Brexit Referendum Superthread

A Dub in Glasgo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I never considered the terms Brexiteer or Remainer to be pejorative.

Neither did I

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The usage of the term supports that connotation, yes.

As always, context is important.

.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

As always, context is important.

Well, sure, but the context in my posts is always going to be that I think people who voted Leave were wrong, that some of them are racist xenophobes while others were fooled by a campaign of lies on top of generations of anti-EU propaganda from the UK press, and still others voted exactly opposite to their own interests just as a protest.

There really isn't any way for me to talk about them as a group without that being the context.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, sure, but the context in my posts is always going to be that I think people who voted Leave were wrong, that some of them are racist xenophobes while others were fooled by a campaign of lies on top of generations of anti-EU propaganda from the UK press, and still others voted exactly opposite to their own interests just as a protest.

There really isn't any way for me to talk about them as a group without that being the context.

My post wasn't addressed to you though?

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Is supporting Brexit so awful that it is perjorative to label it?

The usage of the term supports that connotation, yes.

As always, context is important.

Well, as you say, the context is important and I like to use that line of yours to tell you something which has kept me thinking for a long time. I might agree with you on the point that the terms used to lable the two opposing camps as not being what I would favour as well. As it happens, one has to go along with the terms given to them in the public debate in order to address the two camps to a) keep it short in reference and b) avoid to be mistaken.

But here are my thoughts on the whole Brexit Thing, if you don't mind me telling you. When the whole thing was starting to develop, by that I mean the efforts taken by Cameron to kick off some reforms in the EU which were rather met with lazyness or utter disinterest, I was with him, despite the fact that from my own political background I am no Tory, but centre-left Social Democrat. I shared his intentions and thought that it is overdue that the EU gets back to be more connected to the people and change things which have been criticized for years and which has put off many people in the EU and caused more distrust towards the EU as an Institution. As you well know, this was a Thing that developed over a period of a couple of years before it ended in the pledge by Cameron to give the Brits a Referendum on the UKs Membership in the EU. I was searching and following News articles that provide more Information on what he was about in concrete suggestions. It didn't came up and what I have noticed were more statements in general terms. That was disappointing but I thought, well, he'll have to take his time to work on it and then present it to the public as well. Not much to be seen, year after year and the Kippers breathing down his neck even closer, that close that he feared to lose the last GE.

From the start of this year I followed the Brexit debate as Close as I could and bear all the crap that came with it in the News and other media sources. I even watched the silly speeches of Farage in the EP and had to my dislike admit that some of his critis on the EU and her actings (also in connection with the refugee crisis which brought more water under the bridges of the far-right) were not unfounded and therefore right. This doesn't made me a Kipper sympathiser cos deep down I always had an utter dislike for Farage and his Party. But I thought that this might be good to let the EU move into a direction from which she could grab off the water from Farage and his chums. But they didn't anything to counter him by action, which means attempts to Reformation, cos they they thought that this would be used by him as a victory upon the EU and used for his propaganda. He certainly had used it and twisted everything in order to get his message across to his like-minded followers. Pity the EU chose to not act and show the people that she can reform herself, no matter what right-wing populist say. It paid off for Farage anyway cos he could still claim that the EU is as he likes to see her and depict her, which was willingly swallowed by his supporters. Worse still than just that, it contributed to other non-Kippers to adopt this view and got inclined to vote for Leave.

For me, the Brexit campaign had been a tool to bring about EU Reformation but the increasing anti-Immigration topic that occupied the whole debate to the last day in the uprun to the Referendum and worsened in the wake of it as well as in its aftermath was a point on which I opposed the Leave Camp and their illusions that they can have both, being outside the EU but still remaining with full access to the single market despite the fact that the EU has ruled that out for many times.

There have been turning Points on which Brexit became more and more negative occupied in my perception. The last Thing before the Referendum was the murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox (R.I.P.) who fell a victim of a British Nazi who planned to murder her. That he planned to murder her was shown by evidences the Police found in his house, along with other Nazi literature and this came up during the Trial in the past couple of days, which reports on I have followed via the BBC News. This murder was the most outrageous and disgusting Thing that marked the final turning away from any understanding of what the Leave supporters were arguing for. There is no justification and no reasoning whatsoever to take the life of any political opponents for which cause anyone stands. The murder is by now as well seen as an assassination of a Brit Nazi on the whole political System of the UK. There is no doubt that this perpetrator Thomas Mair felt encouraged to murder Mrs Cox because the political climate in the UK has got that incited and poisened because of all that anti-Immigration talk and when one recalls what he was shouting when he carried out his murder, the slogans he used were the same as other far-right groups from the BNP to "Britain First" use in order to express their Intention to "take our country back". The same nutters march into Muslim dominated areas in London and try to provoke the residents there and afterwards complain when they meet resistance from the locals living there.

What happened in the wake of the Brexit Referendum and since, when people felt "entitled" to harrass their non-Brit neighbours, abuse them, telling them to "pack off and go home", even beating one to death tells much about the mindset of apparently not less of those who voted for Leave. The Fascist mindset that a certain not exactly known amount of the Leave voters carried with them was set free, just like over night.

Sorry lad, but I can't think of any reason for why I should not use the very term that fits that bunch of selfrightous and egotistical people if not Brexiteers, cos it is them who played on hatred in order to win the referendum and not those who calls "Remainers". Therefore, I will stick to it, whether you like it or not, but I have my strong reasons for that and I have bothered to explain it to you, so that you know about the reasons behind it.

When I see the faces of Farage and Johnson, it makes me sick to watch them, less to say to read their crap which I have avoided to do. The worst book I have ever started to read about Winston S. Churchill was that written by Johnson and after a few pages, I have put it into the rubbish where it belongs. Not for Churchill, who I still admire, but out of utter contempt for Johnson and that was even before he decided to join the Leave camp. When you have politicians like them, you might consider your country to be at the bottom line, cos people like them only make things worse, but by no means better.

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

As always, context is important.

Well, sure, but the context in my posts is always going to be that I think people who voted Leave were wrong, that some of them are racist xenophobes while others were fooled by a campaign of lies on top of generations of anti-EU propaganda from the UK press, and still others voted exactly opposite to their own interests just as a protest.

There really isn't any way for me to talk about them as a group without that being the context.

Quite right, that's the way I see it too, exactly.

@emmet, it'd be very helpful if you would consider to quote the post of the poster you are addressing your reply to. I wasn't even sure myself whether you have addressed me or someone else, but anyway, I took this opportunity to express my views on it. Surely, quoting a post in Response to someone isn't that much a bother, isn't it?

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree this would be the best option for all concerned, the question is whether this is what those that voted leave want and my guess is that it isn't. Freedom of movement is the one thing that we can almost be sure of is what people don't want so it leaves everyone in limbo in regards to access to the single market.

This is the thing though. The mandate was to leave the EU. That's as far as it goes. It's not an order to pursue hard or soft Brexit. Just to leave.

K-9

Mod:
Attack the post, not the poster please.

solodeogloria

Good evening,

robinph wrote: »

If the vote had been 52/48 the other way round then the remainers response would not have been the the UK should immediately join the Euro, Schengen, EU defence force and every other thing EU going. It would have been "phew, that was close...now how do we keep doing what we are doing within the EU but still allow for that significant 48% of the population who are still not happy with it?"

But the opposing brexiteer desire is to rip everything up and ignore the other 50% of the population who bothered to vote and all of those who didn't.

It's worth pointing out that Eurocritical people like myself voted remain as part of the 48%. People who believed the safest bet was to remain and to argue for reform and people who would have wanted the EU to have done more with the negotiation with David Cameron prior to the referendum.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the EEA option is the best bet as it will allow free movement to continue, will provide access to the single market and fulfill the all-important people's mandate of leaving the EU.

The EEA option seems to only partially satisfy May's objective of control over laws and immigration.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to temporary membership of the EEA in order to form trade deals with other countries but I think that the UK should have full sovereignty over it's own laws and that some concessions will need to be given on free movement. I'm not sure if it is a long term option that works for the particular circumstances of the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EEA option seems to only partially satisfy May's objective of control over laws and immigration.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to temporary membership of the EEA in order to form trade deals with other countries but I think that the UK should have full sovereignty over it's own laws and that some concessions will need to be given on free movement. I'm not sure if it is a long term option that works for the particular circumstances of the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK is bigger than Theresa May and her odd vendetta against the ECHR. The sovereignty argument is one that I never fully got. Free trade deals aren't just signed agreements. They need to incorporate means to settle disputes. This is the reason behind EU regulation, to ensure a level playing field. In any case, free movement is a central EU tenet and the signs are that the 27 remaining states are going to refuse to compromise on it.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK is bigger than Theresa May and her odd vendetta against the ECHR. The sovereignty argument is one that I never fully got. Free trade deals aren't just signed agreements. They need to incorporate means to settle disputes. This is the reason behind EU regulation, to ensure a level playing field. In any case, free movement is a central EU tenet and the signs are that the 27 remaining states are going to refuse to compromise on it.

Good evening,

Last post for today.

You know as well as I do that when most countries strike free trade deals that freedom of movement isn't a part of it.

A new British model of engaging with the EU needs to be negotiated, but I personally think it needs to address the issue of immigration in order to be acceptable to the public. Polling shows that this is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. It can't simply be brushed under the carpet by those who wish to remain in the EU. That was very clear in the referendum campaign. It also needs to address the ability of Britain to create new trade deals and have sovereignty over legislation.

That might look like a modified EEA relationship, or it might look like a third country deal, or better still a deal constructed with bilateral treaties like Switzerland.

Anything else seems to be EU-lite. No control over what laws you have to implement and no control over borders like Norway has is worse than what the UK has now. Change doesn't mean continuing to be subject to Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK is bigger than Theresa May and her odd vendetta against the ECHR. The sovereignty argument is one that I never fully got. Free trade deals aren't just signed agreements. They need to incorporate means to settle disputes. This is the reason behind EU regulation, to ensure a level playing field. In any case, free movement is a central EU tenet and the signs are that the 27 remaining states are going to refuse to compromise on it.

Good evening,

Last post for today.

You know as well as I do that when most countries strike free trade deals that freedom of movement isn't a part of it.

A new British model of engaging with the EU needs to be negotiated, but I personally think it needs to address the issue of immigration in order to be acceptable to the public. Polling shows that this is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. It can't simply be brushed under the carpet by those who wish to remain in the EU. That was very clear in the referendum campaign. It also needs to address the ability of Britain to create new trade deals and have sovereignty over legislation.

That might look like a modified EEA relationship, or it might look like a third country deal, or better still a deal constructed with bilateral treaties like Switzerland.

Anything else seems to be EU-lite. No control over what laws you have to implement and no control over borders like Norway has is worse than what the UK has now. Change doesn't mean continuing to be subject to Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well first of all our (Switzerland) relationship with the EU required us to accept the FMOP, accept EU rulings on market issues, pay into the structural funds and do not have access to the financial markets. Furthermore there are over 200 agreements involved and it has come to the point of being unworkable.

At the end of the day this is a U.K. problem! The idea that they can some how get all the benefits of the EU without being a member is totally unacceptable and the sooner that they realize that in Europe No really does mean No and not we're open open to persuasion, the soon an exit agreement can be sorted out. I expect that when they realize that they still have to honor their budget commitments of approx. 60b even an exit deal is in doubt.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You know as well as I do that when most countries strike free trade deals that freedom of movement isn't a part of it.

I never said otherwise. The EU is more than just a mere trade deal.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A new British model of engaging with the EU needs to be negotiated, but I personally think it needs to address the issue of immigration in order to be acceptable to the public. Polling shows that this is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. It can't simply be brushed under the carpet by those who wish to remain in the EU. That was very clear in the referendum campaign. It also needs to address the ability of Britain to create new trade deals and have sovereignty over legislation.

The only way it would be clear is if it were an option in the referendum, ie "Leave the EU with the aim of cutting immigraton". The mandate was just the first three words of that statement. Some people voted for what they thought was greater sovereignty.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That might look like a modified EEA relationship, or it might look like a third country deal, or better still a deal constructed with bilateral treaties like Switzerland.

Anything else seems to be EU-lite. No control over what laws you have to implement and no control over borders like Norway has is worse than what the UK has now. Change doesn't mean continuing to be subject to Brussels.

That's why I voted Remain. It was blatantly obvious that leaving would result in an inferior deal than the status quo.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said otherwise. The EU is more than just a mere trade deal.

That's the problem. We've come a long way since the EEC. Most Eurocritical people think that EU integration has gone too far. Although I'd advocate Ireland remaining in the EU, I still think the EU interferes too much in national issues (such as Apple taxation) there and in other member states. An ever closer union was never going to work for Britain. The point is that the people don't want the EU in it's current form because it's remit is way way too large. Even when I voted remain I felt the EU's remit was way way too large and that it needed to change.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only way it would be clear is if it were an option in the referendum, ie "Leave the EU with the aim of cutting immigraton". The mandate was just the first three words of that statement. Some people voted for what they thought was greater sovereignty.

I disagree. You can see threads in the campaign of what swung the vote and you can see what polling suggests. At the moment it seems to be single market access and border controls.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's why I voted Remain. It was blatantly obvious that leaving would result in an inferior deal than the status quo.

That's where I disagree. I think a situation where the UK gains sovereignty over it's laws, trade deals and over it's borders is a better option than what the UK has now. The people asked for a looser and a more appropriate relationship with the EU. I hope May delivers that.

I don't think the UK needs to beg to the EU as some believe here. It has a strong hand in trade and defence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think the UK needs to beg to the EU as some believe here. It has a strong hand in trade and defence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Turkey has a stronger hand currently than UK does; and that's saying something...

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

You know as well as I do that when most countries strike free trade deals that freedom of movement isn't a part of it.

A new British model of engaging with the EU needs to be negotiated, but I personally think it needs to address the issue of immigration in order to be acceptable to the public. Polling shows that this is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. It can't simply be brushed under the carpet by those who wish to remain in the EU. That was very clear in the referendum campaign. It also needs to address the ability of Britain to create new trade deals and have sovereignty over legislation.

That might look like a modified EEA relationship, or it might look like a third country deal, or better still a deal constructed with bilateral treaties like Switzerland.

Anything else seems to be EU-lite. No control over what laws you have to implement and no control over borders like Norway has is worse than what the UK has now. Change doesn't mean continuing to be subject to Brussels.

All other trade deals involving countries not on the borders of European nations did not involve freedom of movement. All other countries (Switzerland and Norway) had to accept those pesky EU foundations to be part of the markets as they wanted. The UK will have to accept this as well. They cannot agree the South Korea deal or Canada deal because they have been part of the EU and this will affect any negotiations. To try and point to a deal between the EU and Canada and no freedom of movement is about as silly as expecting the US to agree to a NAFTA deal with countries on the other side of the ocean. Geographic locations play a role in what type of deal will and can be negotiated.

So those that point to other trade agreements with countries outside of Europe should know these deals will not necessarily be a starting point of negotiations.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think a situation where the UK gains sovereignty over it's laws, trade deals and over it's borders is a better option than what the UK has now.

Strange for such a staunch Remain voter.

Laws - the UK will adopt all EU law as UK law. So no change there.

Trade Deals - will be worse than what you have now.

Borders: Yes, it all comes down to immigration, and keeping foreigners out.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Strange for such a staunch Remain voter.

Laws - the UK will adopt all EU law as UK law. So no change there.

Trade Deals - will be worse than what you have now.

Borders: Yes, it all comes down to immigration, and keeping foreigners out.

Only foreigners from the EU. More foreigners currently enter the UK from outside the EU, and there are more immigrants born on the India subcontinent living in the UK than all of the migrants from the EU (which I presume includes Irish born immigrants - who are not foreign).

They could control immigration from the non-EU origins and regain control of their borders.

I think they want control of their social welfare budget, and blame 'foreigners' for getting benefits that should be restricted to 'British' people. In fact, the profile of EU migrants shows that they have a very low level of claim on benefits.

Underlying all of this Brexit, is the slow and constant decline in the standing of Britain in the world with a constant increase in Govt debt and the decline in the value of sterling.

If thing get really bad, they will have to cancel the Trident missile project (supplied by their US friends and paid for by them) to save the billions that leaving the EU will cost.

The net cost of EU membership was always a small percentage of their budget.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

Only foreigners from the EU. More foreigners currently enter the UK from outside the EU, and there are more immigrants born on the India subcontinent living in the UK than all of the migrants from the EU (which I presume includes Irish born immigrants - who are not foreign).

They could control immigration from the non-EU origins and regain control of their borders.

I think they want control of their social welfare budget, and blame 'foreigners' for getting benefits that should be restricted to 'British' people. In fact, the profile of EU migrants shows that they have a very low level of claim on benefits.

It goes deeper than that. Successive UK governments have been content to let sections of the media whip up shrill xenophobia & pillioring of the EU for decades because it distracted the plebs (or should that be "proles" now thanks to Mrs. Mays outrageously invasive "snoopers" charter penned as Home Secretary?) from the real source of blame; namely successive UK governments. Every time the borders force gets cuts applied - johnny foreigner gets blamed for a UK ministerial decision. Every time the NHS budgets get strained due to inefficiency and/or cuts, johnny foreigner gets blamed for Trust inaction/ineptitude and/or ministerial decisions. Every time the social welfare bill gets cut .. etc.

Upon leaving the EU, British politicians will no longer have a convenient (in so much as being able to tap into latent racism) scape-goat on which to pile their inadequacies. And at that point, things will get a lot bumpier. No doubt they'll try to apply that tried & trusted British diplomacy tool - divide & conquer - to class warfare amongst the native population instead. Or perhaps it'll start to manifest itself as friction between the member nations of the union. More predictably they'll just keep blaming the EU for not giving them what they want like children throwing a tantrum because daddy wont buy them a horse & stable.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's the problem. We've come a long way since the EEC. Most Eurocritical people think that EU integration has gone too far. Although I'd advocate Ireland remaining in the EU, I still think the EU interferes too much in national issues (such as Apple taxation) there and in other member states. An ever closer union was never going to work for Britain. The point is that the people don't want the EU in it's current form because it's remit is way way too large. Even when I voted remain I felt the EU's remit was way way too large and that it needed to change.

The was always the plan. The phrase "Ever closer union" dates back to the oldest EU treaties. It was always intended to head in the general direction it has until the last few years and the refugee crisis. As for the EU interfering in national issues, you've given a single, cherrypicked example which is not entirely valid. The European Comission issued a directive. Ireland and Apple both intend to appeal which will take many years.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree. You can see threads in the campaign of what swung the vote and you can see what polling suggests. At the moment it seems to be single market access and border controls.

Polls and online threads are very poor tools on which to base policies. Polls have shown support for regulating supermarket prices and re-nationalising the railways, doesn't mean either of these is a good idea.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's where I disagree. I think a situation where the UK gains sovereignty over it's laws, trade deals and over it's borders is a better option than what the UK has now. The people asked for a looser and a more appropriate relationship with the EU. I hope May delivers that.

I don't think the UK needs to beg to the EU as some believe here. It has a strong hand in trade and defence.

The sovereignty canard again. How much of UK law is made in Brussels exactly? A percentage please with a credible source. Also, now that we are leaving why does parliament intend to incorporate EU law into the UK statuebooks?

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Also, now that we are leaving why does parliament intend to incorporate EU law into the UK statuebooks?

They will do this to make it easier to modify the laws and also save them having to enact those they wish to retain - that is most of them. They do not have the time or staff to decide which is which.

They have been a member of the EU since 1st Jan 1973 - that is a long time and many issues were left to the EU to deal with and now they have to do it themselves - like trade agreements. It is too much to foist on Westminster faceless bureaucrats civil servants, all of whom are unelected.

[oops that enelected bit only applies to EU civil servants faceless bureaucrats].

robinph

Borders between the UK and non EU countries are already under control of the UK. Leaving the EU makes no difference at all to immigration from the rest of the world.

Foghladh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The was always the plan. The phrase "Ever closer union" dates back to the oldest EU treaties. It was always intended to head in the general direction it has until the last few years and the refugee crisis. As for the EU interfering in national issues, you've given a single, cherrypicked example which is not entirely valid. The European Comission issued a directive. Ireland and Apple both intend to appeal which will take many years.

And what do you see as being the final destination for the EU given the direction that it has been taking? What does the future Europe look like in your eyes?

A Dub in Glasgo

Foghladh wrote: »

What does the future Europe look like in your eyes?

Peaceful

Nate--IRL--

Foghladh wrote: »

And what do you see as being the final destination for the EU given the direction that it has been taking? What does the future Europe look like in your eyes?

The end goal is a Federal Europe - I thought this was common knowledge?

Nate

ancapailldorcha

Foghladh wrote: »

And what do you see as being the final destination for the EU given the direction that it has been taking? What does the future Europe look like in your eyes?

Depends quite heavily on how next year's various elections on the continent go. The interim goal seems to be a single, harmonised market for everything encompassing all 28 of the member states. That goal has taken a significant setback with Brexit. Priority now is ensuring the EU as an entity in its current form survives for the next few years. If LePen wins and is successful in her campaign to have France exit then the EU is doomed.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The was always the plan. The phrase "Ever closer union" dates back to the oldest EU treaties. It was always intended to head in the general direction it has until the last few years and the refugee crisis. As for the EU interfering in national issues, you've given a single, cherrypicked example which is not entirely valid. The European Comission issued a directive. Ireland and Apple both intend to appeal which will take many years.

Yes, it does, but it was never defined explicitly, which was always going to be a problem. You were always going to reach a point where people said too much, too far.

The European Commission interfered in the domestic tax affairs of Ireland. That's one area of the EU that I think goes way too far. If individual sovereign states can't determine their taxation then we might as well have a central government in Brussels with devolved entities like you do in countries like the US. But the EU isn't a United States of Europe although maybe that is what an "ever closer union" is meant to mean. If that is the case then that would lead me more towards out than in, because I can't see a tangible benefit of this.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Polls and online threads are very poor tools on which to base policies. Polls have shown support for regulating supermarket prices and re-nationalising the railways, doesn't mean either of these is a good idea.

I never said "online threads". I said "threads" in the campaign. Politicians are meant to listen to the concerns of their constituents. Ultimately that's what gets them votes in the ballot box. The idea that people should be ignored because they don't agree with you flies in the face of democracy.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The sovereignty canard again. How much of UK law is made in Brussels exactly? A percentage please with a credible source. Also, now that we are leaving why does parliament intend to incorporate EU law into the UK statuebooks?

It's not a canard. Being a member of the EU means divesting a great deal of control to other entities outside of the UK. It also was a key area that people wanted to change in the campaign. Dismissing it as a "canard" is a refusal to listen to the message that the British people gave about the EU.

The point of flattening EU law into British law is so that they can be modified to better suit in the years to come. This is a good idea because it provides stability rather than repealing en masse.

robinph wrote: »

Borders between the UK and non EU countries are already under control of the UK. Leaving the EU makes no difference at all to immigration from the rest of the world.

Correct. But there is no visa for unskilled migration from other countries. Tier 3 was never issued.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Strange for such a staunch Remain voter.

Laws - the UK will adopt all EU law as UK law. So no change there.

Trade Deals - will be worse than what you have now.

Borders: Yes, it all comes down to immigration, and keeping foreigners out.

The vote has happened now. It must be implemented.

I was Eurocritical even when I voted remain. I've wanted reform of the EU for quite a while. I thought it would be better for the UK to stay in. Now that it wants to leave naturally I want the best deal for it. Foreigners make a huge contribution to British life, but unskilled migration definitely needs to be controlled. I've explained the UK adopting EU law point, and I disagree with you on trade deals. Switzerland has trade deals that the EU doesn't have, and that the UK can't have whilst being a member of the EU. So while the EU offers preferential access to trade with other EU countries, it prevents the UK setting up trade deals with other countries.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, it does, but it was never defined explicitly, which was always going to be a problem. You were always going to reach a point where people said too much, too far.

Fair point.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The European Commission interfered in the domestic tax affairs of Ireland. That's one area of the EU that I think goes way too far. If individual sovereign states can't determine their taxation then we might as well have a central government in Brussels with devolved entities like you do in countries like the US. But the EU isn't a United States of Europe although maybe that is what an "ever closer union" is meant to mean. If that is the case then that would lead me more towards out than in, because I can't see a tangible benefit of this.

I agree that the Commission went too far here and Ireland was right to appeal. You don't through the baby out with the bathwater though.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that people should be ignored because they don't agree with you flies in the face of democracy.

Another strawman. I never once said this.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's not a canard. Being a member of the EU means divesting a great deal of control to other entities outside of the UK. It also was a key area that people wanted to change in the campaign. Dismissing it as a "canard" is a refusal to listen to the message that the British people gave about the EU.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me how much of UK law is decided in Brussels. I'd also appreciate a list of these entites to which the UK has surrendered its sovereignty.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The vote has happened now. It must be implemented.

Dear oh dear. You seem to insist on hysterically repeating this while nobody here has called for the referendum to be ignored.

How would you suggest it be implemented if you were the PM by the way?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I was Eurocritical even when I voted remain. I've wanted reform of the EU for quite a while. I thought it would be better for the UK to stay in. Now that it wants to leave naturally I want the best deal for it. Foreigners make a huge contribution to British life, but unskilled migration definitely needs to be controlled. I've explained the UK adopting EU law point, and I disagree with you on trade deals. Switzerland has trade deals that the EU doesn't have, and that the UK can't have whilst being a member of the EU. So while the EU offers preferential access to trade with other EU countries, it prevents the UK setting up trade deals with other countries.

Switzerland must accept free movement, pay into the EU coffers and uphold the full burden of EU regulation save for financial services because it has no access to the single market for those. You said before that this wasn't Brexit as people voted for it. Why are you hoisting up Switzerland now?

Lemming

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The end goal is a Federal Europe - I thought this was common knowledge?

Nate

There will never be a "federal Europe". People who keep parroting that line fail to take basic nation-hood into account when trying to ply that little line. No nation is going to vote and/or sign itself out of existence, abolish its national flag, identity, etc. and hand it all over to a supranational entity. Politically it would be suicide for any [national] politician or party who advocated it, not to mention the population at large would not get behind such a measure.

It's up there with "Turkey is going to join the EU next year" b0lloxology. It ignores all common sense and practical reality.

Foghladh

Lemming wrote: »

There will never be a "federal Europe". People who keep parroting that line fail to take basic nation-hood into account when trying to ply that little line. No nation is going to vote and/or sign itself out of existence, abolish its national flag, identity, etc. and hand it all over to a supranational entity. Politically it would be suicide for any [national] politician or party who advocated it, not to mention the population at large would not get behind such a measure.

It's up there with "Turkey is going to join the EU next year" b0lloxology. It ignores all common sense and practical reality.

Do we not fulfill many of the characteristics of a federal union?