Brexit - Merged Threads

[Rewulf]

Me too ,brilliant 

[12gauge82]

Me three, you can't argue with facts, well Granett can, but it's just silly 

Edited December 8, 2017 by 12gauge82

[Granett]

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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

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.

Yeah, I read the posts. I wasn't very clear - fair enough for addressing them but the topic's a red-herring for the overall debate. Anyway, I agree with your history.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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".

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.

Fair enough. Noted. I just don't think you've demonstarted by the examples you've provided that your statement I've made bold is correct.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

Thanks. Useful links.I look at Durum wheat on there and there are zero tariffs. I look at Yams - one of Gabon's main exports it seems, and I see 8.30% + 3.80 EUR. I'm not convinced I'm looking at it correctly, but it doesn't seem to bear out this absolute deathgrip in which you seem to be saying the EU has Africa held.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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 unfair trade" and leave

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.

There wasn't a blindness. It's surely just a case of where you feel your moral obligation lies - at the driving seat of a large supertanker, or at the wheel of a smaller vessel - which, as you seem to acknowledge we may remain unwilling to change course even after going it alone. Even just on that basis, "addressing the tariff problem faced by Africa" seems an odd argument for Brexit.

And you're misrepresenting what Rewulf cited - these were often cases brought by UK citizens against the UK Govt. It is to gloss over them to simply say "we have been obliged to follow EU law but it has not been to our advantage".

If by "We have patiently waited for 40+ years for our voice to "mean something" in Europe, but generally, it does not." you are referring again to your African tariffs, then, as I say, I do not see the evidence of that. If you mean something else, please say so - I'm genuinely interested.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

Fair enough. Not everyone had the wool pulled over their eyes. Your "escaping those of dangerous character" sounds a little "Project Fear" though. Who do you mean?

As you've linked the two here, in what way do you see the perceived "sovereignty-deficit" being affected by the terms of the trade agreements into which we will now enter?

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

That's no different from being bound by any legal system though, is it?

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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).

You've segued onto a different topic here, and appear to be arguing against a second referendum, which I've not mentioned so far. But seeing as you raise it... how long does the referendum mandate last? Longer or shorter than that provided by a general election?

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

This is in direct contrast to your claim we've been suckling at the teat of Brussels and it has made us fat. The "net contributor" comment surprises me. It seems like you have the capacity for a broader view than pinning such a comment on the EU accounts, which you'll be well aware won't reflect many of the benefits we draw from EU membership.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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 sold if we'd built relationships on trade rather than protectionism, rules, regulations and Federalism!

Again, this flies massively in the face of the arguments here about how we need to be looking after ourselves!

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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?

Again, bizarre. You acknowledge that the EU has been the scapegoat in political interviews and the pages of our tabloids, but make the EU the scapegoat for that!

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

Again, your arguments almost counter the arguments of other Brexiteers on here more than anything else. Before the referendum it was a case of putting control in the hands of our elected and sovereign MPs. Now those MPs are corrupt EU gravy trainers determined to sabotage Brexit.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

Okay. I look forward to seeing your contribution next time the universities bear the brunt of the PW Patriotism assessment.

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

This is theory detached from reality. In which industry is the UK uncompetitive through its EU membership?

5 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

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.

Yeah.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Me three, you  can't argue with facts, well Granett can, but it's just silly 

He is also an IRA apologist!

[Granett]

17 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

He is also an IRA apologist!

Edit:Actually screw that. I'm not gonna be drawn down to the PW level. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[12gauge82]

Oh dear 

Back on topic, I don't think I've ever been so angry at a political decision in my life, we're being sailed up the river on Brexit and I'm sure Mr Farage or others will be along with  party to deal with this, I will be showing my displeasure at the ballot box unless May does the democratic thing and delivers the result the majority voted for, to Leave the EU.

[oowee]

4 hours ago, neutron619 said:

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.

I like it 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

7 minutes ago, Granett said:

Says the convicted paedophile! 

(have I understood the rules of this game correctly?) 

Oh yes, I can quote you if I bother to look long enough, don't think you will find any proof to support your comment!

[ordnance]

Is it just me i like posts short and sweet, i cain't be bothered reading the longer ones. 

[oowee]

Just now, ordnance said:

Is it just me i like posts short and sweet, i cain't be bothered reading the longer ones. 

Certainly some long ones on here 

[Gordon R]

I think Granett's corner should throw in the towel. It has become embarrassing and he should be saved from further punishment.

[Granett]

7 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Oh yes, I can quote you if I bother to look long enough, don't think you will find any proof to support your comment!

I reckon I'll find as much proof as you can.

What a pitifully low stoop even for here.

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

I think Granett's corner should throw in the towel. It has become embarrassing and he should be saved from further punishment.

+1

[Granett]

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I think Granett's corner should throw in the towel. It has become embarrassing and he should be saved from further punishment.

Lol. Is that based on the evidence of just how successful Brexit is turning out to be? I think I might still be in with a chance there, you know?

If it's the insults and lying accusations being made against one of a very small minority of posters on PW, whilst the rest post comments like yours, then, again, I think I'm alright. It actually adds to the humour of the rank hypocrisy when people start railing about EU bullies.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Granett

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, Granett said:

Lol. Is that based on the evidence of just how successful Brexit is turning out to be? I think I might still be in with a chance there, you know?

If it's the insults and lying accusations being made against one of a very small minority of posters on PW, whilst the rest post comments like yours, then, again, I think I'm alright. It actually adds to the humour of the rank hypocrisy when people start railing about EU bullies.

-1

[neutron619]

Right - this one will be shorter as I actually have to do some work today.

5 minutes ago, Granett said:

Fair enough. Noted. I just don't think you've demonstarted by the examples you've provided that your statement I've made bold is correct.

No elected representatives who have legislative initiative.

The inability of those representatives to cancel commission legislation, even by majority vote.

The power of the "committees".

Denmark Referendum 1992, followed by 1993 when they voted the "right" way after terms the Danes are still reportedly sore about.

Ireland Referendum 2001 followed by 2002 when they voted the "right" way after minor amendments.

French Referendum 2005  on the European Constitution followed by 2008 when the same document with a different name was forced through against bitter opposition.

Dutch Referendym 2008 on the European Constitution - after political manouverings  they were not offered the opportunity to reject it again.

Irish Referendum 2008 followed by a second referendum in 2009 when they finally managed to get it right. Mes amis!

Greek Bailout Referendum 2015 where the Greeks decided that they'd rather not be forced to borrow more German money to pay back the German money they couldn't pay back and, notwithstanding their stupidity in wanting to remain in the Euro, said so. They were then forced to take the "bailout" anyway, when a default would have been much the better option for them (but disastrous for the EU).

Brexit Referendum 2016 - Will we ever know how hard the establishment worked to stop this coming out as "leave"? And yet we still did. The reason that a 4% majority sees us in the situation we're in now is not because Project Fear didn't work hard enough, but because they overegged the pudding - a majority still chose to leave in spite of the warnings. Latest polls seem to suggest they still would, though I haven't read them carefully.

Hungarian migrant referendum 2016. EU asks member states to take extra migrants because dear old Mutti couldn't keep her trap shut and invited two million of them in but Germany didn't really want them. What Germany wants, Germany gets, so they're dispersed over the continent - except in Hugary, who said "no thank you" and are now being taken to court (you have to laugh - the ECJ) by the commission who want them to accept quotas.

18 minutes ago, Granett said:

Fair enough. Not everyone had the wool pulled over their eyes. Your "escaping those of dangerous character" sounds a little "Project Fear" though. Who do you mean?

As you've linked the two here, in what way do you see the perceived "sovereignty-deficit" being affected by the terms of the trade agreements into which we will now enter?

Exactly what I said above in my earlier posts.

Sovereignty defecit: well - if we stay in, we get what the EU gives us. If we leave, we can give up sovereignty to make a trade agreement, or not, but we get to choose, and renegotiate if appropriate. The latter case allows for broader scope and is therefore more "free".

21 minutes ago, Granett said:

There wasn't a blindness. It's surely just a case of where you feel your moral obligation lies - at the driving seat of a large supertanker, or at the wheel of a smaller vessel - which, as you seem to acknowledge we may remain unwilling to change course even after going it alone. Even just on that basis, "addressing the tariff problem faced by Africa" seems an odd argument for Brexit.

And you're misrepresenting what Rewulf cited - these were often cases brought by UK citizens against the UK Govt. It is to gloss over them to simply say "we have been obliged to follow EU law but it has not been to our advantage".

If by "We have patiently waited for 40+ years for our voice to "mean something" in Europe, but generally, it does not." you are referring again to your African tariffs, then, as I say, I do not see the evidence of that. If you mean something else, please say so - I'm genuinely interested.

A nice try, but this is just the age-old trick of using a specific to try to disprove a generality. If you ask me to prove we've been ignored in every case, I can't, because it isn't true. It also isn't true that African tariffs is a singular argument for Brexit - it isn't and it would be odd if I thought so. However our voice doesn't mean as much as it perhaps should or would, if we were the ones pushing for the realization of the von Coudenhove-Kalergi manifesto.

As for our "advantage", whether that's in favour of the individuals, or the British Government's, appears to me to be entirely subjective and therefore a quantity of gloss seemed entirley appropriate.

The tariff argument is simply easy for most people to understand. You say to them that a loaf of bread costs a pound here, but 20 pence in Africa and they ask "why aren't we buying them from Africa?" Then you tell them that to sell them profitably in Europe, the Africans have to charge £2 per loaf and they cry "I'm not paying £2 for a loaf of bread!" The slight irony is that a reformed French farming (and inheritance) system could probably produce bread at 20p per loaf if it wanted to and still turn a profit, so Africans might still not have much of a chance - but either way, I prefer a fair playing field on this and other issues.

29 minutes ago, Granett said:

That's no different from being bound by any legal system though, is it?

Straw man. A legal system over which you have some degree of influence is infinitely better than a legal system over which you have no control. Ask the black folk who lived under segregation in the Deep South for a relatively recent western example.

A better question would be which legal system, since there are huge incompatibilities and differences in character between Common Law and the Basic (Roman) law that forms the basis of much of the continent's legal system, but that's another post. Either way, as a British person, I find I have big issues with continental law, usually surrounding fairness and conflicts of interest.

31 minutes ago, Granett said:

You've segued onto a different topic here, and appear to be arguing against a second referendum, which I've not mentioned so far. But seeing as you raise it... how long does the referendum mandate last? Longer or shorter than that provided by a general election?

You tell me. When the EU have ignored them in the past and carried on regardless, it's usually been about 12-18 months, though I'm hoping we manage the full 24 and actually escape before we're coerced back in.

32 minutes ago, Granett said:

This is in direct contrast to your claim we've been suckling at the teat of Brussels and it has made us fat. The "net contributor" comment surprises me. It seems like you have the capacity for a broader view than pinning such a comment on the EU accounts, which you'll be well aware won't reflect many of the benefits we draw from EU membership.

Yes, and if you'd read my post you'd have seen I said that the two appeared to be true together. They are contradictory and yet they are both true. I didn't say I could factually justify that view, but that's how I see it. I see an abdication of and / or and iniabilityt o take responsibility on the part of many who should have taken it (or been allowed to) and a laziness in consequence which it would do us all well to rectify.

35 minutes ago, Granett said:

Again, this flies massively in the face of the arguments here about how we need to be looking after ourselves!

I believe the relevant quotations are "no man is an island" and "it pays to know who your friends are". I'm not an isolationist and, unlike many here, I don't have much of a problem with migration - provided it's on terms which are fair to the local populace who mostly won't have that option reciprocally (and don't quote me freedom of movement working both ways - you'll be aware of the cost of moving countries and it's well beyond my means - and I'm pretty well paid).

That said, choosing the right friends is a worthy skill and being seperated from one's friends is an excellent tactic of those who seek to rule over one. I don't think we need to invade Slovakia or send all Slovakians home because we don't generally have a lot of common history with them, but I do think it's worth investing in relationships which are long-standing and proven. I particularly liked the "CaNZAc" suggestion, or whatever it was, for a four-way free trade agreement between the larger Commonwealth economies after Brexit, but as usual, all the good ideas have been drowned out by the "bad" news.

In short, we look after ourselves by looking after our friends and they us. If we have long-standing, established relationships, we should make the most of them - but at present, we aren't able to because of EU restrictions on trade and diplomacy.

41 minutes ago, Granett said:

Again, bizarre. You acknowledge that the EU has been the scapegoat in political interviews and the pages of our tabloids, but make the EU the scapegoat for that!

 

41 minutes ago, Granett said:

Again, your arguments almost counter the arguments of other Brexiteers on here more than anything else. Before the referendum it was a case of putting control in the hands of our elected and sovereign MPs. Now those MPs are corrupt EU gravy trainers determined to sabotage Brexit.

You've seperated those two paragraphs for the sake of argument when they clearly segued one into the other. The EU has been the scapegoat, but I left open the possibility of it having been guilty some of the time too. Where this is the case, our MPs - who are actually mostly-hard working and under-paid, though ocasionally devious (and occasionally spectacularly incompetent) - have had their hands tied. They cannot take responsibility where they want to.

I don't doubt that most MPs would like to see the back of Brexit and stay in the loving arms of the EU, but actually, I'm being perfectly consistent in my own beliefs here. As a classical liberal, I want to be given the freedom to act in the manner that I please and the guarantee that when I contravene law or expectation, I will be punished accordingly. I expect the same from MPs. I want them to be free to exercise the power which we invest in them, but also prepared to take responsibility for what they do with it.

That the EU is there, to be blamed, blameless or not, means that our representatives can escape the consequences not only of actions they are forced to take by EU law, but also by misdirection from their own failings. I want that "comfort blanket" removed and genuine accountability to return to Parliament.

So yes, the EU is to blame for providing itself as a scapegoat, if you want to read it like that.

47 minutes ago, Granett said:

Okay. I look forward to seeing your contribution next time the universities bear the brunt of the PW Patriotism assessment.

I promise that if I see such a thread, I will comment consistently with my belief in freedom of speech.

48 minutes ago, Granett said:

This is theory detached from reality. In which industry is the UK uncompetitive through its EU membership?

Any service industry you care to name. The completion of the single market in Agriculture benefits France above all others; in manufacturing, Germany. The single market for services has never been addressed in spite of decades of the British pleading for it. In spite of that, we do well, but - if we were to stay in the EU - imagine how well we'd do and have done if it had been there. (The Germans wouldn't have liked it though...)

[Gordon R]

Quote

If it's the insults and lying accusations being made against one of a very small minority of posters on PW, whilst the rest post comments like yours, then, again, I think I'm alright.

Others make posts like mine because a blind man can see you are being thrashed. Up to a point, I think you deserve it, but I have seen enough. neutron619 provides balanced argument, you just can't see anything but your own very narrow view.

Whichever side you are on - it won't be settled on here. There isn't a man / woman who can say whether Brexit will be a success or failure. Anyone who claims they can is lying. There are too many variables for anyone to know.

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Others make posts like mine because a blind man can see you are being thrashed. Up to a point, I think you deserve it, but I have seen enough. neutron619 provides balanced argument, you just can't see anything but your own very narrow view.

Whichever side you are on - it won't be settled on here. There isn't a man / woman who can say whether Brexit will be a success or failure. Anyone who claims they can is lying. There are too many variables for anyone to know.

+1

[Aled]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Oh dear 

Back on topic, I don't think I've ever been so angry at a political decision in my life, we're being sailed up the river on Brexit and I'm sure Mr Farage or others will be along with  party to deal with this, I will be showing my displeasure at the ballot box unless May does the democratic thing and delivers the result the majority voted for, to Leave the EU.

I wondered who'd be the first to say this.

I've said this before, when the Brexit deal is done, I genuinely believe that it will not be the type of Brexit that many keen leavers thought they were voting for. I do believe however immigration will see some changes post Brexit, all bar 2 of the leave voters I know stated "immigration" as the only reason they voted leave. 

Cheers

Aled

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Is it just me i like posts short and sweet, i cain't be bothered reading the longer ones. 

Your ADHD is allowing you to miss much of the interesting debate.

[12gauge82]

13 minutes ago, Aled said:

I wondered who'd be the first to say this.

I've said this before, when the Brexit deal is done, I genuinely believe that it will not be the type of Brexit that many keen leavers thought they were voting for. I do believe however immigration will see some changes post Brexit, all bar 2 of the leave voters I know stated "immigration" as the only reason they voted leave. 

Cheers

Aled

For me, Immigration is just a tiny part of wanting out, controlled immigration is good for the country, just not in the way it's done at the moment, unfortunately Germany learnt this the hard way.

[Aled]

Fair enough 12gauge82, but for some people it was the be all and end all of this vote. Nothing else mattered, my mothers side of the family who are Welsh Valleys people to the core voted out purely on this issue. 

Cheers

Aled

[Granett]

8 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

Right - this one will be shorter as I actually have to do some work today.

No elected representatives who have legislative initiative.

Incorrect. They do. Via the Parliament, where they can build a consensus and put a proposal forward.

Quote

The inability of those representatives to cancel commission legislation, even by majority vote.

The commission itself is made up of one member from each member state - in no shape or form is it a dictatorship. Notwithstanding that, you're incorrect: the Parliament *can* reject legislation.

Quote

The power of the "committees".

Vague. And inconclusive. What is undemocratic, and dictatorship-like about this?

Quote

Denmark Referendum 1992, followed by 1993 when they voted the "right" way after terms the Danes are still reportedly sore about.

Again, what is undemocratic about multiple referenda? Presumably it obnly the minority that lost the last ref that are sore. Cf all the PW comments about "Remoaning Remainiacs" in this thread.

Quote

Ireland Referendum 2001 followed by 2002 when they voted the "right" way after minor amendments.

French Referendum 2005  on the European Constitution followed by 2008 when the same document with a different name was forced through against bitter opposition.

Dutch Referendym 2008 on the European Constitution - after political manouverings  they were not offered the opportunity to reject it again.

Irish Referendum 2008 followed by a second referendum in 2009 when they finally managed to get it right. Mes amis!

As above.

Quote

Greek Bailout Referendum 2015 where the Greeks decided that they'd rather not be forced to borrow more German money to pay back the German money they couldn't pay back and, notwithstanding their stupidity in wanting to remain in the Euro, said so. They were then forced to take the "bailout" anyway, when a default would have been much the better option for them (but disastrous for the EU).

Not forced. They had the Grexit option.

Quote

Brexit Referendum 2016 - Will we ever know how hard the establishment worked to stop this coming out as "leave"? And yet we still did. The reason that a 4% majority sees us in the situation we're in now is not because Project Fear didn't work hard enough, but because they overegged the pudding - a majority still chose to leave in spite of the warnings. Latest polls seem to suggest they still would, though I haven't read them carefully.

Be under no illusion, "Project Fear" was a tool of the Brexit media. If things were too complicated, we were told "You've had enough of experts", and if it was dumbed down, it was "Project Fear".

I'd be intrigued to see what if anything prior to the ref from the Remain campaign you consider to be "Project fear".

On the same topic, I'm still clear who are these dark figures "of dangerous character" you refer to.

Quote

Hungarian migrant referendum 2016. EU asks member states to take extra migrants because dear old Mutti couldn't keep her trap shut and invited two million of them in but Germany didn't really want them. What Germany wants, Germany gets, so they're dispersed over the continent - except in Hugary, who said "no thank you" and are now being taken to court (you have to laugh - the ECJ) by the commission who want them to accept quotas.

As with all of these, you're not showing how this is the action of a dictatorship as opposed to any other form of governance.

Quote

Sovereignty deficit: well - if we stay in, we get what the EU gives us. If we leave, we can give up sovereignty to make a trade agreement, or not, but we get to choose, and renegotiate if appropriate. The latter case allows for broader scope and is therefore more "free".

I suppose this could have legs. It's discrete as opposed to amorphous. There might be something in that. It's not a case of being passed what the EU gives us, it's what we as part of the EU negotiate. Nevertheless, the caselaw Rewulf posted up shows clearly what the typical Brexiteer considers by sovereignty, and they're going to be shocked the first time the UK gets sued under the WTO.

Quote

A nice try, but this is just the age-old trick of using a specific to try to disprove a generality. If you ask me to prove we've been ignored in every case, I can't, because it isn't true. It also isn't true that African tariffs is a singular argument for Brexit - it isn't and it would be odd if I thought so. However our voice doesn't mean as much as it perhaps should or would, if we were the ones pushing for the realization of the von Coudenhove-Kalergi manifesto.

You appear to be arguing that your example about grain wasn't a singular argument, and therefore as a generality, it can't be disproved by a singular observation. I'm not sure I agree with the premise or the assumption there.

Is the scientific method an "age-old trick"? I guess it is. If an observation disproves the hypothesis, are you saying, the hypothesis should still stand?

Nevertheless, you seem to be conceding that your point about tariffs isn't quite as comprehensive as it was first presented.

Your statement in bold is bold. And unless you can show me otherwise, completely lacking in falsifiability. I've not made a point of that argument from other Brexiteers here (for obvious reasons) but I'd be interested if you can rephrase that so it *can* be tested.

Quote

As for our "advantage", whether that's in favour of the individuals, or the British Government's, appears to me to be entirely subjective and therefore a quantity of gloss seemed entirley appropriate.

You've missed the point. Those cases between a UK citizen and the UK government end in either advantage for one or the other - to present them as UK -v- EU is to misrepresent the situation.

Quote

The tariff argument is simply easy for most people to understand. You say to them that a loaf of bread costs a pound here, but 20 pence in Africa and they ask "why aren't we buying them from Africa?" Then you tell them that to sell them profitably in Europe, the Africans have to charge £2 per loaf and they cry "I'm not paying £2 for a loaf of bread!" The slight irony is that a reformed French farming (and inheritance) system could probably produce bread at 20p per loaf if it wanted to and still turn a profit, so Africans might still not have much of a chance - but either way, I prefer a fair playing field on this and other issues.

That doesn't get away from the fact we're no longer going have a say about how the biggest trading bloc in the world deals with that, and how those Brexiteers with a sense of moral duty square that duty with the fact there is no reason to believe the UK will act any differently on its own than it has done as part of the bloc.

I'd be interested to know how many representations Nigel Farage has made to the EU Parliament on the subject.

Quote

Straw man. A legal system over which you have some degree of influence is infinitely better than a legal system over which you have no control. Ask the black folk who lived under segregation in the Deep South for a relatively recent western example.

Hmmmm. Strawman-strawman. That's a bit of interesting one. In that we *did* have a degree of influence in that legal system. Your argument seems to one of degrees. By that rationale, why do you feel that the right level of influence is at national level? Would you go further? Should the courts of Englanmd and Wales be broken up. Should it be at county level perhaps?

Quote

A better question would be which legal system, since there are huge incompatibilities and differences in character between Common Law and the Basic (Roman) law that forms the basis of much of the continent's legal system, but that's another post. Either way, as a British person, I find I have big issues with continental law, usually surrounding fairness and conflicts of interest.

I've not seen anything to sway me either way. Yours is now a different argument to the one you started off making - essentially that it was better to be governed by innate morals than prescriptive legislation. And you've not really said why. Or how the UK system allows this more than the European system.

 

Quote

Yes, and if you'd read my post you'd have seen I said that the two appeared to be true together. They are contradictory and yet they are both true. I didn't say I could factually justify that view, but that's how I see it. I see an abdication of and / or and inability to take responsibility on the part of many who should have taken it (or been allowed to) and a laziness in consequence which it would do us all well to rectify.

OK. But you understand how stating that you believe in two contradictory positions undermines your argument, right? I'd argue that UK fecklessness is not a result of having it so good in Europe. We can agree to disagree.

Quote

I believe the relevant quotations are "no man is an island" and "it pays to know who your friends are". I'm not an isolationist and, unlike many here, I don't have much of a problem with migration - provided it's on terms which are fair to the local populace who mostly won't have that option reciprocally (and don't quote me freedom of movement working both ways - you'll be aware of the cost of moving countries and it's well beyond my means - and I'm pretty well paid).

Yeah, I'm not going to criticise you for your departure here from the PW consensus.

Quote

That said, choosing the right friends is a worthy skill and being seperated from one's friends is an excellent tactic of those who seek to rule over one. I don't think we need to invade Slovakia or send all Slovakians home because we don't generally have a lot of common history with them, but I do think it's worth investing in relationships which are long-standing and proven. I particularly liked the "CaNZAc" suggestion, or whatever it was, for a four-way free trade agreement between the larger Commonwealth economies after Brexit, but as usual, all the good ideas have been drowned out by the "bad" news.

Sounds fine, but in terms of trade value, the reporting probably reflects the relative worth.

Quote

In short, we look after ourselves by looking after our friends and they us. If we have long-standing, established relationships, we should make the most of them - but at present, we aren't able to because of EU restrictions on trade and diplomacy.

You've seperated those two paragraphs for the sake of argument when they clearly segued one into the other. The EU has been the scapegoat, but I left open the possibility of it having been guilty some of the time too. Where this is the case, our MPs - who are actually mostly-hard working and under-paid, though ocasionally devious (and occasionally spectacularly incompetent) - have had their hands tied. They cannot take responsibility where they want to.

I'm not sure I follow here.

Quote

I don't doubt that most MPs would like to see the back of Brexit and stay in the loving arms of the EU, but actually, I'm being perfectly consistent in my own beliefs here. As a classical liberal, I want to be given the freedom to act in the manner that I please and the guarantee that when I contravene law or expectation, I will be punished accordingly. I expect the same from MPs. I want them to be free to exercise the power which we invest in them, but also prepared to take responsibility for what they do with it.

That the EU is there, to be blamed, blameless or not, means that our representatives can escape the consequences not only of actions they are forced to take by EU law, but also by misdirection from their own failings. I want that "comfort blanket" removed and genuine accountability to return to Parliament.

So yes, the EU is to blame for providing itself as a scapegoat, if you want to read it like that.

Fair enough. I'd argue it's naive to think the Express won't find a new scapegoat for its readership to blame for their lot in life.

Quote

I promise that if I see such a thread, I will comment consistently with my belief in freedom of speech.

Any service industry you care to name. The completion of the single market in Agriculture benefits France above all others; in manufacturing, Germany. The single market for services has never been addressed in spite of decades of the British pleading for it. In spite of that, we do well, but - if we were to stay in the EU - imagine how well we'd do and have done if it had been there. (The Germans wouldn't have liked it though...)

On that basis, you must expect every industry in Post-Brexit UK to see a swift upsurge in performance. Can you say when and where you would expect to see evidence that Brexit is a success in your eyes?

50 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Others make posts like mine because a blind man can see you are being thrashed. Up to a point, I think you deserve it, but I have seen enough. neutron619 provides balanced argument, you just can't see anything but your own very narrow view.

Whichever side you are on - it won't be settled on here. There isn't a man / woman who can say whether Brexit will be a success or failure. Anyone who claims they can is lying. There are too many variables for anyone to know.

You've been in the echo-chamber too long I fear.

Interesting to see yet another Brexiteer retreat into "Brexit as an article of faith" now. You've already given up. And I'm the one that's thrashed!

[12gauge82]

16 minutes ago, Granett said:

 

 

And I'm the one that's thrashed!

That's the only correct thing you've said and something I agree with you on 

[Granett]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree with you

Thanks. I'll use that.