Brexit discussion thread II

flutered

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There’s no Stormont to spend it

so the torys are off the hook for 5m, handy when bobs are scarce

murphaph

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Like I said , choose a different (EU) brand or pay a premium for the UK one.

What you describe is a low tech product that could be made anywhere. All of the large multinationals have alternative factorys.

All of the supermarkets would switch supplier in a heartbeat if they could get the same quality for their own-brands at a cheaper price.

This is more of a problem for the UK factory than their multi-national owners or the supermarkets.


Of course expect some price gouging using Brexit as an excuse to squeeze a bit of extra profit from confusion, just like when VAT rates change or when the Euro came in.

The thing is, the Irish market is really small. At the moment that's no problem, because we tag along with the UK market, so a lasagne destined for the UK can be sold in Ireland no problem. If Unilever can't (economically) sell lasagne made in a UK factory they are (IMO) unlikely to start a production line in a Belgian factory to produce lasagne with packaging suitable for the small Irish market, especially if the UK plays silly beggars and actually shipping the product through the UK takes longer (and therefore costs more). Even if they do, stuff will be more expensive for sure given the longer path to market and reduced economy of scale.

I honestly see a thinning out of products on Irish supermarket shelves, because our market isn't big enough and everything has to be shipped in. I do expect a good degree of new home grown replacements for lost UK products, but I believe these will be on the expensive side, not profiting from any economy of scale.

We may go back to Lidl and Aldi selling their German assortment with the odd Irish product in the mix. When the German discounters first arrived in Ireland and the UK, that's how it was.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

The thing is, the Irish market is really small. At the moment that's no problem, because we tag along with the UK market, so a lasagne destined for the UK can be sold in Ireland no problem. If Unilever can't (economically) sell lasagne made in a UK factory they are (IMO) unlikely to start a production line in a Belgian factory to produce lasagne with packaging suitable for the small Irish market, especially if the UK plays silly beggars and actually shipping the product through the UK takes longer (and therefore costs more). Even if they do, stuff will be more expensive for sure given the longer path to market and reduced economy of scale.

I honestly see a thinning out of products on Irish supermarket shelves, because our market isn't big enough and everything has to be shipped in. I do expect a good degree of new home grown replacements for lost UK products, but I believe these will be on the expensive side, not profiting from any economy of scale.

We may go back to Lidl and Aldi selling their German assortment with the odd Irish product in the mix. When the German discounters first arrived in Ireland and the UK, that's how it was.

Just an aside, but the largest frozen ready meal factory in Europe is actually in Monaghan.

murphthesmurf

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning everyone!



Yes, and no. You can decide to pull the plug on things if you think they won't be viable. An example, which is now under construction is when the Pinnacle was being built on Bishopsgate. The stump of the lift shaft was left unconstructed for years. The project was suspended during the recession. Now they have decided to build 22 Bishopsgate on the same site. If the investors thought that the project wasn't viable they'd cut their losses and move on. Of course they would save themselves the hundreds of millions it costs to build these towers if they believed they wouldn't be filled.

The same with the London HQ for Google under construction at Kings Cross. That is a huge building, and it is obviously being built there because Google see that they have a long term future in the UK. The same is true for Facebook. In terms of the banks in the City, the fact that a lot of them are looking for real estate to solidify their presence in London confirms a confidence that the City is going to remain a financial hub post-Brexit.

My point was basically this, the idea that the UK is going to hell in a handcart is myth. It doesn't bear any reality on the ground from what I can see. Particularly when people say that the City in particular is going to hell in a handcart considering I head to work there every day.

Is the economy subdued? Yes, due to uncertainty, but it is still growing in defiance of all the expectations people had in respect to it.



This is the type of comment that betrays where people are coming from. There is a latent Anglophobia on this thread. Britain pulls above its weight in the world in many areas from science to finance. Is Britain the same as it was when it was an empire? No! But will Britain stop being an innovative country after Brexit, I doubt it. Britain is a significant player in the world. It is actually the most significant player in European defence also.

Keep calm and carry on is the right option. Being carried away by the flutterings in the press, or the flutterings of individuals on this thread is the best way of getting a bad deal that isn't in the interests of the UK. That's why I've said that if people like you were negotiating for the UK you'd just have rolled over and given them the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace.



This history, although important in understanding continental Europe has no relevance in understanding modern Britain. Britain's modern history is different to that of mainland Europe. They are intertwined, but not linked.

It has no relevance for the reason I mentioned 2 months ago on this thread:


As for Britain situating itself closer to America both economically and militarily I suspect that is an inevitability. It is an inevitability I'm not concerned about, in fact I think it could be a good move for the UK. Rebuilding ties with the Anglosphere would be hugely beneficial in addition to strengthening ties elsewhere.

It's worth pointing out that Ireland has a different reason for membership to the EU than Germany. It follows the EU as a social good model:


The political philosophy point about where Britain fits into the European Union is one that hasn't be resolved for 40 years. The vast majority of Britain have little to no connection to "the European project". I'll include myself in that definition despite being Irish. I voted to remain for selfish don't rock the status quo reasons. I don't have any passion for "the European project" at all.



I agree that Britain has punched above its weight for hundreds of years and I think it will continue to do so.

People on this thread have constructed the narrative that Britain is falling apart, but that's nothing close to the reality on the ground. Yes, the economy is subdued due to uncertainty, but to keep calm and meticulously do the work required rather than jumping at everything that appears in the press is the right way to go about it.

There won't be a u-turn on Brexit as much as people would like it. EU membership wasn't working for the UK, and the UK's membership wasn't working for the EU. Simply put.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brilliant post and agree with everything you said. You put the argument forward far better than i could.

David Cameron asked the EU to give him something to fight with regarding immigration. They refused.
Militarily the UK leaving the EU is a great loss. I read recently that the UK is the 4th or 5th most powerful military force in the world.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Just an aside, but the largest frozen ready meal factory in Europe is actually in Monaghan.

I'm not surprised by this, but I would be fearing for my job if I worked there because I'll bet the majority of what they make is sold in the UK.

Nody

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Militarily the UK leaving the EU is a great loss. I read recently that the UK is the 4th or 5th most powerful military force in the world.

Sorry but France is stronger and more capable as well due to the foreign legion allowing them to deploy far faster and effective (see their activities in Africa for example).

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but France is stronger and more capable as well due to the foreign legion allowing them to deploy far faster and effective (see their activities in Africa for example).

So is Italy.

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Brilliant post and agree with everything you said. You put the argument forward far better than i could.

David Cameron asked the EU to give him something to fight with regarding immigration. They refused.
Militarily the UK leaving the EU is a great loss. I read recently that the UK is the 4th or 5th most powerful military force in the world.

Lol. They refused because HE ALREADY HAD SOMETHING TO FIGHT WITH.

If you as an EU citizen come here to Germany to live, you have 3 months to find a job or go home (or support yourself financially some other way, INCLUDING having state approved health insurance. It is illegal to live here without health insurance). Germany sends UK citizens home if they become a burden on the welfare system without having clocked up 5 years of permanent residence.

Most western European countries also make use of the long established EU law which permits this. Only the UK chose not to bother. All those Romanians the Daily Mail hates so much could have been legally deported years ago.

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So is Italy.

I don't think any non-Nuclear country could be described as militarily stronger than a country with nukes. The UK would definitely be second only to France in military might in the EU.

Enzokk

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Brilliant post and agree with everything you said. You put the argument forward far better than i could.

David Cameron asked the EU to give him something to fight with regarding immigration. They refused.
Militarily the UK leaving the EU is a great loss. I read recently that the UK is the 4th or 5th most powerful military force in the world.

Are you aware that the UK had the power to expel EU citizens if they didn't find work after 3 months? This is done in other EU countries so there is no law that prevents this. What else should the EU have given David Cameron? He already had the law there to apply stringent immigration rules and the UK government chose not to enforce them. Crying about it now is just silly.

LeinsterDub

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Brilliant post and agree with everything you said. You put the argument forward far better than i could.

David Cameron asked the EU to give him something to fight with regarding immigration. They refused.
Militarily the UK leaving the EU is a great loss. I read recently that the UK is the 4th or 5th most powerful military force in the world.

Cameron could of enforced the existing laws. He didn't as the immigration is actually benefiting the UK.

Jim2007

murphthesmurf wrote: »

David Cameron asked the EU to give him something to fight with regarding immigration. They refused.

Cameron demonstrated the same arrogance and ignorance of how the EU works as the rest of the tory party do. He expected that the other 27 member states would give up their basic principles for the sake of the tory party, that was never going to happen. It fact it could not happen because it would take a treaty change and that requires approval of the 38 regional and national parliaments plus up to 3 referenda. He furthermore was asked to explain why he had not implemented the rules set out in the directive and he failed to answer....

He had no-one to blame but himself.

Jim2007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I forgot to mention the fall in sterling means that UK goods should be cheaper. So overall UK most imports shouldn't be more expensive.

But we have already seen that the fall in sterling has not facilitated a growth in exports as would have been expected... and recent research suggests it is the result of two things: the UK assembles rather than manufactures and the costs of inputs are rising and secondly the buggers decided to put up the prices to take advantage of the drop in sterling rather than grow their markets.

Jim2007

A Little Pony wrote: »

I love England and the history of England, If I could I would seek out English citizenship.

You clearly know very little about English history and even less about it's politics and legal structure since you are looking for English citizenship!

Jim2007

A Little Pony wrote: »

Good. Get out ASAP is fine by me. No issue whatsoever with that.

You remind me of one of those Lloyd's syndicate members, who during the collapse of Lloyds used to claim that it was fine with them too... then little by little, day by day they began to realise just how much it had to do with them!

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think any non-Nuclear country could be described as militarily stronger than a country with nukes. The UK would definitely be second only to France in military might in the EU.

Fair point. However, this report puts Britain's strength at 9th in the world behind France and Italy.

A Little Pony

murphaph wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Good. Get out ASAP is fine by me. No issue whatsoever with that.

Even if a family member couldn't get radiotherapy because the UK dropped out of Euratom overnight and that isotope they need has just run out? You behave as if walking out the door and slamming it behind you has no consequences or only minor ones. The consequences of walking out tomorrow would be catastrophic for the UK and damaging for the EU, especially Ireland, but absolutely catastrophic for the UK.

The UK could not even import food unless it dropped ALL tariffs on imports from ALL countries as there are no UK quotas deposited at the WTO. British farming would be destroyed in a few weeks by cheap imports.

I would cut one of my legs off to get out of the EU. I don't care how it happens, just get out as quickly as possible.

listermint

A Little Pony wrote: »

I would cut one of my legs off to get out of the EU. I don't care how it happens, just get out as quickly as possible.

Looks there is waffle and then there is complete waffle.

And this is the latter.

I firmly believe the most recent points you've made are designed for the wind up nothing more nothing less.

A Little Pony

Jim2007 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I love England and the history of England, If I could I would seek out English citizenship.

You clearly know very little about English history and even less about it's politics and legal structure since you are looking for English citizenship!

Maybe read the post properly. I know it doesn't exist, that is why I said IF.

ancapailldorcha

Cut out the bickering and one-liners please.

A Little Pony

listermint wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I would cut one of my legs off to get out of the EU. I don't care how it happens, just get out as quickly as possible.

Looks there is waffle and then there is complete waffle.

And this is the latter.

I firmly believe the most recent points you've made are designed for the wind up nothing more nothing less.

I don't want to be a citizen within the European Union. I want the current government to get on with it and deliver the will of the British people. I am counting down the days to when we leave this club. It's really not a controversial view to say you want Brexit to be delivered.

I am sure you respect our wishes and our vote and don't begrudge us wanting to see it delivered.

Sand

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Militarily the UK leaving the EU is a great loss. I read recently that the UK is the 4th or 5th most powerful military force in the world.

Its not though. The UK remains in NATO, along with most EU members so the EU loses nothing. And the UK removing itself from the EU prevents the UK from blocking further EU defence co-ordination.

The UK has spent the past 20 years specialising in fighting lightly armed goat herders in pickup trucks with heavy US support. The UK military has little to offer the EU other than large numbers of undermanned light infantry battalions lacking heavy weapons, vehicles or supporting elements to permit actual deployment. That light infantry would get steamrolled by Russian mechanised troops (the only realistic threat to the EU).

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

I would cut one of my legs off to get out of the EU. I don't care how it happens, just get out as quickly as possible.

Feel free to hack away but would you mind not bleeding all over the rest of us?

The Rape of Lucretia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

this[/URL] report puts Britain's strength at 9th in the world behind France and Italy.

Doesnt console me much. Surrendermonkeys and Mandolin playing side switchers wont count for much if Putin gets stroppy.

Junkyard Tom

Enzokk wrote: »

There is zero incentive to share power in Belfast when they can control London.

There are some incentives alright. The only reason the DUP are talking at all is because there are incentives. The DUP want to have some control over how the £1Bn is spent. The DUP don't want sole responsibility for the possible fustercluck coming down the tracks that will be theirs and the CON's responsibility.

I also have a strong suspicion that the DUP have been told by forces within the British state to get TF back to Ireland and sort their house out. How much has the north cost England since the troubles broke out? Maybe half a trillion GBP in today's money?

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think any non-Nuclear country could be described as militarily stronger than a country with nukes. The UK would definitely be second only to France in military might in the EU.

Nukes haven't been used since 1945.
Even when allies were being bombed.

The UK should go up a notch when the carriers become operational and equipped with aircraft. As long as don't keep reducing the defence forces. From what I've heard they'll be paying off warships in near future too.

Italy and France ,China and India all have operational carriers. The days when the Royal Navy showed up on your doorstep unannounced with impunity are long gone.

murphthesmurf

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/photos/most-powerful-military-nations-of-2017/ss-BBB4ZEt#image=46

Sorry 6th, behind France. The articles states it does not take into account nuclear weapons. Not getting into a dick measuring contest, it is just one way that having the UK in benefited the EU.
Nato will still exist as another poster stated. But this only benefits NATO countries. Whoever posted that Italy would be ahead and the UK in 9th is dillusional.

I do get a distinct feeling of anger and resentment on here regarding Brexit. You have to remember that it is not the British people's job to look after the rest of the EU. Each country has to stand on its own 2 feet. People seem to resent the fact that the British did what they believe was best for the Britain.

On immigration, I believe it is not EU internal immigration that bothered the British. There is not a huge cultural differences between, say, Polish and British. They will socialise together etc etc. It was the migration from outside of the EU that was the problem. The idea that the world could live in Europe.
Where do these immigrants end up? Working class neighbourhoods, who coincidentally voted out.

pinksoir

murphthesmurf wrote: »

On immigration, I believe it is not EU internal immigration that bothered the British. There is not a huge cultural differences between, say, Polish and British. They will socialise together etc etc. It was the migration from outside of the EU that was the problem. The idea that the world could live in Europe.
Where do these immigrants end up? Working class neighbourhoods, who coincidentally voted out.

Hold on a second! You do realise that the UK has full control over immigration from outside the EU? That the EU doesn't have a say on immigration from third countries into the UK?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Em... You brought up the British Empire and now you think that doing so is silly?

murphaph brought up Suez, I said my support of Brexit has nothing to do with the British Empire. The context of my post to him was to say that Brexit has nothing to do with the British Empire.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You ignored my point about the NHS. Then there are farming subsidies and propping up the parts of the UK which require it like Northern Ireland, Cornwall, etc...

You missed my point about EU funding. Let me quote it again:

solodeogloria wrote:

The UK gives about £13 billion to the European Union after the rebate. It receives £4.5bn for CAP and other domestic priorities. Even in the hypothetical scenario that it doesn't get the additional £8 billion (I think it will get a lot of it) the £4.5bn can be ensured. Yes, of course it is a matter for the British government for how it is spent, but the idea that Britain is going to lose out without "EU funds" is a fallacy. It will be able to spend the same money.

CAP (farming subsidies), science funding, regional funding from the EU all come from the £4.5bn of tax payers money that the UK receives back from the European Union. The UK is a net contributor to the EU, meaning that anything it receives back is actually its own taxpayers money.

This money will still be available after Brexit. There will also be £8 billion in addition to this to spend on other priorities. It's wrong to say it is either a choice to spend X on regional funding versus Y on the NHS. The £4.5bn can be kept as it is today, and the £8bn can be spent on new priorities.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A shame. You've actually substantiated your argument with decent links and then you have to trot out another strawman. This is why I find this situation so frustrating. You rarely defend your points so when you do, you fire off a strawman when you ironically have no need. I suppose you can't help it.

An anecdote but one I feel is relevant; I used to work with someone who specialises in trying to find novel therapies for Tuberculosis. Every unit of funding for TB research in the UK comes from an EU-wide body aimed at curing TB. He didn't get a single penny from the UK.

I'm fairly sure that this would fall under the £4.5bn of British taxpayers money that the European Union sends back to Britain every year.

Again, Britain is a net contributor. There is no reason that it will not be able to spend this money when it regains control of it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It did. It made the country wealthier and a better place to do business in. The problem was that the people who pointed this out were scientists, economists and businesspeople who are of course experts and therefore wrong all of the time.

Economic justifications are flimsy. Economic truths can be true at one point in time, and then false at another point in time. This is partially why Brexit won.

We're continually told by posters on this thread that we shouldn't see the European Union as simply an economic union. We should see it for what it really is, a political union. This also means that economics aside, Britain needs a good reason why it should be part of a political union.

Again from about 2 months ago:

solodeogloria wrote:

The reason shouldn't be that the UK should be in to offer balance because that's a reason about other countries and not about the UK and it shouldn't be a reason borne out of fear mongering. The UK needs a clear reason as to why it fits into the EU. Germany has a very good one as does Ireland but Britain has never had a decent membership narrative.

At this stage I'm definitely not supportive of rejoining. EU membership was a much better prospect in the 70s on the basis of economics but not so much in 2017. I've been told off by murphaph for not understanding Germany's reason but Germany's reason is Germany's reason. Not Britain's reason. Britain joined way too late for EU membership to have been anything about the Second World War.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Disconnection? We live in a country with an unelected head of state where the top positions are disproportionately held by graduates of a small number of institutions. Then there's the House of Lords and Whitehall. Finally, look at the fact that the last government won 37% of the vote. Labour won 40% this year but have a minority. If anything, I would argue that the EU is more democratic. The people of Walloon were able to stall a trade deal because it didn't suit them.

Labour have a minority because the Conservatives won more votes. It's worth pointing out that they won an unprecedented amount of the vote share. As did Labour. It was highly unusual.

Besides, I do have some cynicism when you say that Britain isn't democratic (and it very much is with all the checks and balances a democratic system should have) but object to implementing the will of the people in the Brexit referendum.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would I try to convince you? You just dismiss and ignore any argument with a strawman. Remember, "The sky won't fall in?" You're behind this to the hilt now it seems regardless of the consequences. Out of curiosity, is there anything that would change your mind about this situation? Anything at all?

I want a good deal, but at the same time I think the result needs to be implemented come what may.

I can't tell you what would convince me given that I'm not convinced. Perhaps significant EU reform to satisfy concerns about freedom of movement and more autonomy for member states in various areas including trade. The EU would need to be a different bloc to what it is now.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When I addressed the issues like the NHS bus, all you could do was shift the goalposts to try to argue that the remain side was worse with vague terms like "Scaremongering". If you oppose giving people a final say on the Brexit deal then you support a Brexit based on the lies and scaremongering around Immigration, regulation, Muslims, etc...

Let's look at what I said shall we:

solodeogloria wrote:

If I hadn't already answered that question on this thread several times that would have been a fair one. I think the campaign was mostly well fought. There were lies on both sides both in respect to the £350mn figure, the Turkey joining prospect on the leave side, and project fear on the remain side.

I said that there were some lies on both sides. That's true.

I think the main arguments for leaving still largely hold though.

Moreover, I do oppose yet another poll in the UK that's true. That's because firstly we've had a referendum, and because we had an election called because of Brexit where the two main parties won over 80% of the vote. At the time both parties were arguing that Britain should leave the single market and the customs union.

There's no justification for another vote. There's electoral fatigue in Britain. It's time for the politicians to get on with their job.

Could there be another poll in a number of years after leaving? Sure. But you're going to need to roll up your sleeves to convince me and others who voted remain and now want to just leave, and then you'd need to roll up your sleeves to convince the Brexiteers. Project Fear won't cut it the second time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/photos/most-powerful-military-nations-of-2017/ss-BBB4ZEt#image=46

Sorry 6th, behind France. The articles states it does not take into account nuclear weapons. Not getting into a dick measuring contest, it is just one way that having the UK in benefited the EU.
Nato will still exist as another poster stated. But this only benefits NATO countries. Whoever posted that Italy would be ahead and the UK in 9th is dillusional.

I do get a distinct feeling of anger and resentment on here regarding Brexit. You have to remember that it is not the British people's job to look after the rest of the EU. Each country has to stand on its own 2 feet. People seem to resent the fact that the British did what they believe was best for the Britain.

On immigration, I believe it is not EU internal immigration that bothered the British. There is not a huge cultural differences between, say, Polish and British. They will socialise together etc etc. It was the migration from outside of the EU that was the problem. The idea that the world could live in Europe.
Where do these immigrants end up? Working class neighbourhoods, who coincidentally voted out.

Oh dear God. The EU has no say whatsoever over third country migration to the UK. The UK could stop all third country migration tomorrow if it wanted. Sorry, but it's no wonder Brexit was chosen given such ignorance among the electorate, as evidenced by this post.

murphaph

Solo...your whole idea that the UK can cover all the EU (British taxpayer) spending in the UK is fine in theory but it makes at least two massive assumptions....it assumes the UK economy would continue growing at least as fast as it did as a member of the EU. It won't. It's already slipped to the bottom of the G7 rankings and Brexit hasn't even happened yet. Cue your assertion that it's just "uncertainty" that's causing all this. It's not, it's the fear that the UK might leave the EU and with it the SM and CU. If that happens UK GDP will sink like a stone.

Your idea also assumes that doing a solo run will incur no costs for the UK that are currently shared among all the member states. The UK will need a host of new agencies like a much expanded medicines agency, food safety agency etc. Implementing customs controls alone will cost hundreds of millions.

It's a joke to suggest the UK will have a bunch more money to spend after Brexit.

carrickbally

A Little Pony wrote: »

I would cut one of my legs off to get out of the EU. I don't care how it happens, just get out as quickly as possible.

That sums up better than most the basis for Brexit.

That sums up the basis for the tearing up of the treaty the UK signed with nearly thirty other European democracies.

That also sums up the basis for the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement the UK signed with Ireland.

It also sums up the basis of the UK's declaring economic war on the rest of Europe and especially on this former colony.

Irrational, emotional racism.

Enzokk

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I do get a distinct feeling of anger and resentment on here regarding Brexit. You have to remember that it is not the British people's job to look after the rest of the EU. Each country has to stand on its own 2 feet. People seem to resent the fact that the British did what they believe was best for the Britain.

On immigration, I believe it is not EU internal immigration that bothered the British. There is not a huge cultural differences between, say, Polish and British. They will socialise together etc etc. It was the migration from outside of the EU that was the problem. The idea that the world could live in Europe.
Where do these immigrants end up? Working class neighbourhoods, who coincidentally voted out.

I think people are angry that the UK has made a decision that so far has hurt their own economy and will most likely continue to hurt them, and it will hurt Ireland's economy (fragile) as well. The reason I am upset is because people were told this before the referendum but they insisted it was "project fear" and everything would be allright, in fact they need us more than we need them. Look at how Brexit was sold. People were told it would be fine, nothing would change and the UK may get out in better shape than before. Now the message is about limiting the damage that Brexit will cause. People weren't talking about that before the referendum.

I don't know why you would think the UK people are okay with EU immigration. It was this "control" that solo keeps posting about. They want to take back "control" of EU immigration which they couldn't (another lie) control. You are wrong.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I said that there were some lies on both sides. That's true.

I think the main arguments for leaving still largely hold though.

Moreover, I do oppose yet another poll in the UK that's true. That's because firstly we've had a referendum, and because we had an election called because of Brexit where the two main parties won over 80% of the vote. At the time both parties were arguing that Britain should leave the single market and the customs union.

There's no justification for another vote. There's electoral fatigue in Britain. It's time for the politicians to get on with their job.

Could there be another poll in a number of years after leaving? Sure. But you're going to need to roll up your sleeves to convince me and others who voted remain and now want to just leave, and then you'd need to roll up your sleeves to convince the Brexiteers. Project Fear won't cut it the second time.

What do you see as the main arguments that still hold true? I am interested to know whether the true arguments actually fall under the arguments that were lies.

Did you see the poll that more people now regret Brexit than those that want it to go ahead?

Poll finds support for Brexit has hit a new low

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You missed my point about EU funding. Let me quote it again:

CAP (farming subsidies), science funding, regional funding from the EU all come from the £4.5bn of tax payers money that the UK receives back from the European Union. The UK is a net contributor to the EU, meaning that anything it receives back is actually its own taxpayers money.

This money will still be available after Brexit. There will also be £8 billion in addition to this to spend on other priorities. It's wrong to say it is either a choice to spend X on regional funding versus Y on the NHS. The £4.5bn can be kept as it is today, and the £8bn can be spent on new priorities.

Will it? You're assuming that the economy isn't going to shrink after Brexit, something that Economists seem likely. The UK is a massive benefactor of EU scientific investment. The government won't be able to match this as there are farming subsidies to consider. Science will be seen as expendable by comparison. This is something which genuinely worries people.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Economic justifications are flimsy. Economic truths can be true at one point in time, and then false at another point in time. This is partially why Brexit won.

This is an absolutely meaningless comment. Virtually every Economist came out in favour of remain.

solodeogloria wrote: »

We're continually told by posters on this thread that we shouldn't see the European Union as simply an economic union. We should see it for what it really is, a political union. This also means that economics aside, Britain needs a good reason why it should be part of a political union.

I'm still waiting for a source for your claim that most remainers are Euro-federalists. Whenever you're ready...

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't tell you what would convince me given that I'm not convinced. Perhaps significant EU reform to satisfy concerns about freedom of movement and more autonomy for member states in various areas including trade. The EU would need to be a different bloc to what it is now.

Britain could have led the way there had there been a more daring prime minister. It was instrumental in forming the single market. Britain should have stepped up to lead the EU instead of leaving at the first sign of things getting difficult.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Moreover, I do oppose yet another poll in the UK that's true. That's because firstly we've had a referendum, and because we had an election called because of Brexit where the two main parties won over 80% of the vote. At the time both parties were arguing that Britain should leave the single market and the customs union.

There are so many different visions of Brexit that a second vote is crucial IMO. The fact is that this was won on the flimsiest and most deceitful of premises and the proponents of Brexit know that the public are under no illusions as to the mismanagement of the negotiations by the Conservative party.

From Yougov:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Could there be another poll in a number of years after leaving? Sure. But you're going to need to roll up your sleeves to convince me and others who voted remain and now want to just leave, and then you'd need to roll up your sleeves to convince the Brexiteers. Project Fear won't cut it the second time.

With respect, you're subscribing to Brexit with a zeal that most religious people would lack. You've dismissed any logical arguments with strawmen.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

Oh dear God. The EU has no say whatsoever over third country migration to the UK. The UK could stop all third country migration tomorrow if it wanted. Sorry, but it's no wonder Brexit was chosen given such ignorance among the electorate, as evidenced by this post.

Yes, the "darkies out" stuff mentioned earlier. The hilarious bit of course being that the "darkies" (African, West Indian, Pakistani...) voted for Brexit to keep the "whities" (Polish, Romanian...) out because they compete with them at the lower end of the ladder.

So an outcome of Brexit will be an even darker Britain. That'll go down well.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gmurphaph brought up Suez, I said my support of Brexit has nothing to do with the British Empire. The context of my post to him was to say that Brexit has nothing to do with the British Empire.

Perhaps not for you but I think you need to recognise very clearly that you a) don't speak for people who voted leave because apparently you voted remain and b) you only speak for your own opinion. You cannot in all honestly claim to know what the view was for everyone.

From the outside, it looks like a key problem for some people at least was that having to share power within the European Union did not sit well with people who felt that Britain's place was in charge. Like when it used to be an imperial power.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This money will still be available after Brexit. There will also be £8 billion in addition to this to spend on other priorities. It's wrong to say it is either a choice to spend X on regional funding versus Y on the NHS. The £4.5bn can be kept as it is today, and the £8bn can be spent on new priorities.

This is based on a couple of assumptions which you need to be aware of:

a) tax take does not fail
b) economic growth does not stagnate or return.
c) the UK does not suffer operational costs as a result of Brexit.

It is never quite as simple as that but they are good places to start.

For c) currently a lot of tasks are shared in terms of regulations and administration. A good example are medical and banking regulations only because they were centred in the UK. The UK will have to ramp up its own capability in these areas. Aviation safety is another one with obvious public implications. You cannot say that the money tht the UK currently sends to the EU will be available. THe UK has already had to start hiring civil servants to cater for the process at all. These tend not to be on fixed term contracts, and that doesn't include the ransom the UK will pay in consultancy fees to the consultancy firms.

a) the UK has not seen a massive increase in tax take linked to its jobs growth which says that a lot of their jobs growth is in very low paying jobs. And this was before the economic growth started to slow lately. Additional problems are as jobs are moved out of London - these tend to be higher paying jobs - you will see a contraction in payroll taxes. The jobs have already started moving whether you care to concern yourself with that or not so while the impact may not be immediate, it is on the way.

b) if b happens, a will be reinforced.

solodeogloria wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, Britain is a net contributor. There is no reason that it will not be able to spend this money when it regains control of it.

See above. Again.

solodeogloria wrote: »

We're continually told by posters on this thread that we shouldn't see the European Union as simply an economic union. We should see it for what it really is, a political union. This also means that economics aside, Britain needs a good reason why it should be part of a political union.

Grand. Pro-Brexit supporters can stop telling the EU that it should be making its decisions purely on economic grounds then.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Besides, I do have some cynicism when you say that Britain isn't democratic (and it very much is with all the checks and balances a democratic system should have) but object to implementing the will of the people in the Brexit referendum.

The referendum was incredibly badly run. It was so incompetent it almost looks like total manipulation more than anything. You're Irish so you know how it works. Here is a referendum question. If you answer A, here's what happens, if you answer B, here's what happens. A was "we stay in the European Union" and B was "no details".

You might call that democratic. I don't. And that's before you look at the structure of the UK with an unelected head of state, FPTP commons system, and appointed or hereditary second house. Plus, the Repeal ACt - whcih Leadsom has had to delay debate on - included a powergrab for the government away from Parliament. IIRC, you stated you didn't much agree with that, but you have to admit that it was undemocratic.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I want a good deal, but at the same time I think the result needs to be implemented come what may.

What deal are you talking about? I get the impression people in the UK think there's only one deal under discussion here. And they would be right but it's not the deal they are talking about.

a) exit arrangement
b) trade deal .


The UK is making a haimse of negotiating A and has no staff to do b) even if the EU was prepared to open those discussions which they won't because so little progress is being made on a). You're not a trade negotiator iirc - your field of expertise is apparently IT and like a lot of IT people I know, you're not willing to recognise that perhaps you're not well placed to judge whether the concessions are being made. You think paying for stuff you've already committed to pay for is a concession. YOu think May's Florence speech was full of concessions. You think the current position offered by the UK as known publically represents a concession and you flatly refuse to discuss matters like Home Office being in contempt of court, sending out 100 letters to EU citizens to leave the country. You think everyone in the country at some arbitrary point in time will be allowed stay when there is scant evidence of that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't tell you what would convince me given that I'm not convinced. Perhaps significant EU reform to satisfy concerns about freedom of movement and more autonomy for member states in various areas including trade. The EU would need to be a different bloc to what it is now.

In this, I'm inclined to say no. The EU has its founding principles. It has rules around freedom of movement than the UK did not bother to apply. We are not in the business of making concessions to the UK just so it can join when it has already demonstrated an inability to use the tools given to it to limit arrivals. As far as trade is concerned, you really have no clue why trade is done at EU level. It's because at EU level the members are stronger than they would be on their own.

Germany is out trading the UK in almost every market including Commonwealth countries and countries where the EU does not have full trade agreements. If Germany could do it, the problem is not EU trading regulations. The problem lies with internal industry policy in the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think the main arguments for leaving still largely hold though.

These arguments did not convince you.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Moreover, I do oppose yet another poll in the UK that's true. That's because firstly we've had a referendum, and because we had an election called because of Brexit where the two main parties won over 80% of the vote. At the time both parties were arguing that Britain should leave the single market and the customs union.

There's no justification for another vote. There's electoral fatigue in Britain. It's time for the politicians to get on with their job.

The time for the politicians to get on with their job was when they wrote the referendum legislation. If they couldnt' do that, they could have rectified

Most of the people I see voicing opinion against another plebiscite are not people in favour of Brexit. I can only conclude that they are terrified it won't happen if the people are asked again.

YOu don't get to use electoral fatigue as an argument. The original referendum was by the people. It is now their job to either maintain that decision or reverse it. The UK doesn't even come close to electoral fatique. The Italians could define it for you.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Could there be another poll in a number of years after leaving? Sure. But you're going to need to roll up your sleeves to convince me and others who voted remain and now want to just leave, and then you'd need to roll up your sleeves to convince the Brexiteers. Project Fear won't cut it the second time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'm really sorry to say this solodeogloria but your opinion doesn't really dictate. For the few of you who "voted remain and now just want to leave" there are plenty more -thousands of them - who voted remain and are fighting hard to get this vandalism on the UK reversed. They marched the streets of Manchester in their tens of thousands a few weeks ago. The REmain demonstrations have been massive.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

Its not though. The UK remains in NATO, along with most EU members so the EU loses nothing. And the UK removing itself from the EU prevents the UK from blocking further EU defence co-ordination.

The UK has spent the past 20 years specialising in fighting lightly armed goat herders in pickup trucks with heavy US support. The UK military has little to offer the EU other than large numbers of undermanned light infantry battalions lacking heavy weapons, vehicles or supporting elements to permit actual deployment. That light infantry would get steamrolled by Russian mechanised troops (the only realistic threat to the EU).

I really find posts like this amusing, especially on an Irish forum. It’s like Cabinteely fans calling Man United ****. It’s just petty school yard “my Dad’s harder than your dad”.

The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland have been involved in the exact same form of conflicts for the past 20 years, so I’m not sure why the others would be any better equipped than the uk. The UK doesn’t block at coordination either, it is very involved in eu military cooperation. What it does block, is an eu army, which lets face it, Ireland will block as well. ( but still hide behind, no doubt).

And of course, the uk has one of only two nuclear capabilities in the region.

And no Sam, the UK’s nuclear deterrent isn’t “at the behest of the Americans” as you put it, this is just more petty sniping and begrudgery.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

From Yougov:

https://i.redd.it/fb4glm81strz.jpg

That's impressive

Going from 70% who expressed any opinion in March to 64% saying its going badly in October.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Economic justifications are flimsy. Economic truths can be true at one point in time, and then false at another point in time. This is partially why Brexit won.

What? Brexit may cost thousands of British people their jobs. Jobs that pay salaries that enable people to buy houses, finance a mortgage, look after their families etc. How is this in any way to be seen as 'flimsy'?

Brexit will still probably occur, but hopefully parliament blocks any no deal form of Brexit. Only the extreme ideology driven headbanger brigade want that I suspect.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only the extreme ideology driven headbanger brigade want that I suspect.

Somebody mentioned it up thread but it is very similar to a religion for those people. They have this blind faith that it will work. It's really very similar to how people believe in something they have never seen and cannot prove even exists. I can't get my head around it, but I don't believe in religion at all either.

steddyeddy

MPs say they'll block a no deal brexit. I think there's a fundamental missunderstanding at play here. A no deal scenario isn't something imposed on the UK. No deal simply means the absense of an agreement on all the terms like divoirce bill, border and citizen's rights. It's not something that can be blocked.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-41627340

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Will it? You're assuming that the economy isn't going to shrink after Brexit, something that Economists seem likely. The UK is a massive benefactor of EU scientific investment. The government won't be able to match this as there are farming subsidies to consider. Science will be seen as expendable by comparison. This is something which genuinely worries people.

Good afternoon!

With all due respect. "EU funding" in respect to Britain is simply UK taxpayers money redistributed by the EU.

You're missing a very clear point. If the UK pays £13.7bn into the European Union coffers every year, and gets £4.5bn back. That isn't "European money". That is British taxpayers money.

All the farming subsidies, science funding, structural funds and so on come out of this £4.5bn of UK taxpayers money. Why is this so difficult to understand?

After this there's still £8bn more that can be spent on other things when it is repatriated.

Pointing out that the EU is kind enough to give Britain back £4.5bn of its own money isn't news and it isn't somehow a massive argument for staying in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Rape of Lucretia

steddyeddy wrote: »

MPs say they'll block a no deal brexit. I think there's a fundamental missunderstanding at play here. A no deal scenario isn't something impose on the UK. No deal simply means the absense of an agreement on all the terms like divoirce bill, border and citizen's rights. It's not something that can be blocked.

Are there not two things on which to 'deal' - the divorce settlement, and the future relationship?
The UK forgot about the former and thought all negotiations would be about the latter, or, thought all would be negotiated as one deal, and that the divorce bill and implications would be lost in the Overall Deal and so hidden from their citizens.
To Brexit, a deal of some sort, on the divorce details, is mandatory - if not, will EU countries not vote against a no-deal, and so the UK doesnt Brexit. As Junker said, they cannot just walk away from the bar and expect those still there to pay for their drinks.

No deal on the future relationship is certainly possible (assuming they have Brexited). This is the detail on future trade rights, citizens rights, travel, etc. But that would mean there is no trade, no travel, etc AT ALL. So some form of deal or deals will be done. But may be done piecemeal, over years, after the Brexit. These are the elements the May wants to handle during the transition phase.

At the moment, not dealing with the divorce properly, means the EU has no interest, quite rightly, in entertaining talks on the post divorce phase. The UK surely understands this, but in the madness that is Brexit, is stuck between a rock - not being able to openly admit to voters the price and detail of the divorce in isolation in order to make progress with the EU, and a hard place - no progress possible with the EU since they dont want the divorce cost spelled out without the fog of disguise that would be the post-divorce deal benefits in the eyes of UK Brexiteers.

Calina

Brexit happens unless the Article 50 period is extended. Exit deal will need ratification on both sides.

If it is not ratified, Brexit happens with no exit arrangements.

Broadly, there is a greater risk of the UK not ratifying for internal reasons although there are 27 countries on the other side. They gave Barnier very strict framework to operate in so I see the EU not agreeing as lower risk. Walking out on negotiations is being used as a bargaining chip by sone British commentators and the UK lacks a clear negotiating policy.

No deal does not mean Brexit does not happen. It means the UK is in dire straits.

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

With all due respect. "EU funding" in respect to Britain is simply UK taxpayers money redistributed by the EU.

You're missing a very clear point. If the UK pays £13.7bn into the European Union coffers every year, and gets £4.5bn back. That isn't "European money". That is British taxpayers money.

No argument. It is indeed British and Northern Irish money. As is the further £21.4bn that comes into the UK economy by virtue of being a full-member-with-opt-outs of the EU.

I cannot understand why, to their own disadvantage, a false calculation is presented on the economic benefits of EU membership. This simple, 'we pay in this, and we get this back', is like saying "I handed over a tenner to my newsagent this morning and he gave me €8 back - I am never going to that news agent again!". Leaving out of my logic the fact that he gave me a newspaper, which I wanted, and so did benefit from the deal, not lose out to the tune of €2 as the simpler statement suggests.

I can only conclude that it is indeed anti foreigner feeling, old Empire jingoism, distrust of these bad egg Germans that we gave a good thrashing to in 1918 and 1945 to put them back in their box, and a selfishness, shortsighted, unwillingness to be part of the construction of a greater Europe.
And so the money equation is deliberately bent in order to sway along the uneducated Sun and Mail demographic who have no capability to judge what is good for themselves anyway, but are let down by their political leadership, who do know better, yet exploit them.

There is no such thing as an rational, intelligent, informed, Brexit voter.

fash

solodeogloria wrote: »

After this there's still £8bn more that can be spent on other things when it is repatriated.

In theory there was £8bn - except now hundreds of millions/billions have to be spent on customs infrastructure and new civil service departments. There is the fall in the value of sterling to consider - knocking the equivalent of another few billion/year off UK tax intake and then there is lower tax intake due to lower volumes of trade. That is before the cost of repatriating millions of OAPs from Spain is taken into consideration and kicking out those young Eastern European workers - knocking a dent into tax take and increasing costs.
The markets that the UK will want to plug into (using its new found freedom) are both small and/or far away and will have entirely different regulatory environments and standards making exporting high value goods difficult and the transportation costs will be prohibitive for low value goods.  
Let's see what happens...

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I really find posts like this amusing, especially on an Irish forum. It’s like Cabinteely fans calling Man United ****. It’s just petty school yard “my Dad’s harder than your dad”.

Its not though, is it? Making an observation that the UK military is not a "great loss" to the EU is just that. Its not a loss (NATO) and its not great relative to the only realistic military scenario for the EU (Russia).

The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland have been involved in the exact same form of conflicts for the past 20 years, so I’m not sure why the others would be any better equipped than the uk. The UK doesn’t block at coordination either, it is very involved in eu military cooperation. What it does block, is an eu army, which lets face it, Ireland will block as well. ( but still hide behind, no doubt).

The UK has the smallest number of active tanks of all the nations you listed there. The UK continues to prioritise 'expeditionary warfare' and cap badges, at the expense of useful military capability. Despite already having the least amount of tanks, the UK apparently plans to further cut its armoured infantry brigades from 3 to 2.

The UK has removed itself from future EU defence planning. I don't think we will see an EU army. That's an entirely illogical British fear - there is no political unity to order an EU army into battle. What we could see is greater co-ordination and integration of EU forces to get better effect for every euro spent. The Netherlands and Germany already have significantly integrated their armies, and other states like Romania and the Czech Republic are seeking similar partnerships to get more effect for less spending.

And of course, the uk has one of only two nuclear capabilities in the region.

Yes, but that's not really a practical option for any military conflict short of a nuclear war which is to be avoided at all costs and again, the UK is still in NATO (for now at least). As it stands, a nuclear strike on the EU is a nuclear strike on NATO with all that follows from that. So nothing is lost.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect. "EU funding" in respect to Britain is simply UK taxpayers money redistributed by the EU.

You're missing a very clear point. If the UK pays £13.7bn into the European Union coffers every year, and gets £4.5bn back. That isn't "European money". That is British taxpayers money.

All the farming subsidies, science funding, structural funds and so on come out of this £4.5bn of UK taxpayers money. Why is this so difficult to understand?

After this there's still £8bn more that can be spent on other things when it is repatriated.

Pointing out that the EU is kind enough to give Britain back £4.5bn of its own money isn't news and it isn't somehow a massive argument for staying in.

Those numbers seem good but it seems to suggest that everything will stay the same and the UK received no benefit from being in the EU. We have already seen the currency fall (maybe because it was overvalued) and we have seen growth slow from projections. Unless all of this is just a coincidence and unrelated to the Brexit vote it seems you are safe to assume the UK economy will benefit from leaving the EU when you factor in all that extra money the UK will have. I think you can send £350m (or less) per week to the NHS and you are free to argue for it again.

I am just wondering, you mentioned two things that are contradictory in some of your previous posts. You agreed that both the Leave and Remain campaigns were not truthful during the referendum, but you also mentioned that,

solodeogloria wrote:

I think the main arguments for leaving still largely hold though.

So which main argument from leave do you still believe to hold that are not part of the lies? What are those arguments that still convince you, from the campaign, that leaving the EU is now the right thing to do?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect. "EU funding" in respect to Britain is simply UK taxpayers money redistributed by the EU.

You're missing a very clear point. If the UK pays £13.7bn into the European Union coffers every year, and gets £4.5bn back. That isn't "European money". That is British taxpayers money.

All the farming subsidies, science funding, structural funds and so on come out of this £4.5bn of UK taxpayers money. Why is this so difficult to understand?

After this there's still £8bn more that can be spent on other things when it is repatriated.

Pointing out that the EU is kind enough to give Britain back £4.5bn of its own money isn't news and it isn't somehow a massive argument for staying in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Tell me, how many Polish Universities are getting EU science funding? Lithuanian Universities? It makes sense to invest your resources in a manner which yields the best result meaning that the UK's largely excellent Universities are the ones which will benefit most. 4 of the world's top 5/6 Universities, including my employer are British.

Following on from that, you're assuming that this money will be available year after year and you've provided nothing whatsoever to substantiate this assertion.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you would back up your claim that most remainers are Euro-federalists.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

With all due respect. "EU funding" in respect to Britain is simply UK taxpayers money redistributed by the EU.

You're missing a very clear point. If the UK pays £13.7bn into the European Union coffers every year, and gets £4.5bn back. That isn't "European money". That is British taxpayers money.

All the farming subsidies, science funding, structural funds and so on come out of this £4.5bn of UK taxpayers money. Why is this so difficult to understand?

After this there's still £8bn more that can be spent on other things when it is repatriated.

Pointing out that the EU is kind enough to give Britain back £4.5bn of its own money isn't news and it isn't somehow a massive argument for staying in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A huge missunderstanding on the part of Brexit voters. Grants and subsidies from the EU are only part of the benefit.

The major economic benefit is being in the single market. We're about to find out how much that benefit is worth soon.