Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually think a Canada type deal is preferable and have always stated that if we have to leave at least do it properly rather than continuing under the blanket of the club but with no voice and no influence as to how it proceeds. In choosing to Brexit the country must swallow the additional beauracracy and costs of rewiring the house.
Exactly - that is because you have been able to analyse and assess and move on to deal with the here and now and the future.

Equally, I have said on numerous previous occasions that if we are to Remain - then do so - wholeheartedly.

For me - if we are to Remain let's actively get on-board with what is an inevitable destination anyway. For me - none of these 'sops' of opt-outs etc. which are just methods to cajole the hard of understanding along the path anyway until the time is right.

In this vein I have also said many times that in a 2nd referendum scenario I would have voted for Remain before May's deal.

Some people are so paralysed by their inability to deal with the reality that they just want to stay in a limbo state - going nowhere and getting nothing done.

That is the road to certainly dragging the UK towards a diminished country - through a thousand cuts
 
My response was made without going to the article that you linked so I had no idea of it's content or of which individual/party was referenced.

My 'observations/rant' was a response to the opening line of your post - "This is why we mock...…" and reflected my realisation that you had decided to add yourself to the increasing number of posters on here that have no/little interest in debating what lies ahead for the UK and who's scope of posting is limited to trawling for links to spurious articles solely for the purpose of hiding from the effort of debate and taking refuge in trolling and fuelling their habit of posting irrelevance.

There have been a good few doing that for a long time - but disappointingly, that cadre has increased to include posters that had previously been able to offer more

My question of why you had posted the link to the article was I guess rhetoric, as you had made it clear that it had been solely with the intention of associating Leavers on here with some bollocks you had found on the internet, irrespective of any relevance.

I refer sometimes to the 'pack' approach taken by some Remainers on here as they act together to ensure that any debate of the future is closed down. I suggest that you take it as a perverse compliment that finding you following the path towards the banality taken by so many others that used to be worth engaging with, caused more disappointment than previous occurrences.

Perhaps this lack of capability to discuss where the subject of Brexit is going during 2020 and enter into discussion on the preparation, conduct and outcomes of the upcoming negotiations, is just too much to expect on a forum where so many posters are still obsessed with the 2016 campaign and, being still unable to accept the outcome of recent months, have a need to take refuge in snide.
Ha.....'sometimes'?
 
...

Some people are so paralysed by their inability to deal with the reality that they just want to stay in a limbo state - going nowhere and getting nothing done.

That is the road to certainly dragging the UK towards a diminished country - through a thousand cuts

Are you talking about Johnson and his government? No-one on here has any influence on our being in a limbo state or getting out of it.
 
You know that is bollocks George. Try starting at 1. and apply that statement to each in turn and ask the simple question, how? Then post your answer to each to prove us wrong/make us laugh. Cheers.
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle - towards what George has said.

George is right to point out that if this list is presented as benefits that are only and exclusively available to the UK if they retain membership of the EU - then it is indeed disingenuous bollocks.

I would suggest those that seek to present that exclusivity are those either unable to - or making no effort to - get their heads around the UK leaving the UK or simply and intentionally being disingenuous.

If you establish some (even basic) criteria to assess them - criteria that would reflect a world in which the UK has left the EU and managing the achievement of its own pre-determined outcomes/benefits - just how many of this list would actually survive to prove exclusivity? Very few I would suggest

Without any effort, let's just suggest these basic criteria:

Of the 'benefits' listed:
  • which ones would a UK - no longer a member of the EU - not be able to introduce / secure through its own determination/policies/processes/negotiations?
  • which ones should the UK expect to secure through a post-Brexit FTA negotiated with the EU - so long as the EU opted to negotiate with the UK in good faith - just like other 3rd party countries that it has entered into FTAs with
I could put forward others that would be valid for a post-EU membership UK to enact - but I doubt that more than a few on that list would survive just these two evaluation criteria - which are pretty mickey-mouse/obvious

If anyone wants to come back with the ones from the list that they would, with any shred of credibility, suggest are absolutely dependent on EU membership then these can be debated - but frankly a very quick scan evidences that it is a pretty low quality cut and paste.

So yeah - the list is quickly exposed as a disingenuous attempt to suggest that membership of the EU is required to gain all these benefits
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle - towards what George has said.

George is right to point out that is this list is presented as benefits that are only and exclusively available to the UK if they retain membership of the EU - that is indeed disingenuous bollocks.

I would suggest those that seek to present that exclusivity are those either unable to or making no effort to get their heads around the UK leaving the UK or simply intentionally being disingenuous.

If you establish some (even basic) criteria to assess them - criteria that would reflect a world in which the UK has left the EU and managing the achievement of its own pre-determined outcomes/benefits - just how many of this list would actually survive to prove exclusivity? Very few I would suggest

Without any effort, let's just suggest these basic criteria:

Of the 'benefits' listed:
  • which ones would a UK - no longer a member of the EU - not be able to introduce / secure through its own determination/policies/processes?
  • which ones should the UK expect to secure through a post-Brexit FTA negotiated with the EU - so long as the EU opted to negotiate with the UK in good faith - just like other 3rd party countries that it has entered into FTAs with
I could put forward others that would be valid for a post-EU membership UK to enact - but I doubt that more than a few on that list would survive just these two evaluation criteria - which are pretty mickey-mouse/obvious

If anyone wants to come back with the ones that they suggest are absolutely dependent on EU membership then these can be debated - but frankly a very quick scan evidences that it is a pretty low quality cut and paste.

So yeah - the list is quickly exposed as a disingenuous attempt to suggest that membership of the EU is required to gain all these benefits
You have conveniently flipped the question I asked George.
2 simple questions for you. Is the list a valid representation of EU benefits enjoyed by the U.K.? When we do leave on 31/12 when do we get each of them back?
 
You know that is bollocks George. Try starting at 1. and apply that statement to each in turn and ask the simple question, how? Then post your answer to each to prove us wrong/make us laugh. Cheers.
I've always hoped you were one of the less gullible EU enthusiasts on this thread. So I'm pleased to be able to personally assure both you and Edwin (+ his publicist @Vic) that we can continue to expect to enjoy all the benefits he listed and many, many more as non-members of the EU. Understanding what constitutes a benefit is of course the key in recognising the exciting independent future that now awaits us.
A1gCylPs4mL._US230_.jpg
 
I've always hoped you were one of the less gullible EU enthusiasts on this thread. So I'm pleased to be able to personally assure both you and Edwin (+ his publicist @Vic) that we can continue to expect to enjoy all the benefits he listed and many, many more as non-members of the EU. Understanding what constitutes a benefit is of course the key in recognising the exciting independent future that now awaits us.
A1gCylPs4mL._US230_.jpg
That made very little sense George. I sincerely hope that’s not a selfie.
 
You have conveniently flipped the question I asked George.
2 simple questions for you. Is the list a valid representation of EU benefits enjoyed by the U.K.? When we do leave on 31/12 when do we get each of them back?
I can see why you say that - I could say that you are doing the same here.

That aside - what I have really done - from my POV - is simply expose that it is a list that has been disingenuously presented as being outcomes/benefits the achievement of which is exclusive to membership of the EU - frankly that is bollocks.

We posted earlier that the UK is currently preparing to Leave the EU and therefore - the house will have to be re-wired - which I thought was a good way to explain things.

I will be soon heading off to Manchester for the match, but I would be happy to address your question in this post when I have time - and after you tell be which of that long list clearly, in your opinion, when tested against those two basic criteria - are wholly and utterly dependent on membership of the EU - as was suggested by the person that posted it.

I suspect your list will be much much shorter
 
I can see why you say that - I could say that you are doing the same here.

That aside - what I have really done - from my POV - is simply expose that it is a list that has been disingenuously presented as being outcomes/benefits the achievement of which is exclusive to membership of the EU - frankly that is bollocks.

We posted earlier that the UK is currently preparing to Leave the EU and therefore - the house will have to be re-wired - which I thought was a good way to explain things.

I will be soon heading off to Manchester for the match, but I would be happy to address your question in this post when I have time - and after you tell be which of that long list clearly, in your opinion, when tested against those two basic criteria - are wholly and utterly dependent on membership of the EU - as was suggested by the person that posted it.

I suspect your list will be much much shorter
now let’s rehearse how this little game of chess will continue:
1. I come up with a list of benefits. Being contrary I will ensure it’s a long list
2. Being contrary, you will rubbish half the list and give ever increasing unlikely scenarios as to how the rest will be delivered
3. I will challenge those that you rubbish and attempt to pick holes in your logic for those where you have offered a solution
4. You will challenge my analysis and ......
113. Being reasonable people we agree that the list was a reasonable description of benefits of being in the EU but many/some of the benefits could be delivered by other means albeit at a financial or political cost (either less or more than the financial or political cost of being an EU member).

Why not agree to go straight to step 113. I guarantee it will save us tim3 and energy.
 
now let’s rehearse how this little game of chess will continue:
1. I come up with a list of benefits. Being contrary I will ensure it’s a long list
2. Being contrary, you will rubbish half the list and give ever increasing unlikely scenarios as to how the rest will be delivered
3. I will challenge those that you rubbish and attempt to pick holes in your logic for those where you have offered a solution
4. You will challenge my analysis and ......
113. Being reasonable people we agree that the list was a reasonable description of benefits of being in the EU but many/some of the benefits could be delivered by other means albeit at a financial or political cost (either less or more than the financial or political cost of being an EU member).

Why not agree to go straight to step 113. I guarantee it will save us tim3 and energy.
Yep. In a nutshell.

I don’t think anyone was pretending that we’ll lose everything in the list after transition. We’ll lose some, some will be replaced by an inferior or similar equivalent and some will carry on but not at the same level. There may be even one or two that will be unchanged or improve afterwards, but I’ve not seen anyone present any evidence that might be the case. Perhaps one of the Brexit proponents can point to them to help some of the sceptics look at things differently.
 
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle - towards what George has said.

George is right to point out that if this list is presented as benefits that are only and exclusively available to the UK if they retain membership of the EU - then it is indeed disingenuous bollocks.

I would suggest those that seek to present that exclusivity are those either unable to - or making no effort to - get their heads around the UK leaving the UK or simply and intentionally being disingenuous.

If you establish some (even basic) criteria to assess them - criteria that would reflect a world in which the UK has left the EU and managing the achievement of its own pre-determined outcomes/benefits - just how many of this list would actually survive to prove exclusivity? Very few I would suggest

Without any effort, let's just suggest these basic criteria:

Of the 'benefits' listed:
  • which ones would a UK - no longer a member of the EU - not be able to introduce / secure through its own determination/policies/processes/negotiations?
  • which ones should the UK expect to secure through a post-Brexit FTA negotiated with the EU - so long as the EU opted to negotiate with the UK in good faith - just like other 3rd party countries that it has entered into FTAs with
I could put forward others that would be valid for a post-EU membership UK to enact - but I doubt that more than a few on that list would survive just these two evaluation criteria - which are pretty mickey-mouse/obvious

If anyone wants to come back with the ones from the list that they would, with any shred of credibility, suggest are absolutely dependent on EU membership then these can be debated - but frankly a very quick scan evidences that it is a pretty low quality cut and paste.

So yeah - the list is quickly exposed as a disingenuous attempt to suggest that membership of the EU is required to gain all these benefits
'disingenuous' is too kind - but a list of the genuine benefits for the EU founding states would be an excellent starting point to assess the whole purpose of their federalist project - none which of the UK could ever enjoy as they are necessarily and directly opposed to our economic and political interests.
 
now let’s rehearse how this little game of chess will continue:
1. I come up with a list of benefits. Being contrary I will ensure it’s a long list
2. Being contrary, you will rubbish half the list and give ever increasing unlikely scenarios as to how the rest will be delivered
3. I will challenge those that you rubbish and attempt to pick holes in your logic for those where you have offered a solution
4. You will challenge my analysis and ......
113. Being reasonable people we agree that the list was a reasonable description of benefits of being in the EU but many/some of the benefits could be delivered by other means albeit at a financial or political cost (either less or more than the financial or political cost of being an EU member).

Why not agree to go straight to step 113. I guarantee it will save us time and energy.
I think that it would go differently - my intervention was intended to:

Expose that the list presented by @Vic largely/wholly did not contain anything that the UK could not expect/aspire to achieve following its departure from the EU - and therefore any implication that the points on that list were exclusive to membership of the EU was disingenuous/bollocks.

I think that I have done that and if you were to undertake the suggested evaluation you would also come to the same position as me - I think that this evidenced in your description of '113'

I do not think that you or I would have any need to be 'contrary' - I believe that your evaluation would reduce the list to a very small number - those that actually reflect the points of leverage that the EU will have in the upcoming negotiations - and which the UK should have been preparing workarounds/mitigations for - for nearly 4 years, but unfortunately, May/Robbins...…..

None/very few of these would be insurmountable (George's point) - but the associated costs/time could/would make them undesirable - and that should lead to the basis of a settlement included in a TA - or actions taken by the UK independently.

I would readily agree with you that what the list @Vic posted actually reflected was some of the existing outcomes/procedures/benefits/etc. that the UK has in place at the moment - some of which the EU benefit from because of previous UK instigation and support and others as a natural flow from EU membership - but I would point out that to present these as being exclusive to and dependent on EU membership is disingenuous/bollocks - which I think that you would agree with.

I would also readily agree with you that there is sooooo much to be done to 're-wire the house' to ensure that these - and many other -outcomes/procedures/benefits/etc. are secured. You would express concern that 11 months is not enough time - I would moan (again) about the wasted 4 years because transition planning and management of a change portfolio/programme should have started in June 2016.

I expect that we would come to an agreement that if both a BRINO and a No-Deal outcome are to be avoided, then the likely outcome would be a 'framework' TA that had addressed the 'priority issues' and which both sides could present as a victory for the enduring partnership. This would be accompanied by a timetable and associated structure of transition/implementation for the very many remaining Tier 2/3 items.

Does this fast-track us to '113' agreement?
 
Last edited:
This appeared on my Birthday
THE AGE OF MIRACLES HAS NOT PASSED
by Prof Alan Sked, Emeritus Professor of International History, LSE

LET ME START with the ‘European Miracle’. By this I do not refer to the EU but to what global historians mean when they explain Europe’s exponential rise in terms of economics, commerce, technology and philosophy ahead of the Asian empires (Ottoman, Moghul, Chinese) from an equal start in the eleventh century. How could Europe overtake (indeed take over) these empires?

The answer is that whereas they all became centralised, bureaucratised and united – often under a single religion – Europe never became united. It never became an empire. Disunity was the key to its success. Christianity split between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, while the Holy Roman Empire failed to unite the Continent politically. Instead, Europe became a state system, not a state, which meant that people in one state could copy ideas, technological and commercial advances, even military ones, from neighbouring states and apply them at home.

Think of Peter the Great and Russia’s ‘great embassy’ to the West or of the academies set up during the Enlightenment reporting on advances in other countries and spreading knowledge of them. Think of Voltaire and Montesquieu spreading knowledge of British parliamentary government. Think of how the Industrial Revolution spread from Britain to the Continent. England (later Britain) had another role in this European state system. Whenever the ‘balance of power’ – that godsend to Europe – broke down and Europe faced conquest, domination or unity under Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser or Hitler, Britain took the lead in organising coalitions to prevent this. And, fortunately, she always won. Europe owes its freedom to Britain’s independence, not the EU.

After 1945 the old system continued. Supply-side reformers – Erhard, Rueff, Thatcher and Schroeder – stimulated economic growth in individual states with reforms that were copied elsewhere. The EEC contributed only failed policies: the CAP, the CFP, the ERM and worst of all, the euro. The more ambitious the policy, the worse the damage done.

After the war, Attlee, Churchill and Eden all steered clear of European integration. Bevin emasculated plans for a European Parliament leaving only a toothless Council of Europe. We avoided joining the European Community for Steel and Coal and the European economic Community. The arch-Eurofederalist Macmillan, however, attempted to take us into the EEC but was thwarted by de Gaulle who rightly could not understand why, with democratic institutions, cheap food from the Commonwealth, and global power, we should want to join it. He rightly suspected we could be a US Trojan horse.

In reaction, the Tory Party under Heath and Hurd, became a secret corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe. Then in 1973, Pompidou, afraid of rising West German power and influence, let us join the EEC after all. Our negotiating strategy was ‘swallow the lot, swallow it now’. We were so desperate we even offered up our fish as a common European resource.

Membership, however, brought us no benefits but great costs. Then political and monetary union came on the agenda. Thatcher fought this but lost. Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron all accepted defeat. Yet British opposition – UKIP, Bill Cash and Tory rebel MPs, the Bruges Group, and later the Brexit Party and the ERG – kept up the pressure against Brussels. In 2016 Cameron conceded a referendum and Leave won. It was a triumph for Boris, Gove, Cummings and many others from the many campaigns. A British Miracle this time.

There followed three years of misery under the hapless May with Parliament, the courts and the media all in favour of reversing Brexit. But May was replaced by Boris who triumphed at the polls in December 2019 and swept away the opposition. Another British Miracle. Brexit therefore has now been achieved with only the European Parliament left to give its reluctant consent.

We shall therefore again become a normal, self-governing democracy with full national sovereignty and a government accountable only to Parliament. The interregnum since 1973 is at an end.

Consequently we must seize with both hands the opportunity to create our own prosperous future. And we have a marvellous starting point. Already we have the most stable government in Europe and perhaps the world. Our Parliament contains no extremist parties like those on the Continent. Internationally, we are far from isolated with a seat on the UN Security Council and leading roles in NATO, the Commonwealth, the G7, and elsewhere. Many countries are lining up to negotiate free trade deals with us. The City remains the world’s leading financial centre. We are Europe’s leading centre for technology and research. Our universities are world leaders and across sports and entertainment we are also a world force.

True, there are challenges ahead: negotiations with the EU for a free trade treaty; SNP demands for independence; stability in Northern Ireland. Our future is bright, however, and we ourselves are now again in charge of it.


Let’s hope that miracles never cease.


By | January 28th, 2020|
 
Last edited:
'disingenuous' is too kind - but a list of the genuine benefits for the EU founding states would be an excellent starting point to assess the whole purpose of their federalist project - none which of the UK could ever enjoy as they are necessarily and directly opposed to our economic and political interests.
The bottom line for me is that posters on here fall into 4 categories IMO:

1. There are those that welcome the UK Leaving the EU - see a path not just to great benefits - but as/more importantly also see a path to avoiding being a prime casualty when...….

They, such as myself, are not daunted by the task of managing the very many changes that will result - some of which will be arduous and costly.

2. There are those that do not welcome the UK Leaving the EU and are not at all convinced that there will be anything like a net benefit outcome - but are able to absorb the reality and move on into discussion of the here and now/future

3. Those that are not yet able to leave the 2016 campaign behind and will continue - what they see as - the battle, even if they are still in the trenches long after an orderly Brexit has been achieved. They yearn for the EU and will be part of a 'rejoin' campaign

4. Those that are just too close-minded to genuinely discuss/debate - they are too tribal and just want to win an argument on a football forum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top