Another new Brexit thread

[Vic]

I can't see us getting a shit deal for two reasons. Firstly the EU is a benign organisation and not intent on malicious action such as this. Secondly, EU membership is surely so wonderful that even if we get a good deal other nations will still not want to leave? The way you frame it makes it sound almost as if the EU is some sort of federalist dictator that would try through the threat of a bad deal to coerce countries into remaining.

Irony apart, are you really expecting the EU to give us the same good deal we have now without our being a member? So any deal we get is going to be worse than what we have now, so it's only a question of "how bad".

 

[Vic]

The virus like every other Socio Economic woe to appear in the news is touted by Remainers as a reason to remain. It's all bollocks. EU membership costs us far more than we get in return even if it's nowhere near the famous figure on the side of a bus. The only factual change that the virus has brought about within the EU to date is a hike in the budget for the next seven years with a dictated austerity budget to the poorer states in return for loans and a bigger bill to the net contributors. These are facts, and the whole thing is in danger of going tits up as Spain and Italy are now stuffed and it's down to France and Germany in the absence of the UK to prop up the continent - no wonder there's talk of chucking out some poor countries. The sums just don't work anymore and covid is exposing the con.

"EU membership costs us far more than we get in return." True if you look at net contributions. Totally false if you at the economic advantages. If you doubt that, tell us what's in the Government's forecasts of the impact of leaving with or without a deal.

Touting the virus? As in "covid is exposing the con"?

 

[BobKowalski]

As one of the larger members, and some of the not so large, now think the EU is about much use
as tits on a bull, and with Barnier told to get real and stop demanding control of the UK's territory,
the amusement is rib tickling here.

The EU economic writ runs in NI. We agreed to allow them a presence in NI. We agreed to give EU partial control of UK territory. It’s all in a treaty that we agreed to and ratified.

I get we like to pretend this isn’t the case, like we pretended Covid-19 wasn’t going to be an issue and large sporting events were no problem and we have ample supplies of PPE and testing isn’t necessary and we won’t have to go into lockdown or wear masks and we laugh in the face of danger, indeed we will shake hands with danger and oh shit the PM has got it and nearly copped it...and well you get the idea.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

"EU membership costs us far more than we get in return." True if you look at net contributions. Totally false if you at the economic advantages. If you doubt that, tell us what's in the Government's forecasts of the impact of leaving with or without a deal.

Touting the virus? As in "covid is exposing the con"?

Most of the 'economic advantages' are a result of punitive measures such as tariffs designed to create a cartel like structure. It's like saying a pyromaniac is worth staying with because they give you a bucket of water to douse the flames.

 

[mcfc1632]

As one of the larger members, and some of the not so large, now think the EU is about much use
as tits on a bull, and with Barnier told to get real and stop demanding control of the UK's territory,
the amusement is rib tickling here.

I have commented often on the damage that May and Robbins have done to the UK's position through 3 years of abject negotiating - if their subservience could be called that.

The approach of Johnson - thank the fuck May was replaced - managed to get rid of the utterly poisonous unfettered backstop - but the WA retained much that was detrimental to an independent nation's starting point as it commences negotiations on an FTA

The utter rejection of the EU's further attempts to secure control of the UK's future policies is encouraging and I hope that it is a part of a government commitment to seek to unwind all that can be dumped form the PD and certainly not accept any more obligations that are not part of standard EU FTA's with other independent nations.

An FTA that reflects what the EU sought to achieve with the backstop is far worse than remaining and one that reflects the LPF conditions and the other ridiculous constraints is far worse than no FTA at all.

An FTA that reflects a Canada style - with no 'extra obligations' placed on the UK would be welcomed - otherwise let's just get on with assuming the role of independent coastal nation

 

[Vic]

Most of the 'economic advantages' are a result of punitive measures such as tariffs designed to create a cartel like structure. It's like saying a pyromaniac is worth staying with because they give you a bucket of water to douse the flames.

The economic advantages were from not having tariffs or any barriers with the rest of the EU. As an independent nation, are we going to give up all tariffs on imports? Or are they only to our economic advantage if we're in the EU but not otherwise? (Isn't the whole point of a cartel to create advantages you don't get outside the cartel?)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The economic advantages were from not having tariffs or any barriers with the rest of the EU. As an independent nation, are we going to give up all tariffs on imports? Or are they only to our economic advantage if we're in the EU but not otherwise? (Isn't the whole point of a cartel to create advantages you don't get outside the cartel?)

The whole thing is a racket. We are a net contributor, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise that. If there were a tangible case for staying in it would have gained more traction. I happily accept the argument for an EU in terms of security - to oppose Russian dominance of eastern/northern Europe and to stop Germany kicking off once or twice a century. On that basis I think there is a good argument for accepting the cost of the EU in the same way as we accept the cost of a nuclear deterrent as a necessary evil.

 

[mcfc1632]

The whole thing is a racket. We are a net contributor, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise that. If there were a tangible case for staying in it would have gained more traction. I happily accept the argument for an EU in terms of security - to oppose Russian dominance of eastern/northern Europe and to stop Germany kicking off once or twice a century. On that basis I think there is a good argument for accepting the cost of the EU in the same way as we accept the cost of a nuclear deterrent as a necessary evil.

It is indeed a racket - and that has become increasingly exposed.

Re defence - I would rather that we accept the costs of being a NATO member

But it does seem as the dye is indeed beginning to be cast, I found these words from a UK representative - even though reported in an Irish newspaper, encouraging...……..

" ……...“At the end of this year, the EU will have a new financial settlement and they will no doubt want to take all kinds of measures, just like we will, to deal with the consequences of this crisis and the aftermath. And, you know, this is such a huge crisis that we don’t know what they’re going to be but they’re going to be pretty significant. And when they do, they will be designing those laws for the 27, not 28,” a source close to the negotiations said.

“We will have no say in them. We don’t know what they’re going to be. We don’t know how much they’re going to cost. We don’t know whether they’ll see our conditions. And it does not seem sensible for us to continue to be bound into such an unpredictable situation. So it’s a version of the original case for Brexit, which is that we set our own laws for our own conditions.”...…"

It really is all very straight-forward - we need to adopt the role of a truly independent nation.

At the point that we are now - there is not tangible case for Remaining - and equally there is no tangible case for being a constrained - rather than independent - nation

​

 

[BobKowalski]

The whole thing is a racket. We are a net contributor, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise that. If there were a tangible case for staying in it would have gained more traction. I happily accept the argument for an EU in terms of security - to oppose Russian dominance of eastern/northern Europe and to stop Germany kicking off once or twice a century. On that basis I think there is a good argument for accepting the cost of the EU in the same way as we accept the cost of a nuclear deterrent as a necessary evil.

The tangible benefits are twofold. One is you have a European market encompassing 29 countries that has less barriers to trade than the internal market of the US which is of great benefit to UK companies not just in trading directly with European countries but in UK companies being part of the European supply chains that service the European economy.

The second is that it is more cost effective to outsource trade and regulatory administration to a central body that run single unified regulatory policies on behalf of all countries than us doing it in-house. We will employ more people to run our separate regulatory bodies than the EU does on behalf of all member countries. It will also create more red tape, duplicate regulation and impose more costs on UK business.

 

[Vic]

The whole thing is a racket. We are a net contributor, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise that. If there were a tangible case for staying in it would have gained more traction. I happily accept the argument for an EU in terms of security - to oppose Russian dominance of eastern/northern Europe and to stop Germany kicking off once or twice a century. On that basis I think there is a good argument for accepting the cost of the EU in the same way as we accept the cost of a nuclear deterrent as a necessary evil.

Well of course there was a "tangible" case. Johnson used to make it, until he saw personal advantage in not making it. But for the refugee crisis, the case would have had "traction" enough to win the referendum.

 

[mcfc1632]

Of course we heard a lot of naïve and idealistic bollocks in recent years about how the EU were demonstrating real commitment to the GFA and the peace process - that of course their motives and driving force for the unfettered backstop was all derived from their systemic and ideological altruism.

Yeah - get to fuck - LOL

The EU used that circumstance (sensibly from a negotiating POV) to seek to wedge into the WA clauses that would give the EU control over the UK throughout the TA negotiations and for decades to come.

May and Robbins were played for the fools that they were and Varadkar was a willing patsy.

Given there are agreements to share briefing documents with the UK before issue - this reported action by the EU team and the focus of their briefing reveals the EU's true nature and intent.

"....Downing Street said the European Commission had circulated a technical note without discussing it with London.

Prime Minister Boris Jonson’s official spokesman said: “The European Commission has chosen to publish this technical note to set out its own views on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

“It was not shared at recent meetings with the UK, nor has it been agreed by the UK Government.

“Most strikingly, the note appeared to miss out the fundamental objective of the Northern Ireland protocol.

“There is no mention of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, or the peace process anywhere in this seven-page document...………………"

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...er-northern-ireland-brexit-note-39173855.html

 

[mcfc1632]

The tangible benefits are twofold. One is you have a European market encompassing 29 countries that has less barriers to trade than the internal market of the US which is of great benefit to UK companies not just in trading directly with European countries but in UK companies being part of the European supply chains that service the European economy.

The second is that it is more cost effective to outsource trade and regulatory administration to a central body that run single unified regulatory policies on behalf of all countries than us doing it in-house. We will employ more people to run our separate regulatory bodies than the EU does on behalf of all member countries. It will also create more red tape, duplicate regulation and impose more costs on UK business.

That is all sooooooo 2015

Those arguments/views have been democratically judged and rejected........

There is now, in 2020, no tangible case - we should all move on to the present and future

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Well of course there was a "tangible" case. Johnson used to make it, until he saw personal advantage in not making it. But for the refugee crisis, the case would have had "traction" enough to win the referendum.

Tbh I don't see refugees/immigration mentioned by leavers on here at all, it always seems to be remainers using it as a means to excuse rejection of their economic argument. Of course, it may be the case that leavers are just all thick racists with just enough cunning to conceal their hatred of foreigners behind other arguments, but that seems a little paranoid.

 

[hgblue]

The tangible benefits are twofold. One is you have a European market encompassing 29 countries that has less barriers to trade than the internal market of the US which is of great benefit to UK companies not just in trading directly with European countries but in UK companies being part of the European supply chains that service the European economy.

The second is that it is more cost effective to outsource trade and regulatory administration to a central body that run single unified regulatory policies on behalf of all countries than us doing it in-house. We will employ more people to run our separate regulatory bodies than the EU does on behalf of all member countries. It will also create more red tape, duplicate regulation and impose more costs on UK business.

You know full well that a free trade zone is not controversial and never has been, it’s the idea that political and monetary union is necessary to facilitate this, and that those who don’t agree can’t be allowed to say so via a democratic process and opt out of the political process. The argument that if this was offered to one country then everyone would want it kind of proves the point.

 

[BobKowalski]

You know full well that a free trade zone is not controversial and never has been, it’s the idea that political and monetary union is necessary to facilitate this, and that those who don’t agree can’t be allowed to say so via a democratic process and opt out of the political process. The argument that if this was offered to one country then everyone would want it kind of proves the point.

For the zillionth time to create a unified single market across nearly 30 countries with minimal or zero barriers to trade you require a common rule book which all countries agree to and implement. This does not require a political union but does require shared political competence. A monetary union also removes barriers but again is not a necessity for a Single Market.

A free trade zone is only applicable to goods whereas the Single Market applies to Services. Currently we will have neither.

The point of the post was to highlight the tangible benefits of the Single Market and outsourcing regulatory competence. Like it or not there are benefits which is why countries sign up to join.

 

[BobKowalski]

That is all sooooooo 2015

Those arguments/views have been democratically judged and rejected........

There is now, in 2020, no tangible case - we should all move on to the present and future

The arguments/views may have been ‘democratically judged’ but alas they are also correct. Reality is a bitch and all that.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

For the zillionth time to create a unified single market across nearly 30 countries with minimal or zero barriers to trade you require a common rule book which all countries agree to and implement. This does not require a political union but does require shared political competence. A monetary union also removes barriers but again is not a necessity for a Single Market.

A free trade zone is only applicable to goods whereas the Single Market applies to Services. Currently we will have neither.

The point of the post was to highlight the tangible benefits of the Single Market and outsourcing regulatory competence. Like it or not there are benefits which is why countries sign up to join.

I'd be up for a straightforward free trade agreement between 27 nations. It's the logic behind needing to hand over 11bn a year to a parliament that escapes me. Other trading agreements seem to not require this level of expensive bureaucracy.

 

[mcfc1632]

.....Of course, it may be the case that leavers are just all thick racists with just enough cunning to conceal their hatred of foreigners behind other arguments, but that seems a little paranoid.

TBF - Remainers have deployed that tactic so often most of us Leavers are starting to question ourselves and wonder if we really do have ingrained prejudices that we were hitherto blissfully unaware of;-)

 

[mcfc1632]

The arguments/views may have been ‘democratically judged’ but alas they are also correct. Reality is a bitch and all that.

Your 'minority' reality

The majority voted to leave and that sentiment was resoundingly repeated in December

 

[mcfc1632]

I'd be up for a straightforward free trade agreement between 27 nations. It's the logic behind needing to hand over 11bn a year to a parliament that escapes me. Other trading agreements seem to not require this level of expensive bureaucracy.

There used to be the basis of something like that - Common Market - EEC - something like that...…...