Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcfc1632 said:
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​
Click to expand...
there are of course other categories better left unnoticed :)
 
west didsblue said:
Yep.
Senile old fools who are unable to put forward a cogent argument and just ramble on nonsensically instead with interminable posts.
Click to expand...
I like it. Can I be in that one please.
George Hannah said:
You know that this forum is not ready for my digital surrogate. Surely you can spot the blue bits? Click on them (excludng @Vic of course) and hopefully illumination will follow - focus on the thought that the EU & Europe are different things.
Click to expand...
Yeah George, I noticed that. Some dude on Twitter. I do know that the EU and Europe are different things mate but thanks for the education.
 
mcfc1632 said:
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​
Click to expand...
Bit too simplistic mate. My guess is that a high volume of people will populate 2 and 3. As I said to you the other day, I recognise the reality but will never forget how we got here.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I do know that the EU and Europe are different things mate but thanks for the education.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there’s Belarus that’s the only European country that’s either not in the EU, associated via EEA, in negotiations to join, aspires to join or are de facto members. Oh, and Russia but they're transcontinental.
 
mcfc1632 said:
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 that 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?
Click to expand...

I agree would have sufficed!

Lets just test it though. Starting with some of the fundamentals

1. Unfettered access to the largest trade block in the world I take unfettered to mean EU status quo
3. Just-in-time manufacturing, the kind that supports millions of jobs in our automotive, aerospace and other sectors
4. Wide-open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, with no customs or other checks between NI and the rest of the UK
6. The freedom for UK citizens to travel, work, study and retire anywhere in the EU without needing visas and the reverse - EU citizens unrestricted in the UK hinted at in no 62 but underplayed imo (the positive impact of them in NHS, Toursist and Agriculture sectors)

So starting with the assumption that Johnson will negotiate for a 'Canada' type deal with his fall back position 'No deal (Australia)' how do you see those benefits being delivered. For me, they will not be delivered unless we agree to BRINO solution. What is your analysis?
 
George Hannah said:
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
Click to expand...
Not how I pictured you George.
Good to get a face to the post though.
 
Vic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course we can only comment and discuss on here and not determine and implement policy.

But we can still display the extent to which we are able to be objective, ca analyse and be balanced.
 
George Hannah said:
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|
Click to expand...
Fascinating stuff. There's a sense of "this is what happened and it's obvious why" that needs rather more examination. At least he stepped back from saying what a good thing wars have been.

And he admits to a bit of luck in Britain's role in dealing with what happened when his precious balance of power failed.

"Fortunately, she always won."

Some "godsend" this balance of power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BalanceOfPower_(cropped).jpg
 
Last edited:
I was just thinking about this Dispatch a few weeks ago and it pops up in my Twitter feed this morning.

Has there been a follow up on David Figgis’ business nearly a year on?

I did a search but couldn’t find anything beyond the original interview.

 
George Hannah said:
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|
Click to expand...

‘Disunity was key to its success’...leading to the pinnacle of its achievements ‘The Glory that is Europe’ circa 1945.

I guess a trade bloc of 30 odd countries and peace and prosperity really cannot compare :)

I’m still unsure how ceding control of part of our sovereign territory squares with ‘full national sovereignty’ but then I’m not injecting reality changing horseshit directly into my veins.
 
BobKowalski said:
‘Disunity was key to its success’...leading to the pinnacle of its achievements ‘The Glory that is Europe’ circa 1945.
I guess a trade bloc of 30 odd countries and peace and prosperity really cannot compare :)
I’m still unsure how ceding control of part of our sovereign territory squares with ‘full national sovereignty’ but then I’m not injecting reality changing horseshit directly into my veins.
Click to expand...
I think the clear danger of remaining was the likely direction of travel towards federation, maybe if we stayed inside it could have been reversed but not much evidence of that in the preceding four decades. You're rather uncharitable about Sked's pretty orthodox analysis Bob - it's really just an unadorned recital of AJP Taylor's Manchester school of European history - the media darling of a few decades ago and " Macaulay of our age" according to some.
mancity2012_eamo said:
Looks like a riveting read.
My start after I’m finished this.
https://g.co/kgs/BzqG6G
Click to expand...
The bounder just blocked me after one reply, simply agreeing the UK electorate were clearly a bunch of ingrates voting for Brexit after 47 years of EU benevolence.
I can see now why his twitter feed is an unrelieved parade of compliments. We watched 'The Post' last night btw - food for thought on your next read.
 
Last edited:
George Hannah said:
I think the clear danger of remaining was the likely direction of travel towards federation, maybe if we stayed inside it could have been reversed but not much evidence of that in the preceding four decades. You're rather uncharitable about Sked's pretty orthodox analysis Bob - it's really just an unadorned recital of AJP Taylor's Manchester school of European history - the media darling of a few decades ago and " Macaulay of our age" according to some.
Click to expand...
Every respect to AJP Taylor (who made up for terrible history teaching at school), but Peter Oborne's claim that Taylor's articles "could have been written yesterday" is really crass. And not that much affinity with Sked.

"It will have devastating effects on our economy. Entry into the Common Market means without doubt a crushing increase in the cost of living. According to the best judges, the Common Market would put up our food bills by a thousand million pounds a year."

"Will merging into Europe make us more secure against either Soviet Russia or the United States? Not a whit. On the contrary, it may drag us into European conflicts that need not affect us at all."​

Oh, and "The craze to become a Super Power is merely the latest form in which that foul idol, The Balance of Power, is worshipped. We should not bow down before that Moloch. We are not a Super Power. We never were in our finest days. We are a small island and a small people of great achievements."
 
Vic said:
Every respect to AJP Taylor (who made up for terrible history teaching at school), but Peter Oborne's claim that Taylor's articles "could have been written yesterday" is really crass. And not that much affinity with Sked.

"It will have devastating effects on our economy. Entry into the Common Market means without doubt a crushing increase in the cost of living. According to the best judges, the Common Market would put up our food bills by a thousand million pounds a year."

"Will merging into Europe make us more secure against either Soviet Russia or the United States? Not a whit. On the contrary, it may drag us into European conflicts that need not affect us at all."​

Oh, and "The craze to become a Super Power is merely the latest form in which that foul idol, The Balance of Power, is worshipped. We should not bow down before that Moloch. We are not a Super Power. We never were in our finest days. We are a small island and a small people of great achievements."
Click to expand...
2 out of 3 ain't bad - maybe even 2.5 ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top