Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

The influence of the EU on Britain.

1537538540542543607

Comments

  • stonemuse said:

    Not what I am saying at all but can’t be bothered to repeat the points I have made so many times in the past.

    If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
    I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. But I can't be bothered to repeat not suggesting it again.

    If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
  • So, anyway, a few links from today's Irish Times.

    Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).

    As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).

    In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
  • Leave has been campaigning since 1973. I certainly think leavers are ill informed, many refused to even read the government leaflet that was sent to everyone. Some are certainly stupid - I have had first hand experience. Many were old (I fall into that category myself), but that is not something I hold against them in any way shape or form, what I hold against them is the combination of ill-informed and stupid that lead to them voting leave.
    As I was saying, no change there
  • Chizz said:

    I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. But I can't be bothered to repeat not suggesting it again.

    If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
    Obviously you have never bothered reading my comments on leaving/remaining.

    Fair enough, they weren't that interesting.
  • Southbank said:

    As I was saying, no change there
    And every word is true. They change - I change, it's not rocket science.
  • For those still minded to leave after contemplating events, is the default setting to leave the details to the politicians, if not what solution to the Irish border have you come up with?
  • So, anyway, a few links from today's Irish Times.

    Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).

    As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).

    In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).

    By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.

    China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy.
    I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will.
    Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
  • NI thing is pure politics, unavoidable someone will be unhappy but reality is there are already ‘checks’ in the Irish Sea so a few more won’t hurt. The deal still sucks tho and is not worth losing the other benefits for.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited December 2018
    Stig said:

    'We have that'. Have, as in present tense? Fantastic there's no need to change anything then. What a marvellous piece of joined up thinking. China is undemocratic, therefore we should leave the EU. This whole Brexit nonsense is nothing but flim flam.
    And Southbank is the king of the flam flingers... :lol:

    And another made up tabloid stylee statement: "Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route."
  • On the subject of China, getting a good trade deal there might not be all plain sailing because of political sensitivities.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/07/britains-brexit-trade-deal-beijing-put-risk-south-china-sea/
  • Stig said:

    This is a very good question (not that the rest of your post isn't equally as good). For me personally I'd think that the overall economy probably comes in at about 4th in terms of most most powerful reasons for me wanting to stay. Ahead of it are:

    1. Freedom of movement: I love the fact that I can go where I want when I want. I might not do that very much at the moment because I cannot afford to, but I hope to in the future. And it's not just the right to roam around a bit. The right to choose which of 28 different countries I live, work and own property in is a massive thing. And knowing that if I don't like it, I'm free to move back or elsewhere without hindrance. I will absolutely hate it if Brexit goes ahead and my dream to retire to sunnier climes is crushed.

    2. Employment rights: Much of our protection at work comes directly from EU law. Frankly I do not trust those right wing politicians calling for Brexit, because they are precisely the sort of people who want to take workers rights away. I envisage that it wouldn't be long after Brexit that we saw longer hours, worse conditions and little concern for workers' welfare.

    3. Consumer rights: I don't want to eat chlorinated chicken. I don't want to revert to exorbitant data roaming charges. I like the fact that all types of consumer goods have to meet strict standards and that the EU is not afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft. Again, I fear that those peddling Brexit are those with a vested interest in curtailing our rights so that they and their ilk can make bigger profits at our expense.

    Of course, this doesn't mean that the economy isn't important to me. It's just that the above feel more personal, whereas tanking the economy is something that would effect all.

    Just add the requirement for a collective approach to the environment and you have the full set! Another area where the right and certain business interests might wish to see standards and commitments reduced.

    It's only now that we have the WA on the table that people can see that we are at a decision point regarding freedom of movement, consumer rights, workers and the environment. Some might want to "take back control" but let us put the WA to the House, and then the people if that's the path chosen by MPs.
  • stonemuse said:

    Obviously you have never bothered reading my comments on leaving/remaining.

    Fair enough, they weren't that interesting.
    There have been 16.5K comments on this thread, so the chances of people recalling your position on Brexit in any detail are small, unless you've been doing a Seth and repeating it on every other page. If people are misunderstanding your views, then it makes more sense to explain them, as it helps those who missed them the first time round to understand where you're coming from too.
  • Southbank said:

    By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.

    China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy.
    I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will.
    Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
    China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.

    The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.

    I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
  • aliwibble said:

    There have been 16.5K comments on this thread, so the chances of people recalling your position on Brexit in any detail are small, unless you've been doing a Seth and repeating it on every other page. If people are misunderstanding your views, then it makes more sense to explain them, as it helps those who missed them the first time round to understand where you're coming from too.
    It will get very boring if I have to repeat my rationale every time I post. I have posted them numerous times not just once.

    Plus my comment was tongue in cheek as I know Chizz had read my views as he had previously responded to them.
  • Four yours ago, nobody ever used the word sovereignty and I'm pretty sure that if you said it, people would have asked what you meant - or not (they probably wouldn't have cared).
  • Sponsored links:


  • Who are the "Institute of Economic Affairs" anyway?

    They seem to be like one of those self titled trade organisations, to allow businesses to put stickers on their vans, and a logo on their notepaper.

    The IEA are political commentators (oh yeah) who probably only get any exposure because of which media person any of them went to university with. The have absolutely no substance at all, yet get recognition because they have a fancy name.

    I have to reveal to you all that I am now head of the Lee Analysts of UK and World Events. I expect the media to be falling over themselves to hear what I have to say now I've let that particular cat out of the bag.

    https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/12/01/institute-of-economic-affairs-charity-commission-brexit/
  • edited December 2018

    You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.

    Here we go again.

    No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
  • stonemuse said:

    Here we go again.

    No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
    I've got to admit I thought exactly the same. In what way is voting for Brexit not about picking up the ball and walking away? I genuinely don't get it.
  • Stig said:

    I've got to admit I thought exactly the same. In what way is voting for Brexit not about picking up the ball and walking away? I genuinely don't get it.
    While I disagree with @stonemuse about voting to leave, and we have quibbled a fair amount on this thread and others about the details of both of our positions, I do think that that is being unfair to him to suggest that he simply instructed the Government to walk away from the EU. He has always taken a nuanced approach to Brexit and the UK's relationship with the EU, and has argued consistently against knee-jerk hard/clean/incredibly stupid Brexit ideas.

    IMHO, other than in voting as he did in the referendum (but, then, I am biased), his only real mistake was to believe that the politicians that supposedly represent this country, and claim both the right and ability to govern, were capable of taking a grown-up and thoughtful approach to Brexit (or even had the faintest idea of a plan). And, in fairness, quite a few people would have argued before the referendum that David Davis was both a principled and thoughtful politician - he has incredibly successfully managed to disabuse the population of that notion since 2016. I'd hazard a guess that if Theresa May had begun her tenure by setting as her only red line the need to come up with a future relationship that sought to represent the whole country, not just the victorious voters, things might look different today, and there would be greater buy-in for a deal.

    Mind you, I still think voting to leave was a wrong-headed decision (just as not bothering to vote at all in the referendum was).
  • .

    While I disagree with @stonemuse about voting to leave, and we have quibbled a fair amount on this thread and others about the details of both of our positions, I do think that that is being unfair to him to suggest that he simply instructed the Government to walk away from the EU. He has always taken a nuanced approach to Brexit and the UK's relationship with the EU, and has argued consistently against knee-jerk hard/clean/incredibly stupid Brexit ideas.

    IMHO, other than in voting as he did in the referendum (but, then, I am biased), his only real mistake was to believe that the politicians that supposedly represent this country, and claim both the right and ability to govern, were capable of taking a grown-up and thoughtful approach to Brexit (or even had the faintest idea of a plan). And, in fairness, quite a few people would have argued before the referendum that David Davis was both a principled and thoughtful politician - he has incredibly successfully managed to disabuse the population of that notion since 2016. I'd hazard a guess that if Theresa May had begun her tenure by setting as her only red line the need to come up with a future relationship that sought to represent the whole country, not just the victorious voters, things might look different today, and there would be greater buy-in for a deal.

    Mind you, I still think voting to leave was a wrong-headed decision (just as not bothering to vote at all in the referendum was).
    I agree with a lot of that but it was a binary choice.

    There was no option on the ballot requesting the government go back to the EU and try to implement a multispeed organisation based on concentric circles, which I believe is @stonemuse preferred option. The obvious choice for someone wanting that was Remain and renegotiation but, and I'm paraphrasing, some Leavers, and my interpretation is Stoney is one of them but there are others, thought our hand would be stronger with a Leave vote in our back pocket.

    The fact of the matter is we never even tried that tactic and the advisory vote went straight to the policy we see now.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!