How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

inbetween said:
Nobody voted to introduce more friction, that new friction exists as a result of a political construct that we were part of and now we're not. The same friction already exists with the rest of the world so how on earth does the rest of the world cope? The fact is they do cope and they cope much better than anybody in Europe does. Around 50% of our trade was already conducted on these terms anyway so it isn't anything new or controversial.

Again, what you're arguing for is to be part of a protectionist bloc, why when the growth is elsewhere? If we consider where the growth is going to be then those trading frictions are going to become more relevant to trade outside the EU than inside the EU. However, whilst in the EU we had zero control over outside trade policy but now we have 100% control.

If the EU decided to drive off a cliff to protect its internal market then we would drive over with them, that's what has happened to European countries on Brexit. Brexit hasn't greatly affected them but by every measure they've lost more than they've gained. The EU then sleeps soundly at night because it has protected itself but what about European citizens?

I know many on here will regurgitate the same olds that you can't leave a club and have all the benefits of it and yes I agree but it's a very illogical statement when the benefits of that club are eroding. The EU would for example benefit massively from loosening trade frictions with the rest of the world (incl. the UK) so why is it a good thing that it preaches the opposite? Or are we just arguing that it would be better to die on the bonfire with them?

Btw, I didn't vote to leave but the result was nearly 9 years ago... It's time to get over it.
Click to expand...
Time to get over it is a meaningless cliche. It’s time to make what we have better than it is. Which is what will happen. By the end of this parliament I predict we will have some sort of trade deal, agreements on asylum and closer defence ties and in return we will have accepted free movement for under 30s and alignment on some trade rules.
It’s a start at least, if Labour win a second term or end up with a minority government, there will probably be further steps to align.
 
The perfect fumble said:
You always ascribe ulterior motives to everything I post, it serves two purposes, one, it insults me, and two it gives you cover to never address anything I post.
Click to expand...

It's obvious. Why? Because you stray far from the topic. Your post wasn't about Brexit it was about all problems in society. I'd think the same regardless of political leaning if it was someone else doing it.


The perfect fumble said:
The fact Reagan and Trump were saying in the sixties and seventies stuff that eventually found traction decades later says precisely nothing about anything.

A narrative that is not anchored in reason might get you elected but it won't solve any problems. Labour have already been elected, it now says it's in the problem solving business, and one of those is Brexit. It cannot fashion a narrative based on bullshit and lies, coz the mainstream media won't go along with it as it does with the Tories, so it has to build a consensus over and above the right wing press, and that consensus will only be built if it is anchored in honesty and facts, because the sustainability of such a consensus will be wholly contingent on positive results, and you won't get positive results if your narrative is based on lies. Go take a tour of Boris's forty new hospitals and tell me I'm wrong.

I don't know why I bother, you are the most dogmatic poster here, just go pester someone else for a while.
Click to expand...

You quoted me first.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Because trade follows geography, and a small increase in a small number is far less relevant than a large decrease in a large number.

This is not complicated.
Click to expand...
Well we're perhaps a prisoner to our geography then unfortunately.

And also maybe rejoining the EU and throwing our towel in the ring of stagnation of the Eurozone is the best that we can hope for.
 
blueparrot said:
I completely understand why it never happened. My point was pointing out to say 'we didn't want EFTA' is wrong because voters were never asked and at least a proportion of those that voted leave will have listened to Gove and Farage and others and believed them when they implied a version of EFTA was on the table,and possible.
Click to expand...

By we, I was referring to our government, not voters.
 
meltonblue said:
By we, I was referring to our government, not voters.
Click to expand...
How many voters knew what EFTA was?

The Remain campaign wasn't offering it as a possibility as that might increase the Leave vote, and the Leave campaign never suggested it explicitly, but Farage's "we could be like Norway" and the Leave lie that "we'll still be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border" could only really mean EFTA.

If Leave had said "we could end up with no deal with the EU" they'd have lost.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
How many voters knew what EFTA was?

The Remain campaign wasn't offering it as a possibility as that might increase the Leave vote, and the Leave campaign never suggested it explicitly, but Farage's "we could be like Norway" and the Leave lie that "we'll still be in a free trass zone from Iceland to the Russian border" could only really mean EFTA.

If Leave had said "we could end up with no deal with the EU" they'd have lost.
Click to expand...

I agree. It was talked about pre the referendum but given the red lines our government put in place it was never a viable option in the negotiations was my point.

Personally I argued for efta membership as I thought that reflected the split better than any of the other options.
 
meltonblue said:
I agree. It was talked about pre the referendum but given the red lines our government put in place it was never a viable option in the negotiations was my point.

Personally I argued for efta membership as I thought that reflected the split better than any of the other options.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It was the "Brexit means Brexit" nonsense and stupid red lines that did the damage.
 
blueparrot said:
Time to get over it is a meaningless cliche. It’s time to make what we have better than it is. Which is what will happen. By the end of this parliament I predict we will have some sort of trade deal, agreements on asylum and closer defence ties and in return we will have accepted free movement for under 30s and alignment on some trade rules.
It’s a start at least, if Labour win a second term or end up with a minority government, there will probably be further steps to align.
Click to expand...
Let's flip this, do you think that creating a new 'union' with the US would be beneficial? We could have free trade and free movement of people with the US, on paper of course it would be very beneficial. However, guess how many folk on here would be in favour of that? It will be very small.

The reason for that is what if we had to take the rules of the US and put our highest court in the US? What if this UK-US union began to float the idea of a common army which would exist to act upon UK-US foreign policy goals? I guess everyone would now quickly change their minds and say we're better off deciding our own future....

This however is fundamentally what the EU represents and it's what it is pushing towards so why is it different? I suppose it really comes down to whether you trust EU politicians who only seek more power and do you? I am all for trade and movement within Europe but I am highly skeptical and often completely disagree with where this political entity wants to take Europe.
 
inbetween said:
Let's flip this, do you think that creating a new 'union' with the US would be beneficial? We could have free trade and free movement of people with the US, on paper of course it would be very beneficial. However, guess how many folk on here would be in favour of that? It will be very small.

The reason for that is what if we had to take the rules of the US and put our highest court in the US? What if this UK-US union began to float the idea of a common army which would exist to act upon UK-US foreign policy goals? I guess everyone would now quickly change their minds and say we're better off deciding our own future....

This however is fundamentally what the EU represents and it's what it is pushing towards so why is it different? I suppose it really comes down to whether you trust EU politicians who only seek more power and do you? I am all for trade and movement within Europe but I am highly skeptical and often completely disagree with where this political entity wants to take Europe.
Click to expand...
These kind of views rarely get talked about because the majority on one side prefer to use the economy as their USP. They unfortunately misjudged the room.
Can they rectify this in future? The previous 1000 or so pages are just repeated arguments that are now a decade old or so. Its not a great sign.

Politicians have let everyone down badly tbh whatever your view. I find it odd that they have any faith in them.
 
inbetween said:
Let's flip this, do you think that creating a new 'union' with the US would be beneficial? We could have free trade and free movement of people with the US, on paper of course it would be very beneficial. However, guess how many folk on here would be in favour of that? It will be very small.

The reason for that is what if we had to take the rules of the US and put our highest court in the US? What if this UK-US union began to float the idea of a common army which would exist to act upon UK-US foreign policy goals? I guess everyone would now quickly change their minds and say we're better off deciding our own future....

This however is fundamentally what the EU represents and it's what it is pushing towards so why is it different? I suppose it really comes down to whether you trust EU politicians who only seek more power and do you? I am all for trade and movement within Europe but I am highly skeptical and often completely disagree with where this political entity wants to take Europe.
Click to expand...
No that would have none of the benefits a close relationship with 500 million on our doorstep with quick easy travel and transportation costs. A small business or farm, can hardly trade fresh food with the US, Might be okay for big business not for the thousands of small family busnesses. The Labour party have a choice I think we know they’ll choose the EU, and polls tell us it’s what most in the UK prefer. And for what it's worth I have no issue with closer military coperation with the EU.
 
inbetween said:
Let's flip this, do you think that creating a new 'union' with the US would be beneficial? We could have free trade and free movement of people with the US, on paper of course it would be very beneficial. However, guess how many folk on here would be in favour of that? It will be very small.

The reason for that is what if we had to take the rules of the US and put our highest court in the US? What if this UK-US union began to float the idea of a common army which would exist to act upon UK-US foreign policy goals? I guess everyone would now quickly change their minds and say we're better off deciding our own future....

This however is fundamentally what the EU represents and it's what it is pushing towards so why is it different? I suppose it really comes down to whether you trust EU politicians who only seek more power and do you? I am all for trade and movement within Europe but I am highly skeptical and often completely disagree with where this political entity wants to take Europe.
Click to expand...

The EU and the US are not comparables whatsoever, they’re completely different. It’s not even worth the debate.
 
blueparrot said:
No that would have none of the benefits a close relationship with 500 million on our doorstep with quick easy travel and transportation costs. A small business or farm, can hardly trade fresh food with the US, Might be okay for big business not for the thousands of small family busnesses. The Labour party have a choice I think we know they’ll choose the EU, and polls tell us it’s what most in the UK prefer. And for what it's worth I have no issue with closer military coperation with the EU.
Click to expand...
I agree but that's not the point I'm making, my point is about the fundamental of having to join the EU as a political organisation as opposed to a trading bloc. If this was the case then a simple trading relationship would be enough? Political alliance is not why the common market was initially created.

Why do we need a closer military cooperation with the EU? Remember that the EU controls no army, has no generals and has no military capability whatosever so today it offers absolutely nothing in military terms. Why is it required at all other than to enact a power grab so that rather troubingly the EU can exert its own foreign policy?

We already cooperate very easily with other countries militarily and we have done so for nearly 100 years, a political alliance honestly is not required.
 
inbetween said:
Nobody voted to introduce more friction, that new friction exists as a result of a political construct that we were part of and now we're not. The same friction already exists with the rest of the world so how on earth does the rest of the world cope? The fact is they do cope and they cope much better than anybody in Europe does. Around 50% of our trade was already conducted on these terms anyway so it isn't anything new or controversial.

Again, what you're arguing for is to be part of a protectionist bloc, why when the growth is elsewhere? If we consider where the growth is going to be then those trading frictions are going to become more relevant to trade outside the EU than inside the EU. However, whilst in the EU we had zero control over outside trade policy but now we have 100% control.

If the EU decided to drive off a cliff to protect its internal market then we would drive over with them, that's what has happened to European countries on Brexit. Brexit hasn't greatly affected them but by every measure they've lost more than they've gained. The EU then sleeps soundly at night because it has protected itself but what about European citizens?

I know many on here will regurgitate the same olds that you can't leave a club and have all the benefits of it and yes I agree but it's a very illogical statement when the benefits of that club are eroding. The EU would for example benefit massively from loosening trade frictions with the rest of the world (incl. the UK) so why is it a good thing that it preaches the opposite? Or are we just arguing that it would be better to die on the bonfire with them?

Btw, I didn't vote to leave but the result was nearly 9 years ago... It's time to get over it.
Click to expand...
You can go into semantics about the structure of the EU but the fact remains, despite what the likes of Rees-Mogg were spouting, leaving a frictionless FTA inevitably would and has lead to more friction. As I said in a previous post, being a member meant that small businesses had a natural market in which to expand and only had to follow one set of rules. These small businesses probably wouldn't even have contemplated exporting to the other 180 countries on the planet as the EU gave them a sufficiently large market. That is no longer the case or certainly not as easy for them. I think there was a small cheese company that basically sold out as exporting just became too difficult for them. The same can't be said for big organisations as they truly will be dealing all around the world and probably employ specific staff to ensure they are adhering to the rules.
 
inbetween said:
I am all for trade and movement within Europe but I am highly skeptical and often completely disagree with where this political entity wants to take Europe
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your opinions are self contradictory.

You cannot have free movement and fully free trade without political agreements and alignment.

European countries, including ourselves, are far more closely aligned politically, culturally and geographically than we are with the US.
 
inbetween said:
Political alliance is not why the common market was initially created.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was! The EU was conceived as a way to prevent war (political alignment) through economics and trade.

"[t]he coming together of the countries of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany ... the solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible."

Schuman declaration, generally regarded as the founding text of the EU.

1950.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Schuman Declaration - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top