in your argument is if you believe Brexit will bring down the EU project. If the argument is going down that route, then we end up at that Brexit "End of the World" style fallacy about the EU end days - "Just you wait"... "Just a little longer"... "And a little longer..."

Yes. I can do better than that.

Go here: http://madb.europa.eu/madb/euTariffs.htm?productCode=100310&country=GA which is a website listing all of the external EU tarrifs.

Pick an African country - I'll use Gabon for this example as I wasn't able to find Ethiopia in their list.

Enter a product code - I'll use 100310 which is for plain barley - but go through the category picker and have a look for yourself. When the page loads, you'll see a "third country import tarrif of 90 euros (c. £78) per ton.

Now go here: http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/prices-trends/

That page shows that today's spot price for barley inside the EU (e.g. free of tarrifs) is £118.08 / ton.

That equates to a tarrif of around 66% on Gabonese barley, imported into the EU. There are many simillar examples.

Your second paragraph above shows a blindness to the meaning of something else I mentioned in the post above: I'm a classical liberal. That means I believe in taking responsibility (including moral responsibility) for my actions and I want to see my country do so to.

For better or worse Rewulf has provided evidence of many occasions when we have been obliged to follow EU law but it has not been to our advantage. I take your point about only respecting the judge when he gives the verdict you want and I would not argue that, if the law said X, we should have done Y. We subscribed to the law and we must follow it whilst it stands. However, we are within our rights to choose to change the law, or, if we cannot change it ourselves via Parliament, to choose a legal way (i.e. Article 50) of not necessarily being subject to them.

In this specific case, my comment would be the same as Rewulfs. We have patiently waited for 40+ years for our voice to "mean something" in Europe, but generally, it does not. Although we have been able to slow down or prevent some of the things which were damaging to our interests using things like vetos or winning rebates, the reception to what we might call our "positive" vision of Europe (e.g. "free market association") has been consistently ignored in favour of the more continental view of "protectionist federalism". It has long been one of the complaints against the EU that it over-regulates and another that it has been protectionist. We have four decades of evidence showing that the British outlook has been consistently ignored or only grudgingly accomodated.

With that in mind, one has, at some point to say "it is not proper for me to be a part of this abuse". My personal belief is that trade tariffs are morally wrong and essentially damaging, wherever they are applied. (Trade standards are a different matter.) We have been entirely unable (or unwilling) to influence the EU to remove external tariffs and have barely mitigated its protectionist instincts, so all that is left is to declare "I will not stand with you whilst you perpetuate unfairness" and leave them to it.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

As above. Brexit (and taking the UK out of the room when decisions about the EU are being made) is a very odd solution to the problem you set out (and it's a problem not many of your fellow Brexiteers seem to recognise - more on this later).

As above. If we are in the room, so to speak, we are culpable. We could argue that reducing a tariff from 40% to 20% is an improvement, but it's still our Prime Minister's name on the dotted line and done in our name. The reason I hope for a "WTO" Brexit is that it gives us the option - which I hope we'll take - of introducing genuinely free trade with the rest of the world. It would be hugely to our advantage and a massive step towards dismantling trade barriers. It would enrich us and the third world, whose goods we'd be able to buy, to a huge degree. If you want to solve famine in Africa, don't have a whip-round - just buy their stuff.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

This is where the Brexit argument has gone through most revision. Before the referendum, Brexit was going to deliver immediate unicorns - we were instantly going to be £350m better off a week. That segued to long-term benefits without cost, then at some short term cost. Now it's "We can survive".

The question that line of thought begs is, "Why?" What can we do outside the EU, that we couldn't do inside?

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that I never believed Brexit was going to deliver unicorns. Escaping those of dangerous character and the possibility of genuine free trade (incorporating arguments about sovereignty, which is a prerequisite for the latter) were my reasons. You're already aware of some of the things we can do outside the EU as I've listed them, but at it's simplest, this is the old question about personal freedom which comes up in every generation. I believe people have to be free to make the wrong choice and that that freedom of choice is more important than the outcome.

Put another way, if we're in the EU, we're legally bound to act, trade, behave in a certain way. Without those laws, we can still choose to act in the same way, but it isn't a compulsion - it's freedom. For me, it doesn't matter what we might or might not do - the second option is better because it allows for people's wishes to be taken into account.

I'll say it explicitly: if there was another referendum and "join the EU again" won, I'd be bound to respect that. I wouldn't like it and unless the character and behaviour of the organization had changed substantially by then, I'd campaign to leave again, but it would be democratic and the free choice of this country and on that level, I wouldn't be able to object to it on grounds of freedom denied.

Aside: that, more than anything else, is why a) we have to leave properly and cut all the "strings" and b) I detest the organization so much: the "you have a choice, but only if you choose correctly" attitude. At it's simplest, it isn't loving. Any parent will recognize the feeling: you want your child to do this / that / behave in the way which you think is proper / succeed - but if they're making an informed choice to do something else, then you let them because you love them and support their freedom to choose. The EU absolutely does not do this (all the while professing "love" for its "citizens").

1 hour ago, Granett said:

This for me is the most staggering part (or rather, it's the "+1" comments this post - with this section in it - has garnered, that is mind-boggling.

I haven't the energy to look back and find some quotes, but there was incredible consensus on here before the ref that the EU were bloodsuckers milking the UK dry, and holding us back. Now, all of a sudden, "we were growing fat and lazy at the teat of Brussels"!

You may always have had this view, but it is a cringe-worthy volte-face for most here.

The notion that each Brexiteer voting was reading, "I am not working hard enough, yes or no?" and placing a big tick in the box. Whether the laziness is true or not, the self-awareness and self-deprecation is without any evidence I have seen whatsoever. 

Currently, I would say that the EU are trying to milk us dry and they have certainly held us back in terms of regulations and rules. In past years, there have certainly been demands for money which have not served our interests and as a net contributor (their accounts, not my opinion) we have certainly put in more than we have got out of it. For me, I don't think the money - aside from the outrageous "divorce bill" which now seems to have been mitigated somewhat - was ever that important.

I always found it rather more offensive that on joining the EU, we became unable to freely trade with long-term partners and friends (e.g. the Commonwealth states) to whom we have always been well-disposed (and they to us) and with whom we have a lot more in common. The good things that came out of the sometimes-less-than-good of the British Empire, perhaps? I remember one Australian friend saying "welcome back - we missed you" the day after the vote. They were hopeful that we would rekindle the old friendship, so to speak. Either way, think about what an amazing amount of good the Commonwealth as a trade organization could have done: how much deprivation in the poorer parts of the world might have been solved if we'd built relationships on trade rather than protectionism, rules, regulations and Federalism!

I can't tell you what other leavers might have thought or explain the apparent contradition, except that I suspect both things were true concurrently. There seems to be a parallel between our political class' abdication of so much power and opportunity to the EU and the malaise which seems to affect British society today, where everyone expects, but no-one stands up and owns anything. The EU is, for states, the same as the government now appears to be to the individual: the thing which saves you from having to take responsibility for your own actions. How many times have you heard ministers stand up or newspapers declare that some perceived ill has happened because of EU law?

It may be true, it may not be, but if it is, what are we to do? Nobody we can vote for can challenge the injustice of a bad law or regulation because ministers defer to Brussels and we can't vote for anyone who can initiate legislation there. Likewise, however much of our law the EU writes, where was Parliament - so recently concerned with it's own importance -  saying "no" when the latest damaging regulation came in to be gold-plated and rubber stamped? Leaving the EU could reinvigorate our democracy because it means that the buck will stop with the people we elect and can't be passed off to Brussels. Let's force them to think harder and explain themselves to justify the power we invest in them, I say.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

Again - Brexit as a defence of our universities? It's a new one on me. On the contrary, the "McCarthyite" letter from Tory MP Chris Heaton-Harris to universities was far more inline with what has been stated here.

On productivity, I'd love to see you expand more, and in particular address the disparity between the effect you state EU membership has had on UK productivity, versus its effect on other member states.

The Heaton-Harris letter was damaging in many ways and an action with which I do not agree with. I likewise vehemently disagree that universities should be able to have so-called "safe spaces" or police the opinions of their students (or allow students to police other students in that way). You'll note I keep returning to freedom and that's because it's important to me. People need to be free to be wrong, to be challenged and to continue to disagree amicably afterwards. (I always like to think that love is finding someone with whom you're content to do that for the rest of your life. Thankfully, on that point alone, my wife agrees with me!) It's worth fighting for and I'll fight for it if anyone - remainer or leaver - argues against it.

On productivity, I should probably write another post, but I'd say that the biggest damage membership of the EU does is stifle competition. Regulations tend to fragment markets into structures where only the "right" organizations can operate - I think economists call that "high barriers to entry". The more regulations, the higher the barriers. Small, disruptive businesses with new ideas cannot compete with the regulatory environment and so are often unviable, and so do not get started at all, whilst big, established business can lobby to have the environment tailored to their advantage - often successfully. The people with good and unusual ideas about how to make some small part of the world better then choose instead to stay in their less productive and boring job, never employ anyone and never generate any wealth from their missed opportunity. Of course - any one example might make that true or not, but overall, I'd say that deregulation tends to improve the health of economies.

1 hour ago, Granett said:

This is a little unclear, but...

On the last three points you've raised, there aren't really arguments, per se. I've returned several times to the character of the EU, which I don't like or trust and I think that we made the right choice to disassociate ourselves from it. Looking in the other direction, I think the British character is generally better (when it remembers itself) and has a lot to offer in the areas like rule of law, democracy, etc. that were listed at the end.

These aren't "facts" or arguments, but that doesn't make them worthless. Just as you sometimes have to trust your instincts when shooting and know how to take the bird, sometimes, in the absence of all factual data or in a situation with conflicting data, you have to trust your instincts. My brother said to me the night before the vote: "how can you vote for something you don't know the outcome?" and I relied to him "tell me the outcome of staying in." Of course, he couldn't and history will judge, but if you've wiped out the factual arguments (and really, although there were a few, very few were convincing, or enough by themselves to help anyone decide) then all you have left is the "how do I feel about it?" question.

I'm a great believer in asking the question "what would a caveman do?" when I'm trying to decide something on which I'm stuck. In short, what that means is: "the human brain has evolved from simple monkey to modern man over the last 2,000,000 years and countless generations". What that means is that, although we rightly value reason, sometimes honed instinct will tell you the right answer without your understanding why it should be the answer. It's why people say "sleep on it". Let the brain chug it over and see what you feel in the morning. More often than not, it'll be the right answer for you.

For me, the EU is the wrong answer. I can, I hope, give good arguments for leaving it, and, again, I hope, good arguments why Britain can continue to be "Great" (without meaning to imply a Trumpian jingoism there), but fundamentally, I look, I see and I don't like it. That's probably the best argument of all - and certainly the most honest.

Edited December 8, 2017 by neutron619
Spelling, punctuation.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Loving your work Mate!