Brexit discussion thread II

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Unless they secure a transition period by obtaining the assent of all 27 EU member states.

A transition period would only be the delayed or gradual implementation of whatever has been agreed as the "final deal". It would not be an extension of the negotiations or a decision on the deal.

A delay in reaching a deal and the pushing of the activation of Article 50 beyond April 2019 would be a different - and a much bigger - decision and would need both the 27 to agree and (less likely) the UK parliament to agree to ask for it.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

This statement is predicated on there being a credible, charismatic candidate who can make a case for it and win the requisite votes. Keir Starmer perhaps but Labour is in the midst of another love affair with Socialism.

That would need a lot more than charisma. It would need a fundamental re-alignment within the British political party structure. That may happen, but it won'r be before April 2019.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

I would hope somebody would try if the government falls soon. There's clearly a Remain vote out there.

Perhaps, but its not a vote that can be chanelled through the existing parliamentary or party structures.

c_man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What effect do posters think an election would have at this point?

Well Corbyn is a bit tied at the moment. Significant parts of the party (around London) are big remainers, he himself... well just look at his past statements on the EU... and other Labour strongholds are firm Leave. I leave in North England, Corbyn had a massive rally here in my constituency and is well popular. The EU is about as popular around here as the Troika were in Ireland in 2011, any going back on the referendum would throw things into chaos for the party.

The smart position for Labour is to wait it out, let the Tories manage the leaving and then in the aftermath claim they would have done it much better in the subsequent election campaign. Even if the facts don't add up. Like FG fighting in the 2011 election, we know they wouldn't have done much different from FF if they won in 2007 but they didn't win.

First Up

c_man wrote:

The smart position for Labour is to wait it out, let the Tories manage the leaving and then in the aftermath claim they would have done it much better in the subsequent election campaign. Even if the facts don't add up. Like FG fighting in the 2011 election, we know they wouldn't have done much different from FF if they won in 2007 but they didn't.

That's just UK politics; it does nothing to improve Brexit - or stop it. At this stage they are just fighting over the scraps.

c_man

First Up wrote: »

That's just UK politics; it does nothing to improve Brexit - or stop it. At this stage they are just fighting over the scraps.

I honestly don't think a Corbyn led Labour wants to stop Brexit, nor do I think the Tory party can stop it without tearing themselves apart. Which they won't do. Of course it's "just politics", but right now the two big parties have no appetite to remain.

First Up

c_man wrote:

I honestly don't think a Corbyn led Labour wants to stop Brexit, nor do I think the Tory party can stop it without tearing themselves apart. Which they won't do. Of course it's "just politics", but right now the two big parties have no appetite to remain.

Agreed and I can't see a re-organisation within the UK political system on the scale or in the time frame needed to change it.

That's why its well past time to get on with re-configuring the EU without them.

Capt'n Midnight

The fault lines go lots of ways but looks like there's three types of Brexiteers.

To change the vote in a new referendum, if there were such a thing IMHO you'd have to engage with those dissatisfied with the system. On one side there's the anti-establishment and the other those least likely to vote. So the Working-class Leavers and the Disengaged Remainers.

But that's going to be difficult if the economy gets worse.





The six tribes of Brexit revealed

10% ‘British values’ Leavers that generation that never had it so good.
Mé féiners who'd sacrifice the younger generation and did.
Tory , UKIP, Anti immigration.
Can't imagine they change their views on anything.

15% Working-class Leavers AKA Red Leavers
young large anti-establishment sentiment somewhat anti immigration.
How to convince them that the economy would be better inside the EU ?

18% Moderate Leavers , rural
Possibly the ones that be convinced to change their views on the EU ?



16% Disengaged Remainers lower income under 35's
The trick would be getting these people out to vote.

11% Young, urban Remainers well educated
15% Older, liberal Remainers good jobs

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you just going to leave that hanging there, or are you going to explain this bizarre belief?

France aimed (and prob still does) its nukes and Poland and Germany.

They have said they will nuke ANY attacking force that threatens French soil.

Thats the USSR plan fecked. UK? Has nukes. So they didn't.

The independent Nuclear plan for the UK was to hit targets in Europe.

When the US and the UK agreed an integrated NATO response, the French pulled out of the nuke bit of NATO. Having been invaded twice in two world wars they did not want it to happen again.

Kill or be killed is how the french think.

Its late. I may have got a wee bit wrong but that is the just of it.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The fault lines go lots of ways but looks like there's three types of Brexiteers.

To change the vote in a new referendum, if there were such a thing IMHO you'd have to engage with those dissatisfied with the system. On one side there's the anti-establishment and the other those least likely to vote. So the Working-class Leavers and the Disengaged Remainers.

But that's going to be difficult if the economy gets worse.





The six tribes of Brexit revealed

10% ‘British values’ Leavers that generation that never had it so good.
Mé féiners who'd sacrifice the younger generation and did.
Tory , UKIP, Anti immigration.
Can't imagine they change their views on anything.

15% Working-class Leavers AKA Red Leavers
young large anti-establishment sentiment somewhat anti immigration.
How to convince them that the economy would be better inside the EU ?

18% Moderate Leavers , rural
Possibly the ones that be convinced to change their views on the EU ?



16% Disengaged Remainers lower income under 35's
The trick would be getting these people out to vote.

11% Young, urban Remainers well educated
15% Older, liberal Remainers good jobs

But bear in mind that the vote to leave was only 52:48. You don't have to get a lot of Brexiters to change their minds to secure a different outcome in a (as yet, hypothetical) second vote.

Which is precisely why Brexiters are so insecure in the victory, denouncing those who assert the supremacy of Parliament as "traitors" and even the hint of a second refernendum as "undemocratic". They're acutely aware that if the question were to be reconsidered, yeah, a different answer would be very much on the cards. So they need to avoid that at all costs.

I'm not saying that a different answer is by any means a slam-dunk. Once people have committed themselves to a particular position (e.g. by voting for it) there's a psychological instinctive reluctance to change their minds, since this feels like conceding that their commitment was a mistake. But with the right combination of passage-of-time and change-of-circumstances they will give themselves permission to to so.

Up until the general election opinion polls were mostly showing that a majority thought the outcome of the Brexit referendum was the right one for Britain. From the election to the end of summer the polls on this question were mostly suggesting that opinion about this was divided 50:50. And in the past two months, the polls have mostly suggested that a majority thinks the Brexit referendum outcome was the wrong one for Britain. And, signficantly, this latest shift has nearly all been in the C2DE socioeconomic groups, who were the strongest supporters of Brexit.

This shift in views about the rightness of the referendum result is linked with a shift in public opinion about the progress of the Brexit talks. At the start of the general election campaign, public opinion was evenly divided as to whether the negotiations were proceeding well (from the UK's point of view). Now, public opinion is massively of the view that they are going badly, and that trend in opinion has been steadily intensifying.

So, joining the dots, it may be that the public is increasingly of the view that the Brexit talks are not going to deliver the kind of Brexit that they were encouraged to expect, and that they have been sold a pup.

Of course, this could change. If there's a breakthrough in the Brexit talks, if the current impasse is broken and real progress starts to be made, opinion could start to flow back the other way. But if this doesn't happen, if the UK looks like leaving without a deal or with only a very basic deal, I think there's a strong case for saying that enough Brexit voters would consider this a poor outcome, and so change their minds about Brexit, to tip the balance of public opinion in favour of remaining.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

But bear in mind that the vote to leave was only 52:48. You don't have to get a lot of Brexiters to change their minds to secure a different outcome in a (as yet, hypothetical) second vote.

Which is precisely why Brexiters are so insecure in the victory, denouncing those who assert the supremacy of Parliament as "traitors" and even the hint of a second refernendum as "undemocratic". They're acutely aware that if the question were to be reconsidered, yeah, a different answer would be very much on the cards. So they need to avoid that at all costs.

I'm not saying that a different answer is by any means a slam-dunk. Once people have committed themselves to a particular position (e.g. by voting for it) there's a psychological instinctive reluctance to change their minds, since this feels like conceding that their commitment was a mistake. But with the right combination of passage-of-time and change-of-circumstances they will give themselves permission to to so.

Up until the general election opinion polls were mostly showing that a majority thought the outcome of the Brexit referendum was the right one for Britain. From the election to the end of summer the polls on this question were mostly suggesting that opinion about this was divided 50:50. And in the past two months, the polls have mostly suggested that a majority thinks the Brexit referendum outcome was the wrong one for Britain. And, signficantly, this latest shift has nearly all been in the C2DE socioeconomic groups, who were the strongest supporters of Brexit.

This shift in views about the rightness of the referendum result is linked with a shift in public opinion about the progress of the Brexit talks. At the start of the general election campaign, public opinion was evenly divided as to whether the negotiations were proceeding well (from the UK's point of view). Now, public opinion is massively of the view that they are going badly, and that trend in opinion has been steadily intensifying.

So, joining the dots, it may be that the public is increasingly of the view that the Brexit talks are not going to deliver the kind of Brexit that they were encouraged to expect, and that they have been sold a pup.

Of course, this could change. If there's a breakthrough in the Brexit talks, if the current impasse is broken and real progress starts to be made, opinion could start to flow back the other way. But if this doesn't happen, if the UK looks like leaving without a deal or with only a very basic deal, I think there's a strong case for saying that enough Brexit voters would consider this a poor outcome, and so change their minds about Brexit, to tip the balance of public opinion in favour of remaining.

What a load of waffle. There was a referendum. Leave was the answer.

The Uk has offered the EU tons. Getting No back.

Its going to be a hard Britex. Thanks to the EU and the EU only!

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

What a load of waffle. There was a referendum. Leave was the answer.

The Uk has offered the EU tons. Getting No back.

Its going to be a hard Britex. Thanks to the EU and the EU only!

QED, I think.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

QED, I think.

Copy and paste with a few words changed I think..

Dont do that in a thesis!

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Copy and paste with a few words changed I think..

Dont do that in a thesis!

QED, I think.

Samaris

Tbh, reading that remark, my instinctive thought was "Well timed proving of the point" too. Is that it though? Are there no other arguments for Brexit other than "the people voted so shut up"? That's the argument I keep seeing, along with some pie in the sky stuff about China and America queuing up for deals. Wait until China start making their demands, particularly around steel and also power infrastructure. And the US' extremely powerful pharmaceutical industry absolutely will be lobbying the government for relaxing laws regarding medicine (the EU's "don't use it if it's not proven safe" vs the US' position of "if it's not proven dangerous, use away").

What do they think sovereignty is? What do they think they'll be doing making trade deals but sacrificing sovereignty and absolute independence in return for trade and investment? That is how it works, bar a notable exception of North Korea (and even they have deals with China). Have the definitions of "negotiation" and "compromise" been wiped from the dictionary or something?

I really don't know where Britain is going to go from here. I don't think there is a way back, the press has been full of crap on Europe for a couple of decades. From an Irish pov, Britain leaving is going to hurt us too, and really, I don't want to see Britain go the way it is currently spiraling either, Ireland's awkward position aside.

And apart from everything else, it's just bloody embarrassing to watch a nation's government eat its own head repeatedly; May implying leaving the WTO with her careless comment about labelling (if you don't understand the implications of what you're saying, Prime Minister, it is best to send out someone who understands what the EU is, what the EEA is and what the WTO is), Johnson undermining her, attacking each other as traitors and saboteurs (the press is gleefully helping there - remember that about the judges?). Latest victim is Hammond, who may well be pro-Brexit (and apparently is), but also appears to have some sort of hold on reality and understanding of finance, as opposed to John Redmond, who seems to honestly think that the magic money tree is growing in Hammond's back garden.

And that's on top of Johnson's gaffes, various members of parliament who seem to have forgotten that they are adults and have been bouncing belligerantly between an attitude of "it'll all be roses" and "fcuk the EU!", because that's a very helpful and mature approach to one's negotiating partners. And all of that is on top of the worrying appearance that none of them even entirely understand what the EU is, let alone how to extricate a core country from it after decades of membership in two ye- sorry, eighteen months now (with bugger-all progress).

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, reading that remark, my instinctive thought was "Well timed proving of the point" too. Is that it though? Are there no other arguments for Brexit other than "the people voted so shut up"? That's the argument I keep seeing, along with some pie in the sky stuff about China and America queuing up for deals . . .

The difficult I have is this; I don't really understand why the UK voted for Brexit. The arguments in favour of it were so obviously bogus. How could they not see this?

But I confess that this is my difficulty, not the UK's. I'm forced to admit that the fact that I can't see good arguments in favour of Brexit could, in theory, say more about me than it does about the arguments in favour of Brexit. And it's undeniable that, whether good or bad in absolute terms, the arguments in favour of Brexit were at least good enough to secure majority support in the referendum.

The fact that I don't understand how this could be means also that I can't say what would have to happen for enough people to change their mind to tip the balance the other way. Since I don't understand why they accepted the arguments in the first place, I can't say what would be necessary to make them reject them.

But I can certainly observe that they could reject them, and I can look for pointers as to whether they will or not. Hence my focus on the opinion polls.

Undeniably, things are not going well. May shot herself in the foot by calling the general election when she did. She now lacks authority in the party and in cabinet. The government is unable to agree about the Brexit they want, and unable to conceal the fact. The EU feels unable to negotiate with somebody who lacks the confidence to say what she wants, or the domestic authority to deliver what she might agree to. The negotiations look like running into the sand. Before the referendum Brexiters assured the voters that it would be easy; but turns out it's not. Before, a trade agreement would be the easiest thing in the world; now, the British are going to have to Dig for Victory.

The fact that people didn't see through these promises at the time they were made doesn't mean that they can't now see that they aren't being delivered; hence 61% think the government is doing badly at negotiating Brexit, versus 21% who think the government is doing well. (And that's as of the end of September; I suspect those figures will have got worse since then.)

So far, most Leave voters seem to be concluding from this that Brexit is a good idea, badly executed by the current government; only a minority seem to be concluding that it may have been a bad idea all along. But, as already noted, it doesn't take a lot of Brexit voters to change their minds in order to produce a pro-Remain majority. And unless the British can find a way out of the death-spiral that the talks are currently in, due to May's lack of authority, support for Brexit can only get softer.

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

The difficult I have is this; I don't really understand why the UK voted for Brexit. The arguments in favour of it were so obviously bogus. How could they not see this?

It's because the UK (to this American) is becoming more and more like the US:

1. "Everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone elses." - ergo, there's no such things as experts.
2. Racism
3. Getting your facts from social media - even if it's wrong. See 1
4. US cultural invasion - tawdry entertainments, social media junk and endless entertainments so that the ability to think, and think critically, are eroded if not fully destroyed (see: the Tea Party in the US and UKIP in the UK)
5. Intellectual laziness - US universities are, by and large, intellectual toilets where over-entitled 'academes' mostly sit on their well compensated buttocks without actually doing any work, and any student with a pulse can get in, as long as they can pay. I have only a little understanding of the UK university system, but it seems like the 'better schools' are only for the very wealthy, and the rest do suffer from a lack of good education resources.

murphaph

I fear the general dumbing down of the population is not limited to the UK or US. I sense it in Germany too. A lot more seemingly stupid people floating around. It's a dangerous trend for sure.

Thomas__

murphaph wrote: »

I fear the general dumbing down of the population is not limited to the UK or US. I sense it in Germany too. A lot more seemingly stupid people floating around. It's a dangerous trend for sure.

Spot on! I´ve observed this too for quite a while and I fear it´s getting even worse.

Igotadose

murphaph wrote: »

I fear the general dumbing down of the population is not limited to the UK or US. I sense it in Germany too. A lot more seemingly stupid people floating around. It's a dangerous trend for sure.

It's been a generational timeline though - and, granted, my parents and their parents always complained that the 'next generation' was lazy and not too bright. Look at those online quizzes that show exams from the turn of the 20th century for 8th graders (US - equivalent is starting 2dary school here in Ireland) and how much harder they are, than today.

The difference now between then, is the population is so high and burgeoning, esp. in the US but pretty much worldwide. And the infrastructure, especially the educational one, is dominated by the ed majors who couldn't get a science degree so they're just dime-store philosophers.

But 'fixing this' seems nigh unto impossible without some very difficult societal changes - in the US, mint fewer useless unemployable PhD's and don't insist that everyone go to university. Starve out the inadequate universities and 'professional schools' (law school in the US, which is mostly scam these days). Disallow universities from using adjuncts as a primary way to deliver classes. End student reviews of teachers. Start 'free university education' at the best universities, but only for the best academic achievers, something like leaving certs that kids focus on for years prior to taking them.

Anyway, sorry for the Brexit digression. Might make an interesting thread elsewhere on Boards.

Really Interested

prinzeugen wrote: »

What a load of waffle. There was a referendum. Leave was the answer.

The Uk has offered the EU tons. Getting No back.

Its going to be a hard Britex. Thanks to the EU and the EU only!

What exactly on the 3 issues have the U.K. offered.

Harika

Igotadose wrote: »

It's because the UK (to this American) is becoming more and more like the US:

1. "Everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone elses." - ergo, there's no such things as experts.
3. Getting your facts from social media - even if it's wrong. See 1

I just remembered when 15 years ago the classic media were claimed as doomed as everyone can write a blog. :rolleyes: Cannot remember a critical discussion about biased or wrong information being published by those new pros.

Samaris

I wouldn't call it straight-up racism, not exactly. At least not just in the straight-forward "I hate you because you look different and are thus less special than I am" type of racism.

I do see a lot of fear behind the rise of the populist right in the US and UK particularly. Two major countries in the Anglophone world believed the same ..well..bullcrap, which imo is down to the large portion of the internet in English and a lot of muckstirring.

Thing is, various "traditionally white" populations are undergoing population decline. This is absolutely merely down to the fact that more traditionally white nations are at a steady state and just don't need to be reproducing. This has given fuel to an underlying fear of being replaced/dying out/being dominated by other races or nationalities, even within one's own country. And yes, it probably will happen. However, skin colour becomes more important than actually just "being [British]/[American]/[etc]". Rather than looking at it as "in 100 years, we'll still be British, even if the general population shows a greater preponderance of dark hair/slightly darker skin", it's seen as "in 100 years, Britain will be Muslim and brown!"

In Britain's case, the national media, particularly the tabloids, have been bollocking on about Europe for decades. Johnson observed himself that when he was a Brussels correspondent...excuse a slight paraphrase, I don't have the exact quote on-hand, that it (his reports) was like lobbing stones over the wall and hearing the crashes from the greenhouse next door, that it gave him an odd sense of power. And this is one of the irresponsible muppets leading the charge.

I think the two things, along with other localised factors such as a lack of national memory of what actually being invaded by a neighbour was like, what it felt like to watch the Swastika raised over the town hall or parliament, to hear the boots on an invading army marching down the main streets, and the repressed, little mentioned memories of the atrocities that meant that even today, many people grew up knowing that they should have more relatives but they died in a concentration camp/ were raped and murdered by an army made savage by privation and hard-won victory (i.e. the Russians in Germany, or the Japanese in China - with even less excuse) - all of that helped drive Europe's coming together to prevent it happening again.

A few years ago, a film was being made about the occupation of Norway, and the swastika was raised above the national parliament building (I think it was) for filming. People - and this was only a few years ago - came out into the streets to see it and people wept. That is how strong this memory is, eighty years later.

Britain did not suffer that. Geographically, there is a feeling that splendid isolation and being a world power can still work, despite all the indications that Britain was heading rapidly for the bottom of the soup before they did join the EEA.

Along with a global economic depression and discontent with governing bodies, it was a mix of stewing emotion just ready to be fed off. And it was.

ECO_Mental

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far, most Leave voters seem to be concluding from this that Brexit is a good idea, badly executed by the current government; only a minority seem to be concluding that it may have been a bad idea all along. But, as already noted, it doesn't take a lot of Brexit voters to change their minds in order to produce a pro-Remain majority. And unless the British can find a way out of the death-spiral that the talks are currently in, due to May's lack of authority, support for Brexit can only get softer.

Late to this thread but I don't think it matters who is negotiating with the EU, it could be Wiston Churchill or Margret Thatcher it doesn't matter. Heard this yesterday and it summed it all up.

Its like the British Gov are trying to cancel their Sky Subscription but still trying to negotiate with Sky to keep all the channels... I cant see what the British negotiating position iis or how they are going to do it. Best they can do is get the basic package but no sky sports or movies :P like Switzerland and Norway but these guys are still paying money to the EU and operate under a lot of the rules and regs the EU to get the basic package.

ancapailldorcha

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, reading that remark, my instinctive thought was "Well timed proving of the point" too. Is that it though? Are there no other arguments for Brexit other than "the people voted so shut up"? That's the argument I keep seeing, along with some pie in the sky stuff about China and America queuing up for deals. Wait until China start making their demands, particularly around steel and also power infrastructure. And the US' extremely powerful pharmaceutical industry absolutely will be lobbying the government for relaxing laws regarding medicine (the EU's "don't use it if it's not proven safe" vs the US' position of "if it's not proven dangerous, use away").

This is the thing. Brexit itself was the goal and it was thought that the referendum was unwinnable, hence Cameron offering it to shut his Paleosceptics up. Nobody thought this would get through and now that it has on the basis of racism, lies and scaremongering any attempt to even question it is shut down by the rabid right-wing tabloids.

Samaris wrote: »

What do they think sovereignty is? What do they think they'll be doing making trade deals but sacrificing sovereignty and absolute independence in return for trade and investment? That is how it works, bar a notable exception of North Korea (and even they have deals with China). Have the definitions of "negotiation" and "compromise" been wiped from the dictionary or something?

I don't know. I genuinely don't. Some people might think that they can resist globalisation by leaving the EU.

Samaris wrote: »

And that's on top of Johnson's gaffes, various members of parliament who seem to have forgotten that they are adults and have been bouncing belligerantly between an attitude of "it'll all be roses" and "fcuk the EU!", because that's a very helpful and mature approach to one's negotiating partners. And all of that is on top of the worrying appearance that none of them even entirely understand what the EU is, let alone how to extricate a core country from it after decades of membership in two ye- sorry, eighteen months now (with bugger-all progress).

Johnson campaigned for Brexit with the goal of becoming PM using every tool at his disposal and displayed no integrity whatsoever in the process. He can't really go back on it now, especially that he's foreign secretary which beggars belief when Britain really needs a charm offence and it's got a weak, racist, privileged, venal individual like Johnson trying to build bridges.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The difficult I have is this; I don't really understand why the UK voted for Brexit. The arguments in favour of it were so obviously bogus. How could they not see this?

The EU, and especially immigrants have been portrayed as being responsible for all of Britain's ills for decades by the tabloids. I'm not saying that they control people's minds but they must exert some influence or else they wouldn't exist.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Undeniably, things are not going well. May shot herself in the foot by calling the general election when she did. She now lacks authority in the party and in cabinet. The government is unable to agree about the Brexit they want, and unable to conceal the fact. The EU feels unable to negotiate with somebody who lacks the confidence to say what she wants, or the domestic authority to deliver what she might agree to. The negotiations look like running into the sand. Before the referendum Brexiters assured the voters that it would be easy; but turns out it's not. Before, a trade agreement would be the easiest thing in the world; now, the British are going to have to Dig for Victory.

I don't think people actually wanted to see through the Brexiteers' lies and fearmongering. These were soundly dismantled by the oft-derided "experts". Making a case for the EU is like trying to explain why cancer is such a difficult phenomenon to treat, it's just so much easier to believe that Big Pharma doesn't want to cure it. Making a positive case for the EU involves explaining how immigration is good for the economy along with the single market but nobody ever really tried that. Even David Cameron knew he was in a precarious position after spending a decade deriding the institution so he just kept harping on and on about the consequences of leaving rather than making a proper case for staying in and leading the EU which is a shame as Germany doesn't seem to want to do it and France is a bit too Socialist on that front for my liking.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far, most Leave voters seem to be concluding from this that Brexit is a good idea, badly executed by the current government; only a minority seem to be concluding that it may have been a bad idea all along. But, as already noted, it doesn't take a lot of Brexit voters to change their minds in order to produce a pro-Remain majority. And unless the British can find a way out of the death-spiral that the talks are currently in, due to May's lack of authority, support for Brexit can only get softer.

I suspect that middle-of-the-road voters aren't really being heard and are keeping quiet in this age of ideologues from the far ends of the spectrum. Also, it's not easy to admit when you're wrong, especially when you've seen your income stagnant while the cost of living has soared and the idea of less stress on the housing market seems to make sense.

Calina

Interesting interview David Davis gave Die Welt.

https://amp.welt.de/amp/politik/ausland/article169789824/Give-Barnier-more-leeway-on-talks-demands-UK-Brexit-chief.html

It is interesting in that I haven't seen UK papers do similar with the protagonists...even the broadsheets lack nuance.

Firblog

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, reading that remark, my instinctive thought was "Well timed proving of the point" too. Is that it though? Are there no other arguments for Brexit other than "the people voted so shut up"?.

I know I'm going to regret this, but however...

These I believe were the main arguments for Brexit...

The main one was immigration, right or wrong people identified the the unrestricted immigration from Europe to the UK as a factor that was making their live less tolerable, reducing their standard of living. (Yes I'm aware of the large immigration from outside the UK)

Now before you all start howling about how much the immigrants from the rest of the EU contribute to the economy and how stupid/racist/xenophobic it was for people to vote exit for this reason, just think; why did they believe immigration was 'bad'? Was it that their schools were over crowded? Was it that the doctors surgeries were over crowded? Was it that the NHS seemed to be creaking at the seams? (yes they knew that there are many staff in the NHS from Europe) Was it that some blamed unemployment on Johnny foreigner taking their jobs? Was it that alot felt like foreigners in parts of their own country (parts much bigger than kilburn)?

The next most influential reason was, I believe, the constant divergence of UK interests from those of the political establishment in the EU. I've read many of you contributors on here refer to the belief that many politicians in the rest of the EU believe that they will be better off without the UK, that it will be an end to constant arguments about policies / further integration etc. Well that constant arguing in Europe, where it was reported back in the UK that the UK was not being listened to time after time just wore alot of people down; its hard to be a member of a club if you believe that your views are never listened to.

3rd reason is the fault of the British politicians, and I believe the same fault is widespread in politics in most of the west. There was a huge groundswell of belief among ordinary people who believe/believed that no matter who they voted for, people who didn't make any positive difference to their lives would get into government. Successive governments ignored their concerns about immigration, the state of services, lack of employment in their areas, continued giving more and more power to Brussels, and their lives/living standards kept getting worse. Something had to be done - something had to be done, Leave the EU? here's something lets do that.. A referendum was a novel thing, they didn't have to vote along party lines, hence the 'kicking' that was delivered in the labour heartlands, and the falling back into line during the election..

4th: The sight of all the refugees coming into the EU, with Merkel exhorting more to come, the proposed imposition of quotas on countries, so that the perceived issues with 1 above would be made even worse.

5. The European Political Elite: The intransigence of the EU, Cameron went to the EU, requesting some very modest changes by the EU, and was given a good kicking, the only thing they didn't do was make him wave a piece of white paper at the press when he stepped off the plane..


So there you go, there're the main reasons why I believe brexit won the popular vote, I hope you note, there isn't an economic reason among them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Its not the economy stupid

Discuss

Zubeneschamali

Samaris wrote: »

Are there no other arguments for Brexit other than "the people voted so shut up"? That's the argument I keep seeing

In fairness, that is all the Brexiteers need. Brexit is in motion - it will happen in March 2019 unless something changes. So the Brexiteers no longer have to make any arguments, they just have to hunker down and wait.

It is the remainers who must convince people, and since the Brexiteers are just going to hunker down and wait, who are you going to convince? What will they do when you have convinced them?

The only hope I see is to elect Labour, who might, might negotiate to stay in the customs union, solving the Irish border problem for us (not for the UK immigration nuts, but they already have plans to blame employers and landlords for that future failure).

But Remain as in Remain in the EU? No longer politically possible.

oscarBravo

Firblog wrote: »

The main one was immigration, right or wrong people identified the the unrestricted immigration from Europe to the UK as a factor that was making their live less tolerable, reducing their standard of living. (Yes I'm aware of the large immigration from outside the UK)

Now before you all start howling about how much the immigrants from the rest of the EU contribute to the economy and how stupid/racist/xenophobic it was for people to vote exit for this reason, just think; why did they believe immigration was 'bad'? Was it that their schools were over crowded? Was it that the doctors surgeries were over crowded? Was it that the NHS seemed to be creaking at the seams? (yes they knew that there are many staff in the NHS from Europe) Was it that some blamed unemployment on Johnny foreigner taking their jobs? Was it that alot felt like foreigners in parts of their own country (parts much bigger than kilburn)?

There's one common thread throughout this whole reason: nobody voted to leave because of any evidence that immigration was bad. Lots of people voted to leave because of a feeling that immigration was bad, and that it was somehow all the EU's fault.

In large part, that was a conscious strategy on the part of the Leave campaigns. The people running those campaigns aren't stupid - they knew the truth about immigration (that it's a net positive, and that the UK could have controlled it much more than it did without leaving the EU) - but that didn't matter, because the important thing was leaving the EU (because Reasons) and if banging the drum about immigration was a way to achieve that, so be it.

The next most influential reason was, I believe, the constant divergence of UK interests from those of the political establishment in the EU. I've read many of you contributors on here refer to the belief that many politicians in the rest of the EU believe that they will be better off without the UK, that it will be an end to constant arguments about policies / further integration etc. Well that constant arguing in Europe, where it was reported back in the UK that the UK was not being listened to time after time just wore alot of people down; its hard to be a member of a club if you believe that your views are never listened to.

That falls firmly into the category of Euromythology. The UK has been one of the most influential forces in the direction of EU policy since it joined. The problem is that some of the Powers That Be can't cope with the idea of not being able to unilaterally dictate that direction, and don't like having to compromise. Hence, any time EU policy has wavered at all from whatever the UK's interests, that has been portrayed as the European Reich dictating to the poor downtrodden Brit, rather than what it actually is: the realpolitik of achieving consensus among a large group of nation-states with their own interests and agendas.

3rd reason is the fault of the British politicians, and I believe the same fault is widespread in politics in most of the west. There was a huge groundswell of belief among ordinary people who believe/believed that no matter who they voted for, people who didn't make any positive difference to their lives would get into government. Successive governments ignored their concerns about immigration, the state of services, lack of employment in their areas, continued giving more and more power to Brussels, and their lives/living standards kept getting worse. Something had to be done - something had to be done, Leave the EU? here's something lets do that.. A referendum was a novel thing, they didn't have to vote along party lines, hence the 'kicking' that was delivered in the labour heartlands, and the falling back into line during the election..

Ah yes: using referendums (and local elections, and EP elections, and...) as an opportunity to give the government a kicking. Democracy at its most admirable: "I don't care what the consequences of my vote are; I just want to vote against whatever the government want."

4th: The sight of all the refugees coming into the EU, with Merkel exhorting more to come, the proposed imposition of quotas on countries, so that the perceived issues with 1 above would be made even worse.

The UK's obligations to take in refugees stem from the UN, not the EU. As for quotas, of course the UK would prefer to keep them all in Italy or Greece. But how do Italy and Greece feel about it?

Which goes back to point 2: a dislike of compromise.

5. The European Political Elite: The intransigence of the EU, Cameron went to the EU, requesting some very modest changes by the EU, and was given a good kicking, the only thing they didn't do was make him wave a piece of white paper at the press when he stepped off the plane..

Cameron went to the EU and demanded that 27 members reshape the very nature of the Union to suit one member. The EU politely pointed out that that's not how unions work.

That's not intransigence, that's a grasp of reality that's fundamentally missing from the British press's (and political establishment's) worldview.

So there you go, there're the main reasons why I believe brexit won the popular vote, I hope you note, there isn't an economic reason among them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Its not the economy stupid

That's because the Leave campaign breezily announced that there would be no economic downside to exit, and screamed "PROJECT FEAR" loudly at anyone who had the temerity to suggest otherwise.

As such, the proposal to leave was presented as: keep the foreigners from taking your jobs (including the ones you wouldn't dream of doing), take back control from a bunch of foreigners, give the money we're squandering on lazy foreigners to the NHS, and profit massively from the hundreds of countries queueing up to do trade deals with us as soon as we leave - all with no economic downside.

What's not to like?

It's just a pity it was pretty much entirely untrue.

Enzokk

Firblog wrote: »

I know I'm going to regret this, but however...

These I believe were the main arguments for Brexit...

The main one was immigration, right or wrong people identified the the unrestricted immigration from Europe to the UK as a factor that was making their live less tolerable, reducing their standard of living. (Yes I'm aware of the large immigration from outside the UK)

Now before you all start howling about how much the immigrants from the rest of the EU contribute to the economy and how stupid/racist/xenophobic it was for people to vote exit for this reason, just think; why did they believe immigration was 'bad'? Was it that their schools were over crowded? Was it that the doctors surgeries were over crowded? Was it that the NHS seemed to be creaking at the seams? (yes they knew that there are many staff in the NHS from Europe) Was it that some blamed unemployment on Johnny foreigner taking their jobs? Was it that alot felt like foreigners in parts of their own country (parts much bigger than kilburn)?

The next most influential reason was, I believe, the constant divergence of UK interests from those of the political establishment in the EU. I've read many of you contributors on here refer to the belief that many politicians in the rest of the EU believe that they will be better off without the UK, that it will be an end to constant arguments about policies / further integration etc. Well that constant arguing in Europe, where it was reported back in the UK that the UK was not being listened to time after time just wore alot of people down; its hard to be a member of a club if you believe that your views are never listened to.

3rd reason is the fault of the British politicians, and I believe the same fault is widespread in politics in most of the west. There was a huge groundswell of belief among ordinary people who believe/believed that no matter who they voted for, people who didn't make any positive difference to their lives would get into government. Successive governments ignored their concerns about immigration, the state of services, lack of employment in their areas, continued giving more and more power to Brussels, and their lives/living standards kept getting worse. Something had to be done - something had to be done, Leave the EU? here's something lets do that.. A referendum was a novel thing, they didn't have to vote along party lines, hence the 'kicking' that was delivered in the labour heartlands, and the falling back into line during the election..

4th: The sight of all the refugees coming into the EU, with Merkel exhorting more to come, the proposed imposition of quotas on countries, so that the perceived issues with 1 above would be made even worse.

5. The European Political Elite: The intransigence of the EU, Cameron went to the EU, requesting some very modest changes by the EU, and was given a good kicking, the only thing they didn't do was make him wave a piece of white paper at the press when he stepped off the plane..


So there you go, there're the main reasons why I believe brexit won the popular vote, I hope you note, there isn't an economic reason among them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Its not the economy stupid

Discuss

Correct me if I have it wrong, but of the 5 reasons you list only one is really something that is a legitimate complaint, that is the second point you raise. You could add the second point to the last as they have to do with the way the EU is set up. We have heard this complaint from other countries about the EU as well, that it will need to change to survive. The EU isn't infallible and it can be made better. But just leaving when you don't get your way seems childish.

The other reasons you list should easily be countered by some reading and comprehension. Yes there has been immigration but it has been done at the behest of the politicians that people keep voting for. This was told to people but they didn't listen. Or maybe they just gave in to the fear of those from different countries.

If you look at the other reasons they can all be summed up as fear of immigrants that will take our jobs/clog the NHS/claim benefits but with some studying of the main problems it becomes clear it is the UK politicians that caused most of these problems themselves.

If the UK people keep voting in people to represent them that are privately educated and live different lives to themselves can they really be surprised that decisions will be made that make their lives harder. How can David Cameron identify with someone that thinks about how they will get through to the next pay day before they can go to the shop to buy just a few items like milk and bread? How can Boris Johnson know what its like to claim for work benefit? The problem seems to be that people keep voting for the wolves to run the hen house where the people are the hens. And they are surprised that the wolves keep getting fatter?

And this is before we even go into the influence that a few individuals have over those in power as well. It really takes some doing to blame foreigners for the ills of the country when those doing the blaming avoids tax at every turn ro are not even citizens of the UK.

The EU just became a convenient scapegoat for politicians and a way to sell newspapers for others.

ancapailldorcha

Firblog wrote: »

I know I'm going to regret this, but however...

These I believe were the main arguments for Brexit...

You've as much right to post here as anybody.

Firblog wrote: »

The main one was immigration, right or wrong people identified the the unrestricted immigration from Europe to the UK as a factor that was making their live less tolerable, reducing their standard of living. (Yes I'm aware of the large immigration from outside the UK)

Now before you all start howling about how much the immigrants from the rest of the EU contribute to the economy and how stupid/racist/xenophobic it was for people to vote exit for this reason, just think; why did they believe immigration was 'bad'? Was it that their schools were over crowded? Was it that the doctors surgeries were over crowded? Was it that the NHS seemed to be creaking at the seams? (yes they knew that there are many staff in the NHS from Europe) Was it that some blamed unemployment on Johnny foreigner taking their jobs? Was it that alot felt like foreigners in parts of their own country (parts much bigger than kilburn)?

Sorry but this sounds like the old, "If I complain at all about unresticted mass migration I get called a racist" trope. The British public have been voting for pro-small state parties since Thatcher's day. The idea of investing in public services is anathema to the British right. The Germans invested in their manufacturing sector while the British went for pro-free market policies. If you think the NHS or schools are buckling, look at the ideologies of those in power.

Firblog wrote: »

The next most influential reason was, I believe, the constant divergence of UK interests from those of the political establishment in the EU. I've read many of you contributors on here refer to the belief that many politicians in the rest of the EU believe that they will be better off without the UK, that it will be an end to constant arguments about policies / further integration etc. Well that constant arguing in Europe, where it was reported back in the UK that the UK was not being listened to time after time just wore alot of people down; its hard to be a member of a club if you believe that your views are never listened to.

Treaties need to be ratified by national governments and some regional assemblies. These haven't been forced on anyone. In addition, the UK received an opt-out from the commitment to ever closer union and isn't in the Eurozone and so is ineligible to be called upon to provide capital for bailouts.

Firblog wrote: »

3rd reason is the fault of the British politicians, and I believe the same fault is widespread in politics in most of the west. There was a huge groundswell of belief among ordinary people who believe/believed that no matter who they voted for, people who didn't make any positive difference to their lives would get into government. Successive governments ignored their concerns about immigration, the state of services, lack of employment in their areas, continued giving more and more power to Brussels, and their lives/living standards kept getting worse. Something had to be done - something had to be done, Leave the EU? here's something lets do that.. A referendum was a novel thing, they didn't have to vote along party lines, hence the 'kicking' that was delivered in the labour heartlands, and the falling back into line during the election..

People voted for them though. Every single time. They voted Thatcher in 3 times and then they voted her greatest achievement, Tony Blair in 3 times. Past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour.

Firblog wrote: »

4th: The sight of all the refugees coming into the EU, with Merkel exhorting more to come, the proposed imposition of quotas on countries, so that the perceived issues with 1 above would be made even worse.

This was just opportunistic scaremongering. The UK committed to taking in 20,000 over 4/5 years. That's peanuts compared to how many have been accepted by Germany, Italy, Greece and Sweden.

Firblog wrote: »

5. The European Political Elite: The intransigence of the EU, Cameron went to the EU, requesting some very modest changes by the EU, and was given a good kicking, the only thing they didn't do was make him wave a piece of white paper at the press when he stepped off the plane..

So there you go, there're the main reasons why I believe brexit won the popular vote, I hope you note, there isn't an economic reason among them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Its not the economy stupid

Discuss

He got modest concessions because that's all he asked for. He never asked for anything big. Even if he had, why should the EU mutilate itself to satisfy the likes of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

murphthesmurf

Firblog wrote: »

I know I'm going to regret this, but however...

These I believe were the main arguments for Brexit...

The main one was immigration, right or wrong people identified the the unrestricted immigration from Europe to the UK as a factor that was making their live less tolerable, reducing their standard of living. (Yes I'm aware of the large immigration from outside the UK)

Now before you all start howling about how much the immigrants from the rest of the EU contribute to the economy and how stupid/racist/xenophobic it was for people to vote exit for this reason, just think; why did they believe immigration was 'bad'? Was it that their schools were over crowded? Was it that the doctors surgeries were over crowded? Was it that the NHS seemed to be creaking at the seams? (yes they knew that there are many staff in the NHS from Europe) Was it that some blamed unemployment on Johnny foreigner taking their jobs? Was it that alot felt like foreigners in parts of their own country (parts much bigger than kilburn)?

The next most influential reason was, I believe, the constant divergence of UK interests from those of the political establishment in the EU. I've read many of you contributors on here refer to the belief that many politicians in the rest of the EU believe that they will be better off without the UK, that it will be an end to constant arguments about policies / further integration etc. Well that constant arguing in Europe, where it was reported back in the UK that the UK was not being listened to time after time just wore alot of people down; its hard to be a member of a club if you believe that your views are never listened to.

3rd reason is the fault of the British politicians, and I believe the same fault is widespread in politics in most of the west. There was a huge groundswell of belief among ordinary people who believe/believed that no matter who they voted for, people who didn't make any positive difference to their lives would get into government. Successive governments ignored their concerns about immigration, the state of services, lack of employment in their areas, continued giving more and more power to Brussels, and their lives/living standards kept getting worse. Something had to be done - something had to be done, Leave the EU? here's something lets do that.. A referendum was a novel thing, they didn't have to vote along party lines, hence the 'kicking' that was delivered in the labour heartlands, and the falling back into line during the election..

4th: The sight of all the refugees coming into the EU, with Merkel exhorting more to come, the proposed imposition of quotas on countries, so that the perceived issues with 1 above would be made even worse.

5. The European Political Elite: The intransigence of the EU, Cameron went to the EU, requesting some very modest changes by the EU, and was given a good kicking, the only thing they didn't do was make him wave a piece of white paper at the press when he stepped off the plane..


So there you go, there're the main reasons why I believe brexit won the popular vote, I hope you note, there isn't an economic reason among them. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Its not the economy stupid

Discuss

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe. You can debate how much of this is the EU's fault, but perception is everything.
Merkel announcing that the world can live in Europe will imo be the end of the EU. Just look who the Austrians just voted in, who came close to ruling France, the rise of the right within Germany itself.
Britain never felt like a part of the EU, British people are generally disliked in most if not all EU countries. Someone commented earlier about the reaction from a swastika flag being raised in Norway, like it or not if it were not for the UK and later the US those flags would still be there across the EU. That is how a lot of British people think, we liberated them and they can't stand us.

First Up

murphthesmurf wrote:

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe. You can debate how much of this is the EU's fault, but perception is everything.

Will perceptions change when it sinks in that leaving the EU won't make any difference?

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Will perceptions change when it sinks in that leaving the EU won't make any difference?

Well, not in a good way.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

Well, not in a good way.

No doubt that myth will be replaced by some other.

ambro25

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Merkel announcing that the world can live in Europe will imo be the end of the EU.

Except, she didn't (and has since slammed the door shut. Hard.)

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Just look who the Austrians just voted in, who came close to ruling France, the rise of the right within Germany itself.

Except, Marine didn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination, however strenuous.

As for Pegida/AfD, surely the German GE and its results are not that far back in collective minds already?

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Britain never felt like a part of the EU, British people are generally disliked in most if not all EU countries.

Except, they're not.

Unless they happen to be your typical lager-swilling, obscenities-shouting, uneducated imbeciles on an away-match or stag/hen trip, of course. In which case, they're no more disliked than their German, Irish, Polish, etc. equivalents.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Someone commented earlier about the reaction from a swastika flag being raised in Norway, like it or not if it were not for the UK and later the US those flags would still be there across the EU.

Corrected for accuracy. If the Channel hadn't been in the way in 1940, you'd have had a Swastika floating on St Paul just the same.

In some respects, it could said that this goes quite some way to explain an enduring element of cultural imbalance between EU continentals and EU islanders.

Brits we know (friends, colleagues, etc.) still don't really/truly "get" why our dog eats out of a Swastika-emblazoned porcelain plate (period, authentic, 'made in Berlin' 1941). Like all our family dogs have through the generations since 1945.

They're just fascinated by the plate. They lack the element of (personal-and-) collective memory to make the cultural connection.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

That is how a lot of British people think, we liberated them and they can't stand us.

They (well, at least you-) are wrong, regrettably. Spend some time on Continental forums and comments sections, and you'd witness at least as much pity/sorrow for the Brits as contempt and, uniformly, commiseration for the 48%.

But there's hope, because-

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe. You can debate how much of this is the EU's fault, but perception is everything.

-on at least that, I agree with you. I mean, who can forget this:

demfad

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You got it right imo. The final nail in the coffin where immigration was concerned was seeing the thousands coming in boats from the African continent. 12 yr olds who were 6ft and had a beard. Nearly all of the UK's illegal immigrants come through Europe.

This is UKIP, RW tabloid and Russian propaganda. They didn't see thousands crossing the Med bound for UK, propaganda told them so. UK is outsode Shengen. Anyone trying to access it were in camps in Calais.

Merkel announcing that the world can live in Europe will imo be the end of the EU. Just look who the Austrians just voted in, who came close to ruling France, the rise of the right within Germany itself.

The RW populist surge in the EU actually declined when people saw the state of Brexit. When Putin is gone and these groups stop receiving Russian cash and benefiting from Russian State propaganda then they will crawl back under their rocks.

There is a huge issue with neo-liberalism since it was introduced by Thatcher/Reagan. Brexit wont cure it, it will just mean the UK will turn into a kind of US/UK corporate state.
Climate change politics economics will naturally bring about the end of neo-liberalism as fossil fuels and the system of mass consumption will have to go. Brexit moves the UK further from this, will cause more inequality and corporate dominence/deregulation.

Jim2007

Sand wrote: »

As it is, EEA membership is likely the most democratic outcome. 48% voted for no Brexit whatsoever. Add in the proportion of the 52% who would accept EEA membership and you have a democratic mandate for EEA membership.

But there is no guarantee at all that their membership of EFTA will be approved - only EFTA members can join the EEA. And there are grave concerns especially in Norway about allowing the UK to join... they don't want a single big member dominating the organisation, let alone for them to start the usual we want exceptions crap.

First Up

Jim2007 wrote:

But there is no guarantee at all that their membership of EFTA will be approved - only EFTA members can join the EEA. And there are grave concerns especially in Norway about allowing the UK to join... they don't want a single big member dominating the organisation, let alone for them to start the usual we want exceptions crap.

Ah they'll get in alright but it will be interesting to see what strings are attached. Our three legged Pony won't be the only one dismayed!

murphthesmurf

ambro25 wrote: »

Corrected for accuracy. If the Channel hadn't been in the way in 1940, you'd have had a Swastika floating on St Paul just the same.

So you cross out the UK from the liberation of Europe? Yes the channel was a valuable defensive advantage that the rest of Europe did not have, but it is only 20 miles wide and Germany had plenty of ships. They could not cross it until they could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the RAF as their ships would be sunk. Which they failed to do, allowing the British, USA and local resistance forces to counter attack. To cross out the UK from any role in the defeating of the nazis I think demonstrates your perception of the UK. There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

Zubeneschamali

murphthesmurf wrote: »

There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

First Up

murphthesmurf wrote:

So you cross out the UK from the liberation of Europe? Yes the channel was a valuable defensive advantage that the rest of Europe did not have, but it is only 20 miles wide and Germany had plenty of ships. They could not cross it until they could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the RAF as their ships would be sunk. Which they failed to do, allowing the British, USA and local resistance forces to counter attack. To cross out the UK from any role in the defeating of the nazis I think demonstrates your perception of the UK. There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

There was also the small distraction for Germany of preparing to invade the Soviet Union but nobody denies Britain's role in WW2.

The problem is the people who can't see beyond that.

Enzokk

murphthesmurf wrote: »

So you cross out the UK from the liberation of Europe? Yes the channel was a valuable defensive advantage that the rest of Europe did not have, but it is only 20 miles wide and Germany had plenty of ships. They could not cross it until they could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the RAF as their ships would be sunk. Which they failed to do, allowing the British, USA and local resistance forces to counter attack. To cross out the UK from any role in the defeating of the nazis I think demonstrates your perception of the UK. There were no British troops in the d-day landings and all the following battles, they just lent the Americans their uniforms. Wow!

And this has what to do with Brexit? I mean we can have a interesting discussion about the war and subsequent history, but this really isn't the place for it.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic and cut out the low quality posting please.

demfad

Excellent demolition of the default WTO option here:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86194


Summarized here on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nickreeves9876/status/920931806978994176

John

What is so troublesome about this exchange is your seeming reluctance to abandon the notion of the WTO option as a working solution. Yet the WTO Option is a unilateral approach. That means that, if you adopt a bilateral approach, you cannot then argue that this is simply a way of making the WTO Option work, as you seem to be doing. We are talking about two different animals. For the life of me, I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with this idea.

You then ask me why a settlement which "entails some bilateralism" would be impossible to get organised within two years. The problem in giving you a simple answer to this is that you have already restricted the framing of the question. You talk about "some bilateralism", as if you could simply bolt-on a few additions to an agreement and call it a workable settlement. That cannot be the case.

If you want a high level of market access (far more than has the United States or China), then you have no option (short of adopting the Efta/EEA option) but to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement. In one of my previous e-mails, I set out the basic structure and requirements of such an agreement, comprising seven core points without taking into account the "peripherals".

Given the complexity of a comprehensive FTA, it should not require much imagination to realise that this will take some time. International agreements do take time. Based on current experience, it would be unreasonable to expect an agreement to be concluded in less than five years.

You then return to the premise that whatever is agreed should be "kept as simple as possible". Yet I have already addressed this issue. A settlement with the EU, undoing 43 years of economic and political integration, and forging an agreement which will give a similar level of market access to that which we currently enjoy, is not going to be simple. This will be one of the most detailed and complex negotiations ever undertaken with the EU. To expect it to be concluded inside two years is risible.

demfad

Another one for reading: https://www.ft.com/content/29476034-abab-3b61-9d75-75dc88eb76b0

UK needs more time due to triggering A50 too early: Here are the options (David Allen Green FT)

More time is needed. This is not to say Brexit will not happen then; that is still the date on which, by automatic operation of law, the UK leaves the EU unless there is an agreement otherwise. That has been the default position since the Article 50 notification was sent on 29 March this year. And as there is currently no sign of an agreement otherwise, that must still be regarded as the most likely outcome.

So, how could there be more time? There are four possible options: revocation, elaborate transition arrangements, an alternative exit date as part of the exit deal and a formal extension of the Article 50 two-year period. Each has their problems, but each solves the problem of time.

Jim2007

First Up wrote: »

Ah they'll get in alright...

That is the problem with the entire British strategy this blinding believe that some how it will all come right in the end because after all they are somehow special...

But there is no reason what so ever why the four small nations should be saddled with having to but up with the UK, simply because they could not sort themselves out wit the EU.

Jim2007

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Britain never felt like a part of the EU, British people are generally disliked in most if not all EU countries.

Britain never made an effort to be part of the community! And as for being disliked, most people are indifferent to you, your just people from another part of Europe - or perhaps the problem is that you expect us to treat you as something special.

Capt'n Midnight

Really Interested wrote: »

What exactly on the 3 issues have the U.K. offered.

So it looks like the only definite thing is that EU citizens won't have to fill all 95 pages on the application form and that maybe won't have to pay the full price.

Everything else is still vague and undefined.

Capt'n Midnight

The UK still haven't provided any clarity on what they intend to pay if there's a transition period.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1019/913509-brexit-blog/
Europe’s overriding concern is not the survival of the Tory Party but the protection of the European project itself.

...
The suspicion in Brussels is that London is deliberately holding out because they want to use money as leverage once they get into negotiations on the future trade agreement.

Firblog

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's one common thread throughout this whole reason: nobody voted to leave because of any evidence that immigration was bad. Lots of people voted to leave because of a feeling that immigration was bad, and that it was somehow all the EU's fault.

In large part, that was a conscious strategy on the part of the Leave campaigns. The people running those campaigns aren't stupid - they knew the truth about immigration (that it's a net positive, and that the UK could have controlled it much more than it did without leaving the EU) - but that didn't matter, because the important thing was leaving the EU (because Reasons) and if banging the drum about immigration was a way to achieve that, so be it.

That falls firmly into the category of Euromythology. The UK has been one of the most influential forces in the direction of EU policy since it joined. The problem is that some of the Powers That Be can't cope with the idea of not being able to unilaterally dictate that direction, and don't like having to compromise. Hence, any time EU policy has wavered at all from whatever the UK's interests, that has been portrayed as the European Reich dictating to the poor downtrodden Brit, rather than what it actually is: the realpolitik of achieving consensus among a large group of nation-states with their own interests and agendas.

Ah yes: using referendums (and local elections, and EP elections, and...) as an opportunity to give the government a kicking. Democracy at its most admirable: "I don't care what the consequences of my vote are; I just want to vote against whatever the government want."

The UK's obligations to take in refugees stem from the UN, not the EU. As for quotas, of course the UK would prefer to keep them all in Italy or Greece. But how do Italy and Greece feel about it?

Which goes back to point 2: a dislike of compromise.

Cameron went to the EU and demanded that 27 members reshape the very nature of the Union to suit one member. The EU politely pointed out that that's not how unions work.

That's not intransigence, that's a grasp of reality that's fundamentally missing from the British press's (and political establishment's) worldview.

That's because the Leave campaign breezily announced that there would be no economic downside to exit, and screamed "PROJECT FEAR" loudly at anyone who had the temerity to suggest otherwise.

As such, the proposal to leave was presented as: keep the foreigners from taking your jobs (including the ones you wouldn't dream of doing), take back control from a bunch of foreigners, give the money we're squandering on lazy foreigners to the NHS, and profit massively from the hundreds of countries queueing up to do trade deals with us as soon as we leave - all with no economic downside.

What's not to like?

It's just a pity it was pretty much entirely untrue.

Hey I was just outlining the arguments that were put forward for Brexit at the time, I'm not really looking to argue their merits or lack thereof.

But another one I'm fairly sure contributed, was commentators calling people who had concerns about immigration, racist and xenophobic - as Gordon Brown did - this also spurred alot of people to vote brexit; the only people who seemed to be sympathetic to their concerns were those who were advocating Brexit, so why not vote for them?

There are many on here who less than polite to people who support Brexit, while it isn't going to change people's views and opinions it really doesn't cost anything to be civil when discussing these matters.