Brexit Referendum Superthread

stefanovich

wes wrote: »

Completely irrelevant nonsense, Corbyn did not say what you claim, and the thread is not about Israel or Palestine ffs.

I do have say however that denying the existence of Palestine, and by extension Palestinians, is just disgusting racism. Amazing coming from someone falsely accusing someone else of racism.



He didn't say what you claimed. It is a lie, and repeating the same lie over and over again will not make it true. It really pathetic to keep this complete and utter nonsense up.

I'm sorry but Palestine came into existence AFTER the creation of Israel.

wes

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm sorry but Palestine came into existence AFTER the creation of Israel.

Palestine was an Ottoman province, before the creation of the state of Israel and again completely off topic for this thread. Anyway, done with your nonsense and lies.

stefanovich

wes wrote: »

Palestine was an Ottoman province, before the creation of the state of Israel and again completely off topic for this thread. Anyway, done with your nonsense and lies.

Palestine was desert. The Jews moved in and turned it into a properous modern country. Surrounding Muslim states took offense. Arafat was the first leader of Palestine. The whole entity is just an expression of hatred for the Jews.

ancapailldorcha

Take the Israel/Palestine topic somewhere else please.

Bit cynical

Generation Snowflake alive and well in the European Parliament:

https://twitter.com/ManfredWeber/status/749916567413096448

wes

Bit cynical wrote: »

Generation Snowflake alive and well in the European Parliament:

https://twitter.com/ManfredWeber/status/749916567413096448

I fail to see that. Farage has much like Johnson, left after causing a large mess, and can't be bothered to fix it. If anyone is being a "special snowflake" its Farage and Johnson.

CMOTDibbler

wes wrote: »

I fail to see that. Farage has much like Johnson, left after causing a large mess, and can't be bothered to fix it. If anyone is being a "special snowflake" its Farage and Johnson.

Interesting to see what Farage does next. I suspect that there's a reward waiting for him from those who would have something to gain from the UK leaving the EU.

smjm

wes wrote: »

I fail to see that. Farage has much like Johnson, left after causing a large mess, and can't be bothered to fix it. If anyone is being a "special snowflake" its Farage and Johnson.

Farage is nothing like Johnson. Johnson joined the Leave campaign, only recently, to further his personal political ambitions. Farage, on the other hand, has been wholly consistent for nigh on two decades. His one aim was UK withdrawal from the EU and, without him, it's doubtful there would ever have been a referendum. He was never going to be a player in any withdrawal negotiations.

wes

smjm wrote: »

He was never going to be a player in any withdrawal negotiations.

So? He helped make the mess and decide to run away, when the hard work needs to be done. He could easily make his opinion known, to the negotiators.

Now having said that, wouldn't surprise me if he was pushed by the saner heads in the leave coalition, to go away, as he was doing his best to piss people off.

stefanovich

wes wrote:

So? He helped make the mess and decide to run away, when the hard work needs to be done. He could easily make his opinion known, to the negotiators.

I can't see any mess from where I'm sitting.

smjm

wes wrote: »

So? He helped make the mess and decide to run away, when the hard work needs to be done. He could easily make his opinion known, to the negotiators.

Now having said that, wouldn't surprise me if he was pushed by the saner heads in the leave coalition, to go away, as he was doing his best to piss people off.

I'm quite sure that Farage will make his opinions known!

Bit cynical

wes wrote: »

Now having said that, wouldn't surprise me if he was pushed by the saner heads in the leave coalition,

You sound as if you think the referendum campaign is still going on.

CMOTDibbler

stefanovich wrote: »

I can't see any mess from where I'm sitting.

Chris Evans has resigned from Top Gear. Barely a wek from Brexit and disaster* has fallen!










*Some people say that this is not a disaster...

wes

Bit cynical wrote: »

You sound as if you think the referendum campaign is still going on.

Negotiations with the EU will be going on for years. The referendum gave absolutely no indication on how to leave. So still plenty to play for.

For example, the UK could end up in a Norway type arrangement, where they pretty much obey most EU rules, and have no say at all.

The referendum was just the start, there are years of hard work to be done. Basically, it like George Bush declaring victory in Iraq, and the whole mess raged on for nearly a decade afterwards.

Bit cynical

wes wrote: »

Negotiations with the EU will be going on for years. The referendum gave absolutely no indication on how to leave. So still plenty to play for.

For example, the UK could end up in a Norway type arrangement, where they pretty much obey most EU rules, and have no say at all.

The referendum was just the start, there are years of hard work to be done. Basically, it like George Bush declaring victory in Iraq, and the whole mess raged on for nearly a decade afterwards.

I think you do have a point. I'm not a fan of Farage or Ukip, but from a purely disinterested perspective, I see that party having reached a turning point. They have achieved the aim of getting the UK out of the EU. The UK is not out yet but it will be. The next leader of the Tory's (most likely Theresa May) will invoke Article 50, triggering the exit process. There will not be another referendum or any of that nonesense. This is a major victory for Ukip.

However, as pointed out, Farage's whole being these last however many years has been aimed at a) securing a referendum (a huge achievement in itself) and b) winning that referendum.

I personally think that the Norway model would be a good compromise for Britain, many of whom did not vote Brexit. Certainly the best for Ireland, with 50% of our exports going to the UK. Least disruption all around generally.

However, Farage doesn't want that and he is entitled to fight for what he wants. But given that he wants the UK fully out, perhaps he sees the best way to achieve that is to hand over the party to someone else. Whether or not we agree with his goals, he's not like the sort of career politicians we have over here.

molloyjh

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think you do have a point. I'm not a fan of Farage or Ukip, but from a purely disinterested perspective, I see that party having reached a turning point. They have achieved the aim of getting the UK out of the EU. The UK is not out yet but it will be. The next leader of the Tory's (most likely Theresa May) will invoke Article 50, triggering the exit process. There will not be another referendum or any of that nonesense. This is a major victory for Ukip.

However, as pointed out, Farage's whole being these last however many years has been aimed at a) securing a referendum (a huge achievement in itself) and b) winning that referendum.

I personally think that the Norway model would be a good compromise for Britain, many of whom did not vote Brexit. Certainly the best for Ireland, with 50% of our exports going to the UK. Least disruption all around generally.

However, Farage doesn't want that and he is entitled to fight for what he wants. But given that he wants the UK fully out, perhaps he sees the best way to achieve that is to hand over the party to someone else. Whether or not we agree with his goals, he's not like the sort of career politicians we have over here.

No he isn't. He's far more dangerous. Willing to lie through his teeth and stir up negative sentiment to get what he wants and utterly unwilling to take any form of responsibility. Give me the dodgy career politicians over people like him any day. At least they'll get something done. And some of it might even be positive. All Farage does is twist it, stir it up, make a mess of it and leave it to someone else to sort out.

wes

wes wrote: »

For example, the UK could end up in a Norway type arrangement, where they pretty much obey most EU rules, and have no say at all.

I heard a figure of 9% on RTE Radio 1's The Late Debate last week.

i.e. 9% of EU legislation is transposed into the EEA agreement.

A brief google suggests that the figure came from a Norwegian political group that opposes Norwegian integration with the EU, so there's some bias. However, I haven't seen any contradiction of the figures.

They say that 52,183 legal instruments were adopted by the EU since 2000, but that only 4,724 were incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

Now that 52,000 figure is probably misleading, since not all of those legal instruments affect all members of the EU. Some will be specific to particular countries, some will have opt-outs, and many will relate to the Eurozone.

The figure also says nothing of the distribution of interference, i.e. the 47-odd thousand regulations and directives might effect minimal impact on their subjects, whereas the 4-odd thousand that apply to Norway, might effect serious impacts on its sovereignty.

The bottom line, however, is that it's quite clear that the vast majority of the EU's legal instruments have no application in Norway.

molloyjh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I heard a figure of 9% on RTE Radio 1's The Late Debate last week.

i.e. 9% of EU legislation is transposed into the EEA agreement.

A brief google suggests that the figure came from a Norwegian political group that opposes Norwegian integration with the EU, so there's some bias. However, I haven't seen any contradiction of the figures.

They say that 52,183 legal instruments were adopted by the EU since 2000, but that only 4,724 were incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

Now that 52,000 figure is probably misleading, since not all of those legal instruments affect all members of the EU. Some will be specific to particular countries, some will have opt-outs, and many will relate to the Eurozone.

The figure also says nothing of the distribution of interference, i.e. the 47-odd thousand regulations and directives might effect minimal impact on their subjects, whereas the 4-odd thousand that apply to Norway, might effect serious impacts on its sovereignty.

The bottom line, however, is that it's quite clear that the vast majority of the EU's legal instruments have no application in Norway.

Does that factor in all legislation on goods sold within the EU, all of which would have to be adhered to for exporting?

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Does that factor in all legislation on goods sold within the EU, all of which would have to be adhered to for exporting?

It's just everything that binds Norway.

Say where Norway exports fish into the EU, it may have to comply with certain provisions on identification and traceability. That will be in there.

But where Norway is exporting live animals, for example, it would have to comply with EU legislation on animal welfare once inside the EU. That wouldn't typically be included in the figure, nor should it, because that applies to everybody carrying-on those activities inside the EU, be they American, Chinese, or Outer Mongolian.

That's my limited understanding anyway.

wes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The bottom line, however, is that it's quite clear that the vast majority of the EU's legal instruments have no application in Norway.

I have heard conflicting figures, including the one you mention. Anyway, looking a wikipedia (yes i know it can be inaccurate, but this shouldn't be controversial):

European Economic Area

The EEA agreement grants Norway access to the EU's internal market. From the 23,000 EU laws currently in force,[2] the EEA has incorporated around 5,000 (in force)[3] meaning that Norway is subject to roughly 21% of EU laws. According to Norway's Foreign Affairs (NOU 2012:2 p. 790, 795), from the legislative acts implemented from 1994 to 2010, 70% of EU directives and 17% of EU regulations in force in the EU in 2008 were in force in Norway in 2010.[4] Overall, this means that about 28% of EU legislation in force of these two types in 2008 were in force in Norway in 2010. While the Norwegian parliament has to approve all new legislation which has "significant new obligations", this has been widely supported and usually uncontested; between 1992 and 2011, 92% of EU laws were approved unanimously, and most of the rest by a broad majority.[5]

Seems like a significant chunk, and they will possibly lose passporting, so it will hurt there banks, but it may present a way out of this whole mess, where a younger generation can always reapply down the line.

wes

wes wrote: »

I have heard conflicting figures, including the one you mention. Anyway, looking a wikipedia (yes i know it can be inaccurate, but this shouldn't be controversial):

That link approximately agrees with the number of legislative acts incorproated in the EEA agreeement, but vastly differs with the earlier figure in respect of the total number of legislative acts in force (23000 vs 52000)

Nevertheless, even if it were as high as 28%, that is a far cry from obeying "most" EU rules, as you claimed.

I am aware there are limitations to the utility of such statistics, saying nothing as they do about the nature of the laws in question. Nevertheless, if a small country like Norway can escape at least 70% of EU legislation, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a major global power like Britain achieves even better.

Sam Russell

wes wrote: »

I have heard conflicting figures, including the one you mention. Anyway, looking a wikipedia (yes i know it can be inaccurate, but this shouldn't be controversial):



Seems like a significant chunk, and they will possibly lose passporting, so it will hurt there banks, but it may present a way out of this whole mess, where a younger generation can always reapply down the line.

Unfortunately, if they reapply, they will lose all derogations hard won over the last forty years - in particularly the one that allowed them to not join the Eurozone. That alone will make rejoining a bitter pill to swallow.

I wonder if they had joined the Eurozone, would the Euro have been more successful or would the crisis happen anyway.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

I wonder if they had joined the Eurozone, would the Euro have been more successful or would the crisis happen anyway.

I suspect it would have happened anyway. The UK joining it wouldn't averted the disaster that was Greece.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That link approximately agrees with the number of legislative acts incorproated in the EEA agreeement, but vastly differs with the earlier figure in respect of the total number of legislative acts in force (23000 vs 52000)

Nevertheless, even if it were as high as 28%, that is a far cry from obeying "most" EU rules, as you claimed.

I am aware there are limitations to the utility of such statistics, saying nothing as they do about the nature of the laws in question. Nevertheless, if a small country like Norway can escape at least 70% of EU legislation, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a major global power like Britain achieves even better.

Or less - if you just export fish, them rules about cars - say - do not affect you.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Or less - if you just export fish, them rules about cars - say - do not affect you.

Well, no. It doesn't work that way.

All of the Four Freedoms, and the laws that regulate their application, are transposed into the EEA agreement, although Norway's lawmakers enjoy some margin of appreciation in how it interprets many of them.

It doesn't matter whether Norway exports cars or coconuts. The European Union's legislative instruments that regulate the export of cars and coconuts into the Single Market have application in Norway.

If a country could only bypass those laws that are irrelevant to it, it would defeat the benefits of the EEA membership altogether.

Norway has freedom to regulate its employment laws, foreign policy, security, customs, trade with the rest of the world, health, housing, fiscal & monetary policy, social justice, and environment (with some minor exceptions) without any oversight by the EU's institutions.

Rightwing

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think you do have a point. I'm not a fan of Farage or Ukip, but from a purely disinterested perspective, I see that party having reached a turning point. They have achieved the aim of getting the UK out of the EU. The UK is not out yet but it will be. The next leader of the Tory's (most likely Theresa May) will invoke Article 50, triggering the exit process. There will not be another referendum or any of that nonesense. This is a major victory for Ukip.

However, as pointed out, Farage's whole being these last however many years has been aimed at a) securing a referendum (a huge achievement in itself) and b) winning that referendum.

I personally think that the Norway model would be a good compromise for Britain, many of whom did not vote Brexit. Certainly the best for Ireland, with 50% of our exports going to the UK. Least disruption all around generally.

However, Farage doesn't want that and he is entitled to fight for what he wants. But given that he wants the UK fully out, perhaps he sees the best way to achieve that is to hand over the party to someone else. Whether or not we agree with his goals, he's not like the sort of career politicians we have over here.

Indeed. Mission accomplished.

A great victory for Farage, hugely underrated.

There's certainly a simlar role (humiliate the establishment) waiting for him elsewhere if he wants it.

Bit cynical

molloyjh wrote: »

No he isn't. He's far more dangerous. Willing to lie through his teeth and stir up negative sentiment to get what he wants and utterly unwilling to take any form of responsibility. Give me the dodgy career politicians over people like him any day. At least they'll get something done. And some of it might even be positive. All Farage does is twist it, stir it up, make a mess of it and leave it to someone else to sort out.

From his perspective though, he has achieved what he set out to achieve. Dangerous? I suppose, if you vehemently oppose Brexit.

Farage did what he had to do to win. In that respect he did not mess up. Outright lying, to the extent that he did lie, did not in fact help him to win since lies are easily exposed.

The Remain campaign messed up given that they were tasked with arguing the case for staying in the EU and they failed.

But the referendum campaign is over and there is little point in continuing to fight it.

Message boards like this tend to be dominated by the losing side and it can seem like there is a consensus in the real world that everyone who voted for Brexit now regrets it. But that is not the case. There's little evidence to suggest that the vast majority who voted for it have any regrets. For them, Brexit is not a mistake. But they are not going to waste their time on message boards trying to justify themselves. The campaign for Brexit is over. They voted and Brexit won.

Much more interesting is the sort of exit that Britain pursues. My belief is that Theresa May (who I think will lead the leadership battle) will try for a bilateral trade deal along the lines of Switzerland. This, however, I think will fail as her EU counterparts will still be playing silly buggers (at the expense of Ireland and other responsible countries) and the two year period will elapse without a proper deal being done.

Plan B is the Norway option. It is my belief that this is the best for Ireland and I don't think the EU can do anything to stop this from being achieved as they are already a member of the EEA. It is just a matter of joining the EFTA and they are through.

Bit cynical

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That link approximately agrees with the number of legislative acts incorproated in the EEA agreeement, but vastly differs with the earlier figure in respect of the total number of legislative acts in force (23000 vs 52000)

Nevertheless, even if it were as high as 28%, that is a far cry from obeying "most" EU rules, as you claimed.

I am aware there are limitations to the utility of such statistics, saying nothing as they do about the nature of the laws in question. Nevertheless, if a small country like Norway can escape at least 70% of EU legislation, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a major global power like Britain achieves even better.

Here's a table I posted before the referendum for the education of some posters on this thread.

acts|EU 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|percentage
directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Overall legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1
The source is "Outside and inside: Norway's agreements with the EU"

I think most of what are called Regulations (they don't have to be transcribed into national law) do in fact apply to most EU countries, so Norway escapes them by being in the EEA.

What is more controvertial is the inclusion of "decisions". These can be very specific but are nevertheless officially classed as "legislation" by the EU. I saw another figure of 6% in a report produced for Iceland where these instruments were taken into account. I am not sure whether the "decisions" taken into consideration were all decisions or just those that would apply to Iceland were it to be in the EU.

EEA countries are also free from a lot of non-legislative EU decision making and powers.

molloyjh

Bit cynical wrote: »

Farage did what he had to do to win. In that respect he did not mess up. Outright lying, to the extent that he did lie, did not in fact help him to win since lies are easily exposed.

You cannot possibly be that naive or one eyed, can you?

Suryavarman

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unfortunately, if they reapply, they will lose all derogations hard won over the last forty years - in particularly the one that allowed them to not join the Eurozone. That alone will make rejoining a bitter pill to swallow.

I wonder if they had joined the Eurozone, would the Euro have been more successful or would the crisis happen anyway.

I'd say the crisis would have been worse. The Bank of England was much quicker to take aggressive actions in response to the crisis than the ECB. As the UK economy started recovering this would have had a knock on effect and improved the economy in any country trading with the UK.