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

The influence of the EU on Britain.

1542543545547548607

Comments

  • edited December 2018
    Southbank said:

    But Ireland has said it will not do it, so who will-or are you saying the Irish have no sovereignty in this context?

    The U.K. will not be able to trade under WTO rules unless they apply the same “no border” policy to every WTO member not just the ROI. Think about it for a moment and you will see that much of the nonsense being spouted about the Irish border being a no issue is well.......nonsense.
  • edited December 2018
    Southbank said:

    You should struggle for what you think is right of course.
    But having a second referendum before the first one is enacted is profoundly undemocratic.

    Can you imagine had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM announced we were leaving anyway, how profoundly undemocratic that would have been and how shocked you and others would have been? Imagine that and then you will know how we Leavers feel.
    My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.

    Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all.
    Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
    Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
    So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU.
    The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.


    If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris).
    Seriously, where is it going to come from?

    MY BIT

    I have heard this line of argument before. Leave to regain control of the borders by not having control of the borders.
    If I am right you are now arguing for no brexit at all, which given your comments about 'democracy' and not disrespecting the referendum vote yesterday, looks like you have had a complete change of heart about brexit overnight and you now favour remain.
    Good for you to become a remainer.
  • seth plum said:

    My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.

    Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all.
    Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
    Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
    So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU.
    The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
    If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris).
    Seriously, where is it going to come from?

    I have heard this line of argument before. Leave to regain control of the borders by not having control of the borders.
    If I am right you are now arguing for no brexit at all, which given your comments about 'democracy' and not disrespecting the referendum vote yesterday, looks like you have had a complete change of heart about brexit overnight and you now favour remain.
    Good for you to become a remainer.

    It's amazing how Brexiters continue to shirk every responsibility that comes their way.

    "It's up to the Remainers to get on with implementing the referendum result."

    "It's up to Ireland to implement a border."

    "It's up to the EU to come up with a deal that will work for Britain."

    One would get the impression not a single Brexiter actually had any kind of clue on how to actually enact Brexit if Leave won in 2016.
  • I think you'll find democracy has not been as consistent in many of those countries as it has been in the UK.
    I singled out one aspect of 'democracy', votes for women to quite deliberately point out the inconsistencies of what people call 'democracy'. In this particular instance the notion that the EU referendum was so democratic those remainers are therefore anti democratic people.
    The EU vote was a staging post of a kind of democracy, as there have been similar events in history and the UK, the vote was not the paradigm version. It is right in my view that the use of the word democracy and Democrat in that context should be open to challenge.
  • Fiiish said:

    If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris).
    Seriously, where is it going to come from?
    I have heard this line of argument before. Leave to regain control of the borders by not having control of the borders.
    If I am right you are now arguing for no brexit at all, which given your comments about 'democracy' and not disrespecting the referendum vote yesterday, looks like you have had a complete change of heart about brexit overnight and you now favour remain.
    Good for you to become a remainer.

    It's amazing how Brexiters continue to shirk every responsibility that comes their way.

    "It's up to the Remainers to get on with implementing the referendum result."

    "It's up to Ireland to implement a border."

    "It's up to the EU to come up with a deal that will work for Britain."

    One would get the impression not a single Brexiter actually had any kind of clue on how to actually enact Brexit if Leave won in 2016.

    Why would they? It was a protest vote and Cameron was stupid enough to set it out as such. Net immigration from the EU was negative earlier this year and yet the Home Secretary still banging on about immigration on the radio this morning. But no actual paper released.

    This Government is absolutely clueless and out of control, driven by a Leave agenda by its backers and activists.

    One thing though... it was always going to be the EU setting up the Brexit deal once the UK indicated preferences. Now we are here, another vote appears the next step.
  • Southbank said:

    Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been an elected politician since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
    Thank you.
  • What was actually posted is as follows: At face value @Southbank is supporting the sentiments in the piece and this is consistent with his/her views expressed in the past relating to the sharp drop in % vote for centre left and centre right options across Europe. I don't think that whether Southbank sells diamonds or the big issue is really of any consequence to the actual point being discussed.

    Just as my own background or that of my grandparents (of Belarusian descent on one side) colours my views but doesn't change the words on the page.

    The point is that tens of millions of Europeans are shifting their votes away from traditional options in response to disillusion with the centrist prospectus. And that this is a real challenge for the establishment in many dimensions. Steve Bannan and the alt-right are making gains but aside from Italy they are not really on the radar just yet when it comes to the political economy - much to the disappointment of the Express and Telegraph who appear to celebrate every gain made by extremists.


    My issue was that you described him as the "authentic voice which is true to the sentiments expressed in the article", which I took to mean that he is one of those in that demographic described in the article. Patently he is not, but it is true that he talks about a group like them a lot to support his own views. Ordinary people who are not "the elite"...

    It would be difficult to find true representatives of that demographic here, because by definition as Charlton fans we are all "metropolitan" but I can think of a couple of Brexit regulars on here who fit the demographic in terms of their working lives far better than Southbank does. E.g., skilled manual work or essential public services, admirable careers which are undervalued ("Forgotten") today. Thing is that especially public services, such as the Fire Brigade, have been undervalued all my adult life, and I have always tried to support policies that value them more highly. Ever since the 3 day Week. In other words, sod all politically to do with the EU or Brexit.

    Anyway, back to @southbank, the authentic voice of Southbank. The thing is Southbank, mate, that (as I've written many times) I struggle to understand what motivates your trenchant, unbending stance on Brexit. So once again I ask, what material benefit do you expect Brexit (your version of Brexit) to bring to the lives of, firstly yourself and your family, and secondly the lives of the "forgotten" who might be lurking in this thread? People who pursued maybe an apprenticeship in engineering, or people who served or serve us in the essential services? They can often seem to be very angry, and might give you Likes. What will your Brexit bring them? Why will they become less angry as a result?

    Come on mate, give us a straight, authentic answer...
  • edited December 2018

    My issue was that you described him as the "authentic voice which is true to the sentiments expressed in the article", which I took to mean that he is one of those in that demographic described in the article. Patently he is not, but it is true that he talks about a group like them a lot to support his own views. Ordinary people who are not "the elite"...

    It would be difficult to find true representatives of that demographic here, because by definition as Charlton fans we are all "metropolitan" but I can think of a couple of Brexit regulars on here who fit the demographic in terms of their working lives far better than Southbank does. E.g., skilled manual work or essential public services, admirable careers which are undervalued ("Forgotten") today. Thing is that especially public services, such as the Fire Brigade, have been undervalued all my adult life, and I have always tried to support policies that value them more highly. Ever since the 3 day Week. In other words, sod all politically to do with the EU or Brexit.

    Anyway, back to @southbank, the authentic voice of Southbank. The thing is Southbank, mate, that (as I've written many times) I struggle to understand what motivates your trenchant, unbending stance on Brexit. So once again I ask, what material benefit do you expect Brexit (your version of Brexit) to bring to the lives of, firstly yourself and your family, and secondly the lives of the "forgotten" who might be lurking in this thread? People who pursued maybe an apprenticeship in engineering, or people who served or serve us in the essential services? They can often seem to be very angry, and might give you Likes. What will your Brexit bring them? Why will they become less angry as a result?

    Come on mate, give us a straight, authentic answer...
    My answer is that knowing your voice counts through your right to vote means you are a proper citizen and member of society whom the rich and powerful have to take into account.

    And vice versa. If the vote is ignored we are all diminished, including Remainers.

    I asked the question a few pages back what would Remainers feel like had the vote gone the other way and a Tory PM had taken us out of the EU anyway, on the basis that the vote was advisory. Ask yourself how you would have felt in that position and you may get some idea of how Leavers feel now.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I'm interested in how we could tighten up rules around freedom of movement (of labour).

    The big issue as I understand it around migration (perceived or actual I'm not sure) is not benefit claimants its people being able to work here having never lived here, and not truly living here as they live in hostels etc while they work and send nearly all the money home, undercutting wages of workers from the UK. I'm not sure how that could be stopped under existing rules without change from the EU which they seem unwilling to do - surely that is the concession Cameron should have come home with?

    https://www.ft.com/content/14b558c8-6585-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614

    Only us Sweden and Ireland allowed migration from Eastern Europe when those states became part of the EU possibly the root cause of Brexit.

    http://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blairs-decision-to-allow-eastern-european-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077
  • Southbank said:

    My answer is that knowing your voice counts through your right to vote means you are a proper citizen and member of society whom the rich and powerful have to take into account.

    And vice versa. If the vote is ignored we are all diminished, including Remainers.

    I asked the question a few pages back what would Remainers feel like had the vote gone the other way and a Tory PM had taken us out of the EU anyway, on the basis that the vote was advisory. Ask yourself how you would have felt in that position and you may get some idea of how Leavers feel now.
    This kind of circular nonsense has gotten me to the point where I want Brexit cancelled right now, just so I can see your reaction.
  • Southbank said:

    My answer is that knowing your voice counts through your right to vote means you are a proper citizen and member of society whom the rich and powerful have to take into account.

    And vice versa. If the vote is ignored we are all diminished, including Remainers.

    I asked the question a few pages back what would Remainers feel like had the vote gone the other way and a Tory PM had taken us out of the EU anyway, on the basis that the vote was advisory. Ask yourself how you would have felt in that position and you may get some idea of how Leavers feel now.
    But it's not an answer to my question! Again, with emphasis "what material benefit do you expect Brexit (your version of Brexit) to bring to the lives of, firstly yourself and your family, and secondly the lives of the "forgotten" who might be lurking in this thread? " Why cannot you answer the question in terms that politicians use to explain their high minded calling to the career : "to improve the lives of ordinary people". How will Brexit do that???????????

    All through the 80s I voted against Thatcher. I didn't get the governments I wanted. But I still believe that my vote counted. Just as it did in 2017, when I had to be economical with the truth in order that through your right to vote means you are a proper citizen and member of society whom the rich and powerful have to take into account. Again fuck all to do with whether the UK is a member of the EU. The rich and powerful have always disproporionately run the UK, and of course many of them are now looking to Brexit to help them further cement their hold.
  • Oh, and, democracy is a total sham, Brexit is a fantasy, and the rich and powerful don't give a fuck unless they're getting richer and more powerful
  • Southbank - I, like many others, am really struggling to see your logic for your reasoning for wanting Brexit. If it is solely as an exercise in democracy then what is the problem with giving the public a chance to ratify or reject the deal? An informed public, able to pass or deny something which will have a huge impact on them seems like a very good example of democracy, much more so than a vote which took place with unclear explanations as to its ramifications.
  • Southbank - I, like many others, am really struggling to see your logic for your reasoning for wanting Brexit. If it is solely as an exercise in democracy then what is the problem with giving the public a chance to ratify or reject the deal? An informed public, able to pass or deny something which will have a huge impact on them seems like a very good example of democracy, much more so than a vote which took place with unclear explanations as to its ramifications.

    The British people have already as one made up their minds. Any future mind-making is sinister globalism. Soros has us all on strings! Aaaagh!
  • The vote hasn't been ignored now. It has dominated the UK agenda for the last 3 years, to the detriment of nearly every other area of governance, and has caused the largest schism of public feeling in modern British history.

    What we had in 2016 was a simple In Out advisory referendum. There was absolutely zero guarantee of what form any Brexit would take, what timeframe it should take place in and what our future relationship with the EU would be. Now we have a lot more information from these perspectives and as suggested by the the Brexit side we should have a second referendum to decide whether we want to leave the EU now a deal has been put forward. We have, in every sense of the word, implemented the only logical way an advisory non-binding referendum could be implemented - by exploring the options as mandated by the referendum. Now the options are clear to see, should we proceed or should we have a rethink? There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a second and final opportunity to confirm this is what we, as a country, want to do.
  • And this is why May has to go. Windrush, hostile environment etc. And now it is crystal clear that May's objection to a minimum risk Norway option is freedom of movement. Many of us know that the UK could tighten up on controls as many other EU nations do. She is not only doing the bidding of her activists but she clearly believes in this agenda which is extremely damaging to the fabric of our society as well as to GDP. This since EU citizens earn more than the average, hold scarce skills and were educated abroad and may well retire abroad, i.e., they will make far less use of services.

    In short it looks impossible to prosecute either a Norway option, a People's Vote or a No Brexit option whilst May remains in office. Therefore one possibility is that we tip precariously towards no deal, once the WA is defeated. And that this is then followed by a rethink. One can speculate more but probably more productive to wait until the glorious 12th to see how things are landing.
    It really is time that politicians had the courage to argue the case for the necessity of migration from the point of view of enlightened self interest - as starkly set out in the Financial Times article below:

    'By 2050, the proportion of the UK population aged 65 and over is projected to reach nearly a quarter at 24 per cent, up from 17 per cent in 2012, according to the ONS.

    Strikingly, the fastest increases will be among the “oldest old”, with the proportion aged 85 and over forecast to treble from 2 per cent to 6 per cent.

    Academics say these rapidly evolving demographic changes will affect everyone in society, regardless of age.

    “At worst, not only could it imply rising poverty, poor health and the erosion of social care for those in old age over the coming decades, but also lower standards of living for all of us, as ageing acts as a drag on economic growth and the future delivery of public services,” says David Sinclair, director of the International Longevity Centre UK, a think-tank.

    One of the main worries is that as the proportion reaching retirement age grows, the number of working age people will shrink as birth rates decline.

    This is a concern because UK state pension payments are funded through taxation and national insurance contributions from those of working age.

    The number of working age people to every pensioner, or the “old age support ratio”, is forecast to fall to 2.9 by 2050, from 3.3 in the mid-1970s to 2006
    .

    “Tax revenue from those in work may fail to keep up with demand for social security and healthcare from an increasingly large proportion of people aged over 65 and out of work and who have poor health,” adds Mr Sinclair'.

    https://www.ft.com/content/fda8675a-e82d-11e4-894a-00144feab7de
  • edited December 2018
    razil said:

    I'm interested in how we could tighten up rules around freedom of movement (of labour).

    The big issue as I understand it around migration (perceived or actual I'm not sure) is not benefit claimants its people being able to work here having never lived here, and not truly living here as they live in hostels etc while they work and send nearly all the money home, undercutting wages of workers from the UK. I'm not sure how that could be stopped under existing rules without change from the EU which they seem unwilling to do - surely that is the concession Cameron should have come home with?

    https://www.ft.com/content/14b558c8-6585-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614

    Only us Sweden and Ireland allowed migration from Eastern Europe when those states became part of the EU possibly the root cause of Brexit.

    http://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blairs-decision-to-allow-eastern-european-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077

    It's unquestionably a tricky issue, multi-faceted and no easy answers. As such I would mention:

    - other EU countries simply didn't have the problem with intra-EU migration, so they didn't feel any pressure to change it. So WHY did so many people from the accession countries choose the UK rather than France, Germany, Netherlands, etc? I mean in the latter two cases, both the economy and the wage levels were just as strong if not stronger.

    - if the immigrants undercut the domestic labour force, one issue is that employers are breaking the law. That needed and needs to stop. Of course we have some very dodgy legal employment as a result of our push for "labour market flexibility", a sovereign UK choice, which the Germans and others have not felt inclined to copy

    - The second article you link is sober and presents the key stats well. Generally I think it's agreed that Blair was too hasty in opening the gates fully; I think though that the real problem came with the later wave from RO/BG, the gap in living standards between those countries and the UK was much wider than with the 2004 lot.

    - there is an issue with benefit claimants, and a lot of them are Roma, who have come in mainly from SK, RO and BG. We had the freedom to tighten up the regulations which would have discouraged them, and failed to use it. The Poles in particular never understood why not.

  • But it's not an answer to my question! Again, with emphasis "what material benefit do you expect Brexit (your version of Brexit) to bring to the lives of, firstly yourself and your family, and secondly the lives of the "forgotten" who might be lurking in this thread? " Why cannot you answer the question in terms that politicians use to explain their high minded calling to the career : "to improve the lives of ordinary people". How will Brexit do that???????????

    All through the 80s I voted against Thatcher. I didn't get the governments I wanted. But I still believe that my vote counted. Just as it did in 2017, when I had to be economical with the truth in order that through your right to vote means you are a proper citizen and member of society whom the rich and powerful have to take into account. Again fuck all to do with whether the UK is a member of the EU. The rich and powerful have always disproporionately run the UK, and of course many of them are now looking to Brexit to help them further cement their hold.
    If you count material benefits as being about money, then the answer is who knows? as economic forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on, generally speaking, and the future of the economy will depend on many unpredictable factors.

    But do you really only measure value in monetary terms?

    I believe that real change only comes through democratic involvement. It was brilliant that 3 million people voted in the referendum that nobody expected. It meant they were engaged often for the first time in democratic politics. Their instincts were to challenge the fear mongering and disdain of the Remain camp, something I heartily agree with.

  • Sponsored links:


  • edited December 2018
    Southbank said:

    If you count material benefits as being about money, then the answer is who knows? as economic forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on, generally speaking, and the future of the economy will depend on many unpredictable factors.

    But do you really only measure value in monetary terms?

    I believe that real change only comes through democratic involvement. It was brilliant that 3 million people voted in the referendum that nobody expected. It meant they were engaged often for the first time in democratic politics. Their instincts were to challenge the fear mongering and disdain of the Remain camp, something I heartily agree with.

    Southbank said:

    No, I really do not like the protectionist EU, a stinking mass of corporate corruption, anti-democratic and oblivious to local sovereignty. I believe the nation state is the main protector of my democratic rights.
    The thought process that led to the total and utter nonsense that is these two posts is so dense that light actually bends around them.
  • It is becoming seriously fucking weird that you will not answer the question. Policies are supposed to make the lives of ordinary people better. As policies go, they don't come bigger than Brexit. "Money", i might remind you, is required to address all the concerns that most people said were more important to them than Brexit. Such as the NHS, and increasingly, elderly care. Such as the state of the railways and other infrastructure. Such as the shortage of affordable housing. As far as I know, the "forgotten" are seriously bothered by such things. Will Brexit address these issues? If so, how exactly?

    Are you seriously telling us that the only important benefit of Brexit will be that in
    10 years time the average retired fireman, or dockyard fitter, or Army sergeant, or NHS radiologist can say, " there was a referendum, and I took part in it"

    IS THAT REALLY ALL YOU'VE GOT?
    And who are these 3 million people he refers to? And how does Southbank know how they all voted?
  • Southbank said:

    If you count material benefits as being about money, then the answer is who knows? as economic forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on, generally speaking, and the future of the economy will depend on many unpredictable factors.

    But do you really only measure value in monetary terms?

    I believe that real change only comes through democratic involvement. It was brilliant that 3 million people voted in the referendum that nobody expected. It meant they were engaged often for the first time in democratic politics. Their instincts were to challenge the fear mongering and disdain of the Remain camp, something I heartily agree with.

    Oh perleeeese.

  • edited December 2018



    Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
  • Oh perleeeese.

    "Fearmongering and disdain" from a man who says the EU is an anti-democratic police state, that the EU installs the Italian PM, and that Macron has assembled an EU army and has ordered them to fire upon protestors in Paris.
  • Southbank said:




    Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.

    Laws ......Name three that are imposed on us you don’t like ?
    Borders....... it’s a fact that we need immigration for our economy to survive. Laws in place already to address people coming here and not paying their way. Our successive governments have just chose to ignore them
    Money........ UK is not in the Euro so please explain this one too

    Of course you can’t.

  • edited December 2018
    Southbank said:

    No, I really do not like the protectionist EU, a stinking mass of corporate corruption, anti-democratic and oblivious to local sovereignty. I believe the nation state is the main protector of my democratic rights.
    I think it would be interesting for you to actually live in another EU country to see how they cope with the EU being 'oblivious to local sovereignty'. It is impressive in a way that you keep going with this idea irrespective of others pointing out how silly it is, but to be honest its a very strange argument and comes across as just something that people repeat from tabloids.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!