Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Thrashssacre

listermint wrote: »

Yeah sorry but no. I watched his videos. Talking about raping a women in public and on tv and then doubling down on it is not normal .

Not anywhere.

So forgive me if I think these guys are the dregs. Send them back to what slime they crawled out of.

Who talked about raping a woman in public?

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The fact that UK is participating in the EP elections at all is just bizarre to me, but I suppose it has to be done, on the premise that there will never be such a thing as LEAVE now. (Maybe there will, but I don't see it just yet, even in October or at the review in June).

Listening to Barnier talk about all the agreements the British need to change if they leave, I think Leave is some bizarre pipedream. However, I also think at this stage it's in the EU's interest if the British go off for some years, come to their senses and beg for admittance just as they did in the 1960s when they realised the EEC was much more successful than their EFTA (the Brexiteers never mention that failure). It won't happen for years if it does, though. The EU should say 'No' and refuse them access again until they become more humble/get over the whole Empire world power stuff. Whatever happens, the EU cannot be seen to allow the British to succeed for all the obvious reasons. This is the no-brainer of all. Whatever the EU signs, it's consciously sending a message to dodgy populist regimes in Poland, Hungary and Italy. That is the EU audience, not Britain.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

However, it does give Farage and co. a chance to annoy the EP for five years (if UK is dithering or gets numerous further extensions).

I remember when I was a kid in the 80s Paisley went nuts in the European parliament - something about the "Antichrist" visiting - and a slew of MEPs turned on him and he was forcibly removed by security. I look forward to Farage encountering a similar fate. Great for the parish pump politics in the short term but if mainstream British politicians - and remember most voters in Britain supported Farage's side - are getting the eh,"firebrand" reputation across the EU that Paisley got, Britain will be the pariah state of Europe. And loads of other states will delight in commercially benefiting from their self-sabotage.

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

So forgive me if I think these guys are the dregs. Send them back to what slime they crawled out of.

Or look at the opinion of their MEPs.


Out of 24 MEP's elected in 2014 only 3 are still in the party.

They are the leader, after many changes, Gerard Batten and just 2 others. Mike Hookem and Stuart Agnew.


So apart from the latest leader, 91% of UKIP MEPs have left the party.
And these were people who signed up to a party that regarded big C conservatives as wishy washy bleeding heart liberals

Spanish Eyes

If you were asked today, would you know who your Mep is?

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

So, from that Barnier documentary, Britain has 750 international agreements to come out of and it signed a 7-year international agreement to pay 15% of the EU's budget over those 7 years. Did anybody mention that cost when the NHS £350 million per week lie was being peddled? Did anybody mention Blair's point that Britain had more trade with Germany than with all British Commonwealth countries combined? Or how its massive trade with the small Netherlands was greater than the trade with Canada, Australia and a load of other countries combined? That all these silly claims about trade deals with India and other farflung destinations based on some romanticised "connection" between coloniser and colonised are rubbish because most countries do most of their trade with neighbouring countries? (and how much would it add to the cost of British goods/British competitiveness to transport them to these exotic nirvanas on the other side of the planet?).

Was this Brexit referendum campaign the most dishonest referendum in post-WWII European history? This is the sort of duping of an entire population that we'd expect from some tinpot dictatorship in the Third World.

The tone from that documentary gives the strong impression that the British are in a very cold and isolated place internationally. They have absolutely nobody, no organisation or no other country to blame for this. All those chickens from scapegoating the EU for the past 45 years are coming home to roost. It is only a misplaced national pride - or, rather, a conceit - that is preventing otherwise rational British people from accepting they have been hoodwinked by their Tory rightwing for decades and that the EU has, in fact, enormous benefits for Britain.

Barnier's reflection regarding fishing was instructive to the effect that "Yes, EU fishermen fish in British waters much more than British fishermen fish in the rest of the EU so what we're trying to say to the British is that if you continue to give our fishermen access to your waters, we'll continue to give you access to a market of 450 million people". That would seem like a reasonable exchange for the British. But will they go for it? There's a lot of "pride before the fall" politics going on from the British side. The sheer and utter self-defeating stupidity of it all, however, is my strongest sentiment about the cliff these Brexiteers are pushing their country over.

It is not just a British thing though. We have fringe politicians in Ireland who claim that we gave away our fisheries for nothing (other than 40 years of prosperity).

briany

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The fact that UK is participating in the EP elections at all is just bizarre to me, but I suppose it has to be done, on the premise that there will never be such a thing as LEAVE now. (Maybe there will, but I don't see it just yet, even in October or at the review in June).

However, it does give Farage and co. a chance to annoy the EP for five years (if UK is dithering or gets numerous further extensions).

The concern is though, that the EP elections are really a proxy vote on Brexit, and in that case if the Brexit Party clean up, well they and others will enjoy that and it is full circle again.

Ugh.

Farage has his rhetoric ready either way. If Brexit-supporting parties sweep up it will be Farage on SKY News going,

"This has been it. This has been the second Referendum on Europe that MPs like Anne Soubry have been asking for. The people have said again that they want out. They're happy to leave with no deal. So I say to Mrs. May and Mr. Corbyn tonight to get a move on, to get us out of the European Union, so we can pursue our future as a strong, independent nation, in control of our own laws, our own trade and our own borders."

If Brexit-supporting parties do not sweep up, he'll be on SKY News going,

"There is massive support for Brexit throughout the country, but, frankly, due to the betrayal by the Remainer political class, many of those people have become apathetic to politics. They don't feel like their vote counts anymore, and they are angry that the country is taking part in a vote in a union they feel their country should no longer even be a part of, and therefore it's not a vote they've chosen to participate in. And you know what? I agree with them 100 percent. And that's why I'm saying tonight that, come the next General Election, every disenfranchised Brexit voter up and down this land should lend their vote to the Brexit Party. A party that will listen to them, and take the country out of Europe as was promised in 2016."

badtoro

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If you were asked today, would you know who your Mep is?

Harkin, Flanagan, Carthy, and yer wan that's hostile to my business.

Tell me how

Just watching Sky News Press Review now and they covered the murder of Lyra Mckee.
Both guests who were on (two writers) were very strong on how the focus in the UK around Brexit has been both England and London centric and has been excessively dismissive of the fragility of peace in the North and the implications which could arise from the return of the border.

I was surprised that they were as strong (which was the correct way to be) on this as I though they might leave it as an act of violence by an extremist and was nothing to do per se with Brexit.

McGiver

briany wrote:

"There is massive support for Brexit throughout the country, but, frankly, due to the betrayal by the Remainer political class, many of those people have become apathetic to politics. They don't feel like their vote counts anymore, and they are angry that the country is taking part in a vote in a union they feel their country should no longer even be a part of, and therefore it's not a vote they've chosen to participate in. And you know what? I agree with them 100 percent. And that's why I'm saying tonight that, come the next General Election, every disenfranchised Brexit voter up and down this land should lend their vote to the Brexit Party. A party that will listen to them, and take the country out of Europe as was promised in 2016."

He would also say that the people had enough of the unelected EU bureaucrats and the undemocratic EU. Whilst being democratically elected, allowed to vote and talk nonsense in the EP. It's incredible the English folk actually believe him.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not just a British thing though. We have fringe politicians in Ireland who claim that we gave away our fisheries for nothing (other than 40 years of prosperity).

You can't really compare the traction of their argument against Ireland's EU membership with the traction of the Brexiteers' argument against England's EU membership. The scale of Europhobia in England has no comparison elsewhere in Europe. But then again no other state in the EU has had its mainstream political parties and shamelessly oligarch-controlled media dousing the population with rancid propaganda that has scapegoated the EU for most of its domestic ills for the past 45 years. These chickens must come home to roost, in England.

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

These chickens must come home to roost, in England.

But not before they get washed in a bath of chlorinated water.

briany

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

But not before they get washed in a bath of chlorinated water.

The chlorinated chicken thing is a bit misleading. It's not that which is necessarily the problem but that the standards of food safety in the U.S. are generally worse than those in the EU, such that a no-deal Brexit might get the UK chicken that has only been washed in a chlorine solution, as opposed to the current EU regulations that are more stringent.

But, I think that if a brexiteer had to pick the odd bit of faeces out of their Sunday roast, or get sick with salmonella every now and then, they may just smile and say, "A small price to pay for freedom. Now, excuse me, I have diarrhoea."

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't really compare the traction of their argument against Ireland's EU membership with the traction of the Brexiteers' argument against England's EU membership. The scale of Europhobia in England has no comparison elsewhere in Europe. But then again no other state in the EU has had its mainstream political parties and shamelessly oligarch-controlled media dousing the population with rancid propaganda that has scapegoated the EU for most of its domestic ills for the past 45 years. These chickens must come home to roost, in England.

I would say that has implications for the entire political system in the UK, not just for Brexit. The entire lurch to the right has probably been fuelled by their media.

An Ciarraioch

Farage has been keen to distance himself from the more "colourful" utterances of the current UKIP, but one of his Brexit Party MEP candidates has been critical of "LGBT indoctrination" in schools, recently supporting the controversial protests against such programmes in Birmingham :

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/04/19/brexit-party-candidate-alka-sehgal-cuthbert-lgbt-indoctrination/

Irish Praetorian

briany wrote: »

The chlorinated chicken thing is a bit misleading. It's not that which is necessarily the problem but that the standards of food safety in the U.S. are generally worse than those in the EU, such that a no-deal Brexit might get the UK chicken that has only been washed in a chlorine solution, as opposed to the current EU regulations that are more stringent.

But, I think that if a brexiteer had to pick the odd bit of faeces out of their Sunday roast, or get sick with salmonella every now and then, they may just smile and say, "A small price to pay for freedom. Now, excuse me, I have diarrhoea."

Oh I don't disagree, I was simply taking the opportunity to make a funny and take some easy thanks. When I actually ended up looking into the issue it was quite striking though; comparing the figures for food poisonings in the US compared with those in the EU shows a stunning disparity. Roughly stated, the average EU citizen has a 1.4% chance of suffering a food-borne illness during the year, whilst for an American citizen that chance is 15% - literally ten times as likely. Now food poisoning might not strike people using this forum as being much more than a few days on the bog at worst, but when you start factoring in the impact on the the very old, very young and those already sick, well it really doesn't paint a very nice picture.

Do people here genuinely think that the UK would allow sub-standard food in if they go the No-Deal route.

reslfj

Deleted User wrote: »

Do people here genuinely think that the UK would allow sub-standard food in if they go the No-Deal route.

The US plays a very hard game in trade. People may never be asked.

It is much more than just chicken, as pointed out by briany above

Lars

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

Do people here genuinely think that the UK would allow sub-standard food in if they go the No-Deal route.

Well the US does, it's not exactly inconceivable that an enterprising fellow could package a more open policy on food standards by wrapping it up in the rhetoric of 'free from government regulation' etc.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Do people here genuinely think that the UK would allow sub-standard food in if they go the No-Deal route.

It may not be a matter of choice. The UK previously negotiated trade deals as a part of the largest single market in the world. Now it's competing with the largest single market in the world.

Junkyard Tom

20silkcut wrote: »

Hard to fathom what way England is heading.
Worrying from the point of view they are our much more powerful neighboring country .

Which is why it's better that they're out of the EU and we stay in. Also we need to become champions of the European project and drop the pretence of neutrality.

I have to say Sinn F seem to have some sort of weird blind-spot when it comes to neutrality -- they, of all people, should know just how damn difficult the British state could make it for Ireland yet they still mouth off about neutrality like we even have the capacity to defend it.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Do people here genuinely think that the UK would allow sub-standard food in if they go the No-Deal route.

The only reason the EU has been able to demand certain standards is because of its relative size. As a group (28) they have 500m relatively wealthy consumers. You want in to any part of that market then you need to meet the standards

So they face the US with some level of equality. The UK, or any other member, that leaves and faces the US alone will always be in a position of relative weakness. Suddenly, you getting into their market is far more important than them getting into yours and as such the balance of power is shifted.

There won't ever be an announcement that the US has taken to selling chicken, or allowed access to the NHS. It will form part of a trade deal which even if you look at the level of double speak an spin that Dr Fox has been putting on recent announcements with Switzerland and others shows how easy it is to spin the news and how difficult it is for journalists, never mind the wider public, to see or understand what has actually happened.

The common Joe or Mary won't see anything, only those directly effected such as farmers, would notice and they will be told that they need to readjust to life with the EU funds etc.

Whilst of course the WA has been front page news for the last few years, the real impact on the UK economy will likely be done behind closed doors, with little parliamentary of media scrutiny.

If people could not see the benefit of a single entity, the EU, think how difficult it will be to judge whether a trade deal has been positive or negative to the UK over a few years.

Whilst they have never directly come out and said it, Brexiteers have alluded to the fact they want to take back control of regulations on a number of occasions to varying levels. And whilst they have insisted that this will result in retaining, or even increasing, the current regulations that doesn't stand up to any degree of scrutiny or make any sense in the real world.

TL/DR - There has been so much written about chlorinated chicken that IMO it won't happen. But it was merely used as an example, an example that was easy to understand and for everyone to be able to appreciate. The real differences are more likely to be around financial services regulations, dropping of marketing standards and reduction in consumer protections, reduction in data protections etc.

These are issues the man on the street won't notice day to day.

briany

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Which is why it's better that they're out of the EU and we stay in. Also we need to become champions of the European project and drop the pretence of neutrality.

I have to say Sinn F seem to have some sort of weird blind-spot when it comes to neutrality -- they, of all people, should know just how damn difficult the British state could make it for Ireland yet they still mouth off about neutrality like we even have the capacity to defend it.

What are you saying, here? Difficult as in economic billigerence? Difficult as in withdrawing airspace protection? Difficult as in literal militaristic sabre rattling against Ireland?



My position on Irish neutrality is that I don't want Ireland to sign up wholesale to wars of aggression by an EU military. It was bad enough that we let the U.S. use Shannon during the Iraq war. Defend ourselves from an invading power? Absolutely. Be part of a force that destabilises and commits 'collateral' killings in some foreign land? Absolutely not.

Junkyard Tom

briany wrote: »

What are you saying, here? Difficult as in economic billigerence? Difficult as in withdrawing airspace protection? Difficult as in literal militaristic sabre rattling against Ireland?

All of the above potentially.

My position on Irish neutrality is that I don't want Ireland to sign up wholesale to wars of aggression by an EU military. It was bad enough that we let the U.S. use Shannon during the Iraq war. Defend ourselves from an invading power? Absolutely. Be part of a force that destabilises and commits 'collateral' killings in some foreign land? Absolutely not.

Any defence cooperation should only be with regards to internal European security. NATO should be replaced by an EU pact. The EU is practically toothless when it comes to Washington's statecraft. See: Nordstream 2.

oscarBravo

briany wrote: »

My position on Irish neutrality is that I don't want Ireland to sign up wholesale to wars of aggression by an EU military.

When has it ever been suggested that the purpose of an EU military would be wars of aggression?

sandbelter

Leroy42 wrote: »

So they face the US with some level of equality. The UK, or any other member, that leaves and faces the US alone will always be in a position of relative weakness. Suddenly, you getting into their market is far more important than them getting into yours and as such the balance of power is shifted.

When I was working in wall street I used to hear they saying "big dogs eat first" a lot. This is the attitude the US will bring to any free trade negotiation....the UK will become very familiar with what that really means.

briany

oscarBravo wrote: »

When has it ever been suggested that the purpose of an EU military would be wars of aggression?

If you read my post, I was responding to the suggestion that Ireland ceases to be neutral. I wasn't responding to the suggestion that an EU force would wage wars of aggression, but I did say this is a scenario I wouldn't support, should the proposed force ever come into existence, especially in the instance where Irish soldiers were partaking.

oscarBravo

briany wrote: »

If you read my post, I was responding to the suggestion that Ireland ceases to be neutral.

Fair enough. I'd take exception to the idea that Ireland is neutral in any meaningful way, but I'd agree that if we're to be formally part of a military alliance, it should be one with an exclusive focus on defence and peacekeeping.

Given that the EU has, since its inception, been all about peacekeeping, I wouldn't have any major concerns on that front.

Robert McGrath

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd take exception to the idea that Ireland is neutral in any meaningful way, but I'd agree that if we're to be formally part of a military alliance, it should be one with an exclusive focus on defence and peacekeeping.

Given that the EU has, since its inception, been all about peacekeeping, I wouldn't have any major concerns on that front.

Slightly off topic and I don’t know if this has been referred to already, but Garrett Fitzgerald’s article on Irish “neutrality” from 20 years ago is really excellent:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/myth-of-irish-neutrality-not-borne-out-by-historical-fact-1.177385%3fmode=amp

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Do people here genuinely think that the UK would allow sub-standard food in if they go the No-Deal route.

By definition, what they allow in will have to have met their standards.




Issue is on whether those standards will be lowered/relaxed relative to what they are now!

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

By definition, what they allow in will have to have met their standards.




Issue is on whether those standards will be lowered/relaxed relative to what they are now!

Exactly, why would the UK want to import products that are less safe than what is currently available.