European Union Referendum

[Red]

I’ve quoted your whole post as it’s a pain deleting out the irrelevant parts on my phone. I’m responding to your “can I ask you why?” question.

I came to this opinion just from speaking to people really. The leavers I’ve met would still vote leave, and are generally more stubborn in their view - I don’t know any leavers who would change their mind at a second vote. The remainders I’ve spoken to generally fall into two groups - those really pissed off and feel that Armageddon is coming, and those disillusioned by the EU’s stance in negotiations (I’d probably split this as 80/20). So given more people I’ve spoken to would vote leave than did in June 2016, that’s how I reach my view.

Granted I accept that this is merely a sample. But the point is the picture painted by the mainstream press and various studies etc of a nation keen to change its mind seem wide of the mark from my own experience.

You've overlooked the people who didn't vote in the last referendum and the difference they might make if they did vote in another one.. I'm assuming they didn't vote because they couldn't be arsed or didn't feel they understood stuff, but I dare say many who didn't vote last time would vote to remain if we had another ref.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Britain will (or should/can) progress toward becoming more democratic, more in control of our borders and more able to forge trade deals with countries from all over the world. What is the EU progressing toward? A federalist superstate that most of it's population doesn't want? The accession of Turkey and a land border with Iraq, Iran and Syria? Decades more failed trade talks with India, China and the USA? The EU is more likely to fall apart then leave Britain in the dust.

I disagree. A country whose government attempts to by-pass Parliament in order to push its agenda without debate / opposition through can hardly be called democratic. It took an intervention by a private citizen in the High Court to force the government to allow a vote on the final terms for leaving the EU.

Regarding our borders, I ask you how you would resolve the Irish border question. Over to you.

The EU is a constantly evolving organisation which, since the Referendum has made / is near to completing, trade agreements with China, Japan, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What has Britain negotiated in that time..?

I personally do not see anything wrong with a united Europe. It has been the principle cause of peace on the continent since its foundation. I would be interested to see what proof you offer to support your claim that a majority of its people doesn't want to be a part of the EU. Has any other country had a referendum on membership..? Has any other country invoked Article 50...? Please provide proof rather than empty rhetoric.

Turkey is not a member of the EU despite having had an application in effect since 1987. The EU has not granted Turkey membership for 31 years due to its record on Human Rights and to date has no intention of doing reversing that decision. The vote to deny membership has been unanimous so far and is unlikely to be granted because every member state has a veto. If Britain were still a member we could veto Turkish membership. Where is the problem with Turkey..? You're inventing a problem out of thin air.

The EU shows no sign of collapse, rather, it is united in negotiations on Brexit and is so far running dizzy rings around David Davis. It is the British government that is in a disorganised mess, arguing with itself, unable to agree on fundamental issues and with a Prime Minister who weakened her own position with a needless, utterly reckless General Election last year.

I'm sorry, EG, but you're arguments seem to me spurious, inaccurate, driven by UKIP propaganda and you fail to give one shred of evidence to support them.

 

[Krazy8]

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I disagree. A country whose government attempts to by-pass Parliament in order to push its agenda without debate / opposition through can hardly be called democratic. It took an intervention by a private citizen in the High Court to force the government to allow a vote on the final terms for leaving the EU.

Did you miss the "should/can" on purpose or by accident? Either way the system allowed for rogue party action to be challenged and corrected, and it was.

Regarding our borders, I ask you how you would resolve the Irish border question. Over to you.

I've already answered this earlier in the thread, twice. You simply keep the non-border as it is and prosecute illegal immigrants the way you normally would. The number of people who would travel to Ireland only to cross the border and live as an illegal immigrant in the UK will be negligible, especially compared to the hundreds of thousands we currently have no control over.

The EU is a constantly evolving organisation which, since the Referendum has made / is near to completing, trade agreements with China, Japan, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What has Britain negotiated in that time..?

Unless something was agreed to in Phase One of Brexit talks with the EU that I'm unaware of, Britain is not at liberty to even negotiate trade deals globally while still a part of the Single Market and Customs Union, much less sign them. That said Japan has already pledged to agree a copycat deal with the UK once we leave the union. As for China and the USA, the EU has been 'close' to deals for years.

I personally do not see anything wrong with a united Europe. It has been the principle cause of peace on the continent since its foundation. I would be interested to see what proof you offer to support your claim that a majority of its people doesn't want to be a part of the EU.

I never made such a claim. I said they don't want to be part of a federalist superstate, which they overwhelmingly do not. The greatest support for it is in Germany (30%) and France (28%) with most other countries in the low teens.

Turkey is not a member of the EU despite having had an application in effect since 1987. The EU has not granted Turkey membership for 31 years due to its record on Human Rights and to date has no intention of doing reversing that decision. The vote to deny membership has been unanimous so far and is unlikely to be granted because every member state has a veto. If Britain were still a member we could veto Turkish membership. Where is the problem with Turkey..? You're inventing a problem out of thin air.

The EU shows no sign of collapse, rather, it is united in negotiations on Brexit and is so far running dizzy rings around David Davis. It is the British government that is in a disorganised mess, arguing with itself, unable to agree on fundamental issues and with a Prime Minister who weakened her own position with a needless, utterly reckless General Election last year.

You made the assertion that the EU was moving forward and provided no examples of the alleged progress it was making. I merely offered some examples of changes that the bureaucrats might have in store for the peoples of Europe in the future. As far as I can tell the EU is only united in the broadest sense on how to move forward with Brexit, after having only recently decided to move to Stage Two of negotiations. I suspect the next time a Mediterranean country falls victim to a currency built for the North, or Brussels tries to force migrant quotas on Hungary or Poland, then we'll see how truly united they are.

I'm sorry, EG, but you're arguments seem to me spurious, inaccurate, driven by UKIP propaganda and you fail to give one shred of evidence to support them.

It's quite odd that you've found yourself unable to convincingly refute any of them then.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Did you miss the "should/can" on purpose or by accident? Either way the system allowed for rogue party action to be challenged and corrected, and it was.



I've already answered this earlier in the thread, twice. You simply keep the non-border as it is and prosecute illegal immigrants the way you normally would. The number of people who would travel to Ireland only to cross the border and live as an illegal immigrant in the UK will be negligible, especially compared to the hundreds of thousands we currently have no control over.



Unless something was agreed to in Phase One of Brexit talks with the EU that I'm unaware of, Britain is not at liberty to even negotiate trade deals globally while still a part of the Single Market and Customs Union, much less sign them. That said Japan has already pledged to agree a copycat deal with the UK once we leave the union. As for China and the USA, the EU has been 'close' to deals for years.



I never made such a claim. I said they don't want to be part of a federalist superstate, which they overwhelmingly do not. The greatest support for it is in Germany (30%) and France (28%) with most other countries in the low teens.

By Me (to my bib) Oh yes you did.

You made the assertion that the EU was moving forward and provided no examples of the alleged progress it was making. I merely offered some examples of changes that the bureaucrats might have in store for the peoples of Europe in the future. As far as I can tell the EU is only united in the broadest sense on how to move forward with Brexit, after having only recently decided to move to Stage Two of negotiations. I suspect the next time a Mediterranean country falls victim to a currency built for the North, or Brussels tries to force migrant quotas on Hungary or Poland, then we'll see how truly united they are.



It's quite odd that you've found yourself unable to convincingly refute any of them then.

LONG POST ALERT. Those with a short attention span might like to click off now.



Well, in reply to your responses, all I can say is that a greater example of obfuscation and sheer denial I have yet to read. I can almost congratulate you for your sheer chutzpah.

The standard tactic of refusing to rise to a challenge by issuing a (weak) counter challenge is old hat. I expected better. I think there is no meeting of minds to be made here but our conversation does illustrate one undeniable truth and it is that the issue of Brexit had divided our country terribly.

This thread is not unique. It is being repeated over and over in public and on discussion forums all over the country like nothing else ever has. Remainers like myself see the evidence in front of their very eyes while Leavers refuse to see anything at all if it doesn't unwaveringly toe the Brexit line.

Yesterday a leaked document.... compiled by one of the Government's own Ministries, was reported in the press. In this document three different impact analyses predict that Britain will suffer as a result of Brexit. This was immediately attacked by Leaver MP's and Ministers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42867668

I expect Brexiters will dismiss it as irrelevant, or defeatist or simply resort to their usual position of whatever doesn't support Brexit is the work of "Traitors". I expect some will make the usual argument that there simply isn't Parliamentary time to discuss every document that comes out of the woodwork, or fall back on the thin, weak argument that to debate it would "give away our hand" in negotiations with Brussels.

How absurd. Leaking it to the press means the cat is already out of the bag, and I'd be willing to bet that Brussels is probably already in possession of a copy of it.

The Opposition have demanded that the document be published and put before Parliament for debate. This has been refused.

Why..? So that the people who the Government are supposed to serve can see what it says and make up their own minds? The people... the British people.... the taxpayers who PAID for this document to be produced are not allowed to see it or know its contents. This is democratic..?

No it isn't. It's cynical and fear led suppression of a publicly funded document which should be debated by the elected representatives of the people in the public interest. But it won't be if the Government has its way.

If this is the sort of democracy that Brexit will bring, then it's not the democracy I was born into. Our country is heading in a very dangerous direction.

Perhaps the Government is scrambling to buy themselves time to get at the document and doctor it to either reduce its impact or to come up with a counter-report which paints a rosier picture. I wouldn't put that past them.

Snip from news item:
Conservative MP Philip Davies blamed the report on "London-centric remoaners" in the civil service "who didn't want us to leave the European Union in the first place and put together some dodgy figures to back up their case".

OK, if the figures are "dodgy", then let's see them. Both sides will be able to have their say and the People can make up their own mind. But people coming to an informed decision is exactly what Brexiters don't want, eh?


There is some credence in saying that Parliament can't discuss everything. But this document is different. I repeat: It was produced by a Government Ministry. It was paid for by the taxpayer. It is a public document and it's debate is clearly in the public interest.

We have a RIGHT to know what is in that document and the Government is attempting to suppress it.

And that is NOT democratic.

 

[Indian Dan]

‘The Opposition have demanded that the document be published and put before Parliament for debate. This has been refused.’

No it hasn’t. It is being published

 

[silkyman]

I disagree. A country whose government attempts to by-pass Parliament in order to push its agenda without debate / opposition through can hardly be called democratic. It took an intervention by a private citizen in the High Court to force the government to allow a vote on the final terms for leaving the EU.

Regarding our borders, I ask you how you would resolve the Irish border question. Over to you.

The EU is a constantly evolving organisation which, since the Referendum has made / is near to completing, trade agreements with China, Japan, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What has Britain negotiated in that time..?

I personally do not see anything wrong with a united Europe. It has been the principle cause of peace on the continent since its foundation. I would be interested to see what proof you offer to support your claim that a majority of its people doesn't want to be a part of the EU. Has any other country had a referendum on membership..? Has any other country invoked Article 50...? Please provide proof rather than empty rhetoric.

Turkey is not a member of the EU despite having had an application in effect since 1987. The EU has not granted Turkey membership for 31 years due to its record on Human Rights and to date has no intention of doing reversing that decision. The vote to deny membership has been unanimous so far and is unlikely to be granted because every member state has a veto. If Britain were still a member we could veto Turkish membership. Where is the problem with Turkey..? You're inventing a problem out of thin air.

The EU shows no sign of collapse, rather, it is united in negotiations on Brexit and is so far running dizzy rings around David Davis. It is the British government that is in a disorganised mess, arguing with itself, unable to agree on fundamental issues and with a Prime Minister who weakened her own position with a needless, utterly reckless General Election last year.

I'm sorry, EG, but you're arguments seem to me spurious, inaccurate, driven by UKIP propaganda and you fail to give one shred of evidence to support them.

It's amazing really. Almost 19 months since the vote, and they really don't have anything other than the crap they peddled then. Certainly nothing from the 'negotiations' (ie the UK demanding something, the EU saying no, the UK blustering and chuntering for a onth and then demanding the same thing again) would give them ammunition.

The EU have said time and time and time and time and fucking time again. There is no 'cherry picking' and no 'bespoke deal'. So we're left with 'Norway' or nothing.

Norway would be the least financially damaging, but would be pointless because we still have to abide by the rules and have free movement, but without any say. Nothing would be massively damaging, and essentially impossible with the Good Friday Agreement.

And it seems we're aiming for 'Damaging and Impossible'.

Brilliant. Well done everyone.

 

[silkyman]

I've already answered this earlier in the thread, twice. You simply keep the non-border as it is and prosecute illegal immigrants the way you normally would. The number of people who would travel to Ireland only to cross the border and live as an illegal immigrant in the UK will be negligible, especially compared to the hundreds of thousands we currently have no control over.

1 - That would be against both EU rules for Ireland (they don't want our shitty hormone filled beef, chlorinated chicken and whatever coming in) and WTO rules for the UK.

2 - We have absolute control over illegal immigration. That's why it's illegal. We also have control on EU legal immigration, but choose not to enforce it.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

1 - That would be against both EU rules for Ireland (they don't want our shitty hormone filled beef, chlorinated chicken and whatever coming in) and WTO rules for the UK.

WTO rules would only govern UK trade with the EU in a no-deal scenario, and if UK agricultural regulations can meet EU standards at the moment then there's no reason why they can't post-Brexit. A non-tariff agreement will basically come down to how picky the EU wants to be about regulatory checks, or in real terms how much they want the deal to go through.

We also have control on EU legal immigration, [...]

Absolutely false.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Meanhwhile, the Tories are lying to the voters and themselves.

Very good article in the Times by Matthew Paris a couple of days ago. Sorry it has to be posted in image format, but the Times Online is a subscription service so the text version wouldn't be readable.

And not only this, but the next link reveals how the policies of the Tories post-Brexit will put the interests of international finance and big business before the people. And if they have their way, there will be no European Court of Justice to stand in their way.

In a case involving a UK window salesman, the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg – whose continuing jurisdiction is vehemently opposed by Brexiters – has reinforced employees’ rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...s-can-claim-compensation-for-untaken-holidays

Snip from article:

“Today’s judgment is also a striking reminder of the impending disaster that is Brexit for worker rights. It’s cases like this one, where the Tories are told that their manoeuvres to protect big business to the detriment of workers are a step too far, that help one understand why they have such an obsessive hatred for the [ECJ]”

The ECJ has done so much to protect workers rights in Britain and throughout the EU member states, but once the Tory government have "taken back control", decisions such as this will be very easy to overturn..... to the benefit of business and the detriment of working people.

When business conflicts with workers rights post-Brexit, who do you think the Tories will side with..?

 

[silkyman]

WTO rules would only govern UK trade with the EU in a no-deal scenario, and if UK agricultural regulations can meet EU standards at the moment then there's no reason why they can't post-Brexit. A non-tariff agreement will basically come down to how picky the EU wants to be about regulatory checks, or in real terms how much they want the deal to go through.

How many times have they said that we won't be able to 'cherry pick' a bespoke deal? And anyway, how's that for 'taking back control'. Having to abide by their rules, with no say or veto?

Absolutely false.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974

We can deport people for not having a job. We just don't do it.

As things stand, EU citizens who come to the UK to find work cannot claim jobseeker's allowance during their first three months in the country.

After that they can claim for a total of 91 days, which can be split across several periods of jobseeking. They can continue claiming beyond that period if they can demonstrate that they are actively looking for a job and are likely to get it.

After a total of six months they can be removed if they still have not found a job, and have no realistic possibility of finding one, and require support from the welfare system.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

How many times have they said that we won't be able to 'cherry pick' a bespoke deal?

The fact that we can't simply pick and choose which parts of the EU to adopt and which to discard doesn't mean that we're getting some sort of cookie-cutter deal either. Lots of nations have agreements in place with the EU and they were all tailored to what both parties need and are willing to accommodate, the Brexit deal will be no different.

And anyway, how's that for 'taking back control'. Having to abide by their rules, with no say or veto?

We don't have to abide by their rules any more than we would any other nation or bloc we trade with. The complication comes because of the lack of a border, the trick will be to satisfy the EU that we can police illegal trade between the UK and Ireland without one. Is it possible that the European Union could block an amicable agreement for the sake of some Northern Irish poultry slipping through the (admittedly sparse) net? It is I suppose, but you would have to assume that more sensible heads would prevail.

We can deport people for not having a job. We just don't do it.

That was not the point of contention.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Meanhwhile, the Tories are lying to the voters and themselves.

Very good article in the Times by Matthew Paris a couple of days ago. Sorry it has to be posted in image format, but the Times Online is a subscription service so the text version wouldn't be readable.

And not only this, but the next link reveals how the policies of the Tories post-Brexit will put the interests of international finance and big business before the people. And if they have their way, there will be no European Court of Justice to stand in their way.

In a case involving a UK window salesman, the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg – whose continuing jurisdiction is vehemently opposed by Brexiters – has reinforced employees’ rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...s-can-claim-compensation-for-untaken-holidays

Snip from article:

“Today’s judgment is also a striking reminder of the impending disaster that is Brexit for worker rights. It’s cases like this one, where the Tories are told that their manoeuvres to protect big business to the detriment of workers are a step too far, that help one understand why they have such an obsessive hatred for the [ECJ]”

The ECJ has done so much to protect workers rights in Britain and throughout the EU member states, but once the Tory government have "taken back control", decisions such as this will be very easy to overturn..... to the benefit of business and the detriment of working people.

When business conflicts with workers rights post-Brexit, who do you think the Tories will side with..?

Well it's a good job we don't operate under a one party state then, and if we don't like one party, we can vote another party.

If we look at some rights, the facts just don't backup the boogeyman

Unfair dismissal - covered in UK law
National Minimum wage - covered in UK law
Unlawful deductions from wages - covered in UK law
Statutory redundancy pay - UK law
Industrial action framework - UK law
Paternity leave, Shared parental leave - UK law again
Pregnancy and maternity leave - UK law already goes further than EU
Holidays and holiday pay - UK law already goes further than EU
Discrimination - UK already had protection against sex, race and disability discrimination pre-EU. EU does go further in this area, granted.
Data protection - UK is taking on GDPR, as we helped write it.

If a party stands on a mandate to change these kinds of laws (in either direction), we can choose to vote for them or not, as we like. It would then be debated and voted on in our Parliament by our MPs, and our Lords. That's our democracy. It's not like Michael Gove could just snap his fingers and cart us all off to the workhouse to work for tuppence and gruel rations.

Also workers rights is only good if you can actually get a job. We could always do better there, but that's a significant problem right now in the EU, particularly where the young are concerned.

 

[mowgli]

Also workers rights is only good if you can actually get a job. We could always do better there, but that's a significant problem right now in the EU, particularly where the young are concerned.

France,Spain,Italy and Greece all have high levels of youth unemployment around 50 % without a job,what has The Eu done about it? Bugger all that's what!

 

[Cornish Piskie]

If we look at some rights, the facts just don't backup the boogeyman

Unfair dismissal - covered in UK law
National Minimum wage - covered in UK law
Unlawful deductions from wages - covered in UK law
Statutory redundancy pay - UK law
Industrial action framework - UK law
Paternity leave, Shared parental leave - UK law again
Pregnancy and maternity leave - UK law already goes further than EU
Holidays and holiday pay - UK law already goes further than EU
Discrimination - UK already had protection against sex, race and disability discrimination pre-EU. EU does go further in this area, granted.
Data protection - UK is taking on GDPR, as we helped write it.

So...... if it is - as you suggest - the case that UK law provisions whilst we are in the European Union are (according to you) sufficient to cover the needs of the British people......

Why the heck do we need to "Take Back Control".....?


I notice you didn't touch on the issue of Tory Brexiters lying (yet again) to Parliament and the people, or the divisive and intimidatory tactics of hard line Brexiters like yourself, in Parliament in their attempt to subvert the Democratic process with threats.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

So...... if it is - as you suggest - the case that UK law provisions whilst we are in the European Union are (according to you) sufficient to cover the needs of the British people......

Why the heck do we need to "Take Back Control".....?


I notice you didn't touch on the issue of Tory Brexiters lying (yet again) to Parliament and the people, or the divisive and intimidatory tactics of hard line Brexiters like yourself, in Parliament in their attempt to subvert the Democratic process with threats.

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about now Piskie, you've kinda changed tact. I assure you it's certainly not my intention to be divisive or intimidating. I wouldn't condone members of Parliament being intimidating if that's the case, although it's fair to say this issue is naturally divisive unfortunately.

I wouldn't consider myself a "hard line Brexiter" personally, thats a bit of an assumption on your part. I do not favour or wish an unnegotiated crash out type "hard" Brexit. I would prefer a more cordial, negotiated, amicable separation. Whether I have confidence in our politicians achieving that is another matter, safe to say it's not been overwhelming. But that's the ideal for me. What is a hard line Brexiter? It's possible we have different definitions in mind. Would you consider all 17m odd as hard liners?

On "Take back control". There's many areas in which I'd like the UK to be able to have more freedom in our decision making. Be that around deciding who actually governs us, who we trade with, how we settle people into the country, who and how we shape diplomatic relations with. There's plenty enough from me in these many pages.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I wished to point out how flimsy I felt your assertions around the impending doom of employment rights were, which appeared to be the thrust of your post above, as I don't find that reality backs them up.

 

[silkyman]

The Japanese are being polite yet serious about leaving.

Seriously, this means shit is getting real.

 

[silkyman]

The fact that we can't simply pick and choose which parts of the EU to adopt and which to discard doesn't mean that we're getting some sort of cookie-cutter deal either. Lots of nations have agreements in place with the EU and they were all tailored to what both parties need and are willing to accommodate, the Brexit deal will be no different.

And none of them, NONE of them, are as good as the deal you get by being a member.

We don't have to abide by their rules any more than we would any other nation or bloc we trade with. The complication comes because of the lack of a border, the trick will be to satisfy the EU that we can police illegal trade between the UK and Ireland without one. Is it possible that the European Union could block an amicable agreement for the sake of some Northern Irish poultry slipping through the (admittedly sparse) net? It is I suppose, but you would have to assume that more sensible heads would prevail.

If we want to sell our stuff to the EU, we have to make stuff that complies with their regulations. If they decide that all X has to be made with a Y that we can only get imported by Z, then we import it, or stop selling the X to the EU. If they do that now, we veto it. When we leave, well...

The Northern Ireland border would have to be 'hard' if we were outside of all of these frameworks, because the EU might (but wouldn't, there are rules about borders from the EU and WTO) turn a blind eye to a few chickens, but they would want to check the chicken trucks in case they actually contained cheaply made, dangeous electronics, or bootleg pharmaceuticals, or anything else. And hell. It's not like the Irish border has ever had any other issues associated with it.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about now Piskie, you've kinda changed tact. I assure you it's certainly not my intention to be decisive or intimidating. I wouldn't condone members of Parliament being intimidating if that's the case, although it's fair to say this issue is naturally divisive unfortunately.

I wouldn't consider myself a "hard line Brexiter" personally, thats a bit of an assumption on your part. I do not favour or wish an unnegotiated crash out type "hard" Brexit. I would prefer a more cordial, negotiated, amicable separation. Whether I have confidence in our politicians achieving that is another matter, safe to say it's not been overwhelming. But that's the ideal for me. What is a hard line Brexiter? It's possible we have different definitions in mind. Would you consider all 17m odd as hard liners?

On "Take back control". There's many areas in which I'd like the UK to be able to have more freedom in our decision making. Be that around deciding who actually governs us, who we trade with, how we settle people into the country, who and how we shape diplomatic relations with. There's plenty enough from me in these many pages.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I wished to point out how flimsy I felt your assertions around the impending doom of employment rights were, which appeared to be the thrust of your post above, as I don't find that reality backs them up.

Fair comment and thank you for clarifying your personal position. I appreciate it.

I must say I personally find some of your responses would fall into the category of what I would personally call those of a "Hard Liner". But of course, that is a subjective opinion. Others may not have the same interpretation. It's all an unfortunate consequence of being only able to converse in hard type without the benefit of personal contact where nuance, tenor and "body language" might aid greater understanding.

But it's a good topic and one that is clearly important to both of us - albeit on opposite sides of the fence - I think we can agree on that much.

I don't for one minute think you are being deceptive. Your position is quite clear and I feel the points I've made are relevant and fair. In such discussions though there will inevitably be contradictions of interpretation and where politics are involved, the words and actions of politicians (not always the most honest and truthful of people) will be subject to those interpretations. It's a minefield. For example; We each accuse the other of being anti-democratic based on often polarised examples brought about by individuals we normally wouldn't trust to "buy a used car from." Politics, eh..?

I take your points about the desire for independence. The British are a notoriously independent people. Our relative isolation from the European mainland and having had to fight off repeated attempts at invasion down the centuries has ingrained this into us. But in the modern age, the kind of independence Brexit aspires to, which might have been possible in the middle ages simply isn't attainable in the 21st century. Business... corporations.... power politics.... trade..... law... human rights.... the environment.... all of these things are global issues and the big players play on the world stage.

You may argue that Britain can still take part as an independent nation, but it is difficult to imagine the USA, China, the EU states and other international "Big Hitters" paying much attention to a small, isolationist island off the western coast of Europe.

It has already become apparent that we cannot seal our borders in the way Brexit would like. The Irish conundrum is too complex and if not handled properly could very possibly lead to a united Ireland. The SNP haven't abandoned their policy of independence for Scotland and if Ms Sturgeon is quiet right now, we can be sure she is only keeping her powder dry, waiting for the right moment. The disintegration of the United Kingdom is a far more likely scenario than the break up of the European Union that Brexiters believe Britain leaving the EU will preciipitate.

Economically, Britain has already been weakened by Brexit and we haven't even left yet..!! It is true that some predictions by Remainers were exaggerated and haven't transpired as forecast, but the seeds of significant economic damage are there and simply writing off such talk as "Project Fear" just doesn't wash any more. Yesterday the Japanese industries that have invested heavily in UK warned they will leave if Britain cannot ensure profitability for their companies. It is true that Britain's economy is growing, but only slowly and very little in comparison to the much greater global growth being enjoyed in the rest of the world. Britain is the slowest, smallest growing economy in the developed world. Industries based here are sending out a stark warning that they will take their business where their interests are best served. We have a small growth, based on a weak pound that makes exports profitable at this time. It won't take much to do a great deal of damage that. And the EU are now openly talking of "Punishing" Britain. They have the clout to do it. We need to think about that.

Our law is our law. It always has been. European law exists in order to standardise practice in the European Union. It is not meant to subvert British law, rather, it is intended to be an adjunct to it. To do this though, it must be consistent with the priinciples of pan-European union, and that includes the European Charter on Human Rights and the Four Freedoms. These are non negotiable. If Britain wants to continue to do business with EU nations after Brexit they must agree to stay subject to these rules. It's another conundrum that seems insurmountable. But I ask myself... why would we NOT want to agree with, say, the European Charter on Human Rights..? The way I see it, the only reason you would want to avoid human rights legislation is so that you could..... er... deprive people of their human rights.

The European Union will not collapse as a result of Brexit. That is a Faragist fantasy that just isn't going to happen. Rather, as I said, the United Kingdom will cease to exist first.

I agree that there is much reform needed for the EU. It has much to be reformed. But leaving the Union is not the way to influence that. Until March next year we have a seat at the discussion table and MEP's in the European Parliament who can put Britain's case. All that ends when we leave. After Brexit, Britain will have no voice in the EU. We won't be able to influence any decisions. The EU will go on and Britain will be powerless to do anything about any decisions that are taken.

Our negotiations are a shambles....... I'm sure you'd agree with that. It is difficult to see any way at all that Britain will come out of Brexit better off or a better nation for it.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

For the EU to become viable long term, it needs to turn into the United States of Europe, with a Federal Level Government (the EU Commission and EU Parliament controlling everything that affects all Nation states, i.e. Trade, Armed Forces, EU Wide Federal taxes, Finance, Budgets,) and State level Government (services, state level income tax etc). That is the way things are heading, and I think long term it will work, but will all 27 remaining states sign off on a change that big?

If that happens, with the UK outside, yes we will have control, but once we leave the EU, borrowing would have to go up ten fold in order to cover the costs of borders, customs arrangements etc, while trade deals are hammered out. It would put Economy growth around 10 years behind everyone else, with an even bigger debt to service. As we have seen at the last PMQs, you can be sure that the NHS will be sold off to plug a funding gap as part of a trade deal with the states (unless the Government is kicked out before that in a GE). The excuse used will be that there was no other option.

If we exit without an agreement, WTO will not let us trade until the NI Border is up and manned, and Customs arrangements are in place. The Government know this, so taking the offer of a Transition period (which is the Status Quo, but without Representation in the EU, and no rebate) as it is, is the sensible solution until infrastructure is put into place. It's to give us time to put the required infrastructure in place.

I don't think we will get a trade deal with the EU, and if we do, it will only cover certain goods, and we will still have to adopt to EU standards in order to trade. That in turn would also mean any nation willing to trade with us, would also have to adhere to the rules set by the EU, or the EU could pull their FTA.

 

[Super_horns]

Boris is going to have his say (again) today on Brexit.

Seems he is basically going to tell the remain camp to stop moaning and the EU to get on with it.

Mrs May will probably come out and tell him off afterwards.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

U.K. Factories Post Best Year Since 2014 as Exports Boom

And none of them, NONE of them, are as good as the deal you get by being a member.

So the Remain side has claimed throughout, along with many other since-refuted or oft-revised claims about the terrible position we'll find ourselves in. I've no doubt this will be a worse deal for the globalists and the mega corporations, but for the man on the street? We'll see.

If we want to sell our stuff to the EU, we have to make stuff that complies with their regulations. If they decide that all X has to be made with a Y that we can only get imported by Z, then we import it, or stop selling the X to the EU. If they do that now, we veto it. When we leave, well...

I'm fairly certain that isn't accurate Silky. We can vote for or against new regulatory legislation (all of which is proposed and crafted for us by unelected bureaucrats) with our MEPs, but we cannot simply veto any new regulation we don't like. The former situation you describe is that of the normal state of affairs between any two nation states or blocs with a trade agreement in place, and it will work both ways. The difference is that - depending on the deal - our entire manufacturing base will not need to conform to EU regulations, only the goods we sell to them will, and the EU has over the past decade become an ever shrinking proportion of our exports.

The Northern Ireland border would have to be 'hard' if we were outside of all of these frameworks, because the EU might (but wouldn't, there are rules about borders from the EU and WTO) turn a blind eye to a few chickens, but they would want to check the chicken trucks in case they actually contained cheaply made, dangeous electronics, or bootleg pharmaceuticals, or anything else. And hell. It's not like the Irish border has ever had any other issues associated with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The only way I see something as comparatively trivial as the practicality of policing the border (which is already done to an extent) torpedoing this deal is if that was the plan all along. This a fully integrated first world island nation we're talking about, not some soft border with Kazakhstan or something.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The only way I see something as comparatively trivial as the practicality of policing the border (which is already done to an extent) torpedoing this deal is if that was the plan all along. This a fully integrated first world island nation we're talking about, not some soft border with Kazakhstan or something.

The Republic of Ireland is an EU member state and is therefore subject to EU Customs regulations. It can't just choose to make a solo deal with UK and ignore any tariffs imposed by the EU. It must comply and in case you're thinking that this may lead to the Irish Republic wanting to leave the EU, I think that is the very least likely option they would be prepared to take.

The Republic knows it cannot allow itself to become a "back door" for tariff avoidance. What is more likely is that the politically astute Irish government may see an opportunity to advance their historical - and domestically very popular - cause of uniting the island of Ireland. How that might be done is yet to be seen, but such is the political instability in UK and Northern Ireland, I'd say that if handled astutely, they'd actually have a chance of achieving it.

Paisleyism isn't the force it used to be in the north. Sectarianism has diminished since the Good Friday Agreement. There is much more unity between north and south than ever before. Attitudes to possible unification have softened. At present there is still a majority for unionism in Northern Ireland, but that doesn't mean things can't change if the circumstances are right.

But the Brexiter's fantasy that they can flippantly pooh-pooh the border issue away is exactly that. A dream.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

U.K. Factories Post Best Year Since 2014 as Exports Boom

Note: I've made a selective snip from EG's post in order to make a specific point.

It's very easy to find "statistics" which suggest UK business is doing well since the Referendum because, as we all know, there are lies, damned lies and..... statistics.

It depends on what you read and where you read it, I suppose.

Writing in the Sun, Trade Secretary Liam Fox told their lucky readers that he would "point to the facts" to show "Britain is booming post-Brexit" (er.... we haven't left the EU yet, Liam).

He began with "In 2017 we saw the highest level of Foreign Direct Investment projects into the United Kingdom in our history - a vote of confidence in the future from real investors."

Actually, the record FDI figures he quoted came from 2016 (pre-referendum). In 2017, FDI into the UK actually FELL BY 90%.

Fox also told deeply analytical and discerning Sun readers whose reputation for perspicacity is known to all; "Exports of our goods increased by 15.9% and services rose by 11.6% to £617b in the year to October 2017."

What he conveniently neglected to tell them was that - as his own department's reports make clear - The European Union was the geographic area that saw the largest increases..... a geographic area that by this time next year - if current negotiations are anything to go by - we will no longer have access to.

This is how Brexit bends the truth to suit their purpose. Take some carefully selected figures and distort them either by disinformation or omission of relevant bits that don't fit the political agenda.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The Republic of Ireland is an EU member state and is therefore subject to EU Customs regulations. It can't just choose to make a solo deal with UK and ignore any tariffs imposed by the EU. It must comply and in case you're thinking that this may lead to the Irish Republic wanting to leave the EU, I think that is the very least likely option they would be prepared to take.

The Republic knows it cannot allow itself to become a "back door" for tariff avoidance. What is more likely is that the politically astute Irish government may see an opportunity to advance their historical - and domestically very popular - cause of uniting the island of Ireland. How that might be done is yet to be seen, but such is the political instability in UK and Northern Ireland, I'd say that if handled astutely, they'd actually have a chance of achieving it.

Paisleyism isn't the force it used to be in the north. Sectarianism has diminished since the Good Friday Agreement. There is much more unity between north and south than ever before. Attitudes to possible unification have softened. At present there is still a majority for unionism in Northern Ireland, but that doesn't mean things can't change if the circumstances are right.

But the Brexiter's fantasy that they can flippantly pooh-pooh the border issue away is exactly that. A dream.

We've been through this already in detail. It comes down to whether the UK and Irish authorities can satisfy the EU that they can sufficiently police smuggling without a hard border. I (and apparently everyone else involved in negotiations) believe it's doable, Remainers do not.

It's very easy to find "statistics" which suggest UK business is doing well since the Referendum because, as we all know, there are lies, damned lies and..... statistics.

What he conveniently neglected to tell them was that - as his own department's reports make clear - The European Union was the geographic area that saw the largest increases..... a geographic area that by this time next year - if current negotiations are anything to go by - we will no longer have access to.

This would fall into the "lies" category.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

(My comment)
What he conveniently neglected to tell them was that - as his own department's reports make clear - The European Union was the geographic area that saw the largest increases..... a geographic area that by this time next year - if current negotiations are anything to go by - we will no longer have access to.

(EG's response)
This would fall into the "lies" category.

Where is the lie..? Do you suggest that the EU is not the largest export area..? If that's the case, then why does Liam Fox's own department produce figures that say it is..?

Or are you suggesting that our negotiations with the Michel Barnier and other EU negotiators are going exactly to plan and are showing categorically that Britain is achieving all of its negotiation targets..?

Please specify the alleged "lie" here so that we can look a little more closely at it.

 

[silkyman]

All. Going. Swimmingly.

https://amp.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80

 

[silkyman]

Seems legit. https://twitter.com/andrew_adonis/status/970690397562392577?s=21

 

[Laker]

Seems legit. https://twitter.com/andrew_adonis/status/970690397562392577?s=21

Presumably we’d just have an equivalent law? Sounds like an issue of interpreting what he said/him not being clear with what he was intending to say rather than anything else.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

Boris is going to have his say (again) today on Brexit.

Seems he is basically going to tell the remain camp to stop moaning and the EU to get on with it.

Well if that hasn't sorted things then nothing bloody will