Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

The European Commission has approved the Government's National Broadband Plan, saying it complies with EU state aid rules.

The decision means one of the final hurdles preventing the State from signing the contract with the preferred bidder, National Broadband Ireland, has been overcome.

This is one of the issues that evolved with the Brexit campaign, the idea that national governments must appeal to a higher authority - in this case, the European Commission - for "approval" of an action a nation-state has every independent right to make.

I'm not suggesting that pooled sovereignty is always a bad thing, but the idea that the EC has this much power over national governments - and not unrealistic to suggest more power in the future - is what is turning many sensible people against this project of power.

National government become sub-national governments. It's not something I approve of.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

This is one of the issues that evolved with the Brexit campaign, the idea that national governments must appeal to a higher authority - in this case, the European Commission - for "approval" of an action a nation-state has every independent right to make.

So, by extension, it is (should be) Scotland's right to declare independence without seeking approval from the "higher authority" in Westminster?

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So for purely clarificative purposes, are you willing to admit that there are no benefits, no positives - nothing worth considering - when it comes to leaving the European Union?

I am, yes. There's no benefit. None. Nothing.


Not one identifiable benefit. Because if there was the Tories would have it placed front and center and blasting it from the rooftops.

Instead we have 'brexit means brexit'

So much win! It almost makes it easy to mock rich wealthy stupid people. Because that's what Tories are always have been.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that pooled sovereignty is always a bad thing, but the idea that the EC has this much power over national governments - and not unrealistic to suggest more power in the future - is what is turning many sensible people against this project of power.

Hang on a second. Didn't you argue previously that protectionism is bad and contrary to your "free market" principles? Now you've just cited an EU measure that prevents protectionism as an example of something you object to. So today you're in favour of protectionism, and governments should be allowed defend themselves against free market forces. I'm confused ... :rolleyes:

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

This is one of the issues that evolved with the Brexit campaign, the idea that national governments must appeal to a higher authority - in this case, the European Commission - for "approval" of an action a nation-state has every independent right to make.

I'm not suggesting that pooled sovereignty is always a bad thing, but the idea that the EC has this much power over national governments - and not unrealistic to suggest more power in the future - is what is turning many sensible people against this project of power.

National government become sub-national governments. It's not something I approve of.

Then you're ruling out all trade deals as well because they are tied with WTO and the WTO has the full right to judge against a country if it's considered unfair state aid to a company or sector. Because that's exactly what the ruling above was about; if it is illegal state aid or not and that's exactly the same thing WTO looks at.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

So, by extension, it is (should be) Scotland's right to declare independence without seeking approval from the "higher authority" in Westminster?

I've already stated that, if Scotland decides to leave the UK, they have every right to and that result should be respected - dare I say, even if it's 52% to 48%.

The difference with the UK is that it is a union of nations, with a defined history, and a referendum result held only just 5 years ago which approved the union.

Had Scotland opted for independence 5 years ago, I wouldn't have remedied some excuse; I would say that the result *must* be implemented at all costs.

listermint wrote: »

I am, yes. There's no benefit. None. Nothing.

Not one identifiable benefit. Because if there was the Tories would have it placed front and center and blasting it from the rooftops.

Instead we have 'brexit means brexit'

So much win! It almost makes it easy to mock rich wealthy stupid people. Because that's what Tories are always have been.

Can't you see the lack of objectivity with that type of answer?

The idea behind objectivity is that you can sit back, almost independently, and assess the pros and cons of a given position.

I can do it. There are advantages and disadvantages of Brexit, just as there are of Remain.

It's not a math question - where 2+2 always equals 4.

In political questions, it's a multidimensional answer and the objective among us can appreciate this reality. It's entirely possible, indeed normal, to at least admit one benefit of Brexit whilst elucidating the 99 negative aspects of Brexit (from your perspective).

The fact that you are 100% one sided suggests to me that you have no interest in the truth, but that what matters most is the adherence to dogma. Perhaps you can't see it, but then again, Islamic Jihadists are 100% adherent to their view but it's us - those of use more objective - who can see where they "may" be going wrong.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

So for purely clarificative purposes, are you willing to admit that there are no benefits, no positives - nothing worth considering - when it comes to leaving the European Union?

That is very much a matter of opinion and priorities. If you want to undermine workers rights, food production standards or safety regulations then there are certainly advantages.

The point however is that Brexit supporters are no longer trying to present Brexit as beneficial for the UK. You get the odd throwback who still tries to trot out some of the tired old lines from the referendum campaign about the wonderful trade deals the UK will make, but they have been so widely discredited by now that most have given up on that and simply stick to the "will of the people" mantra and desperate sounding threats of civil disorder if they dont get what they want.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference with the UK is that it is a union of nations, with a defined history, and a referendum result held only just 5 years ago which approved the union.

(a) The EU is also a union of nations with a defined history; and
(b) the referendum 5 years ago was decided in favour of continued unity against a threat of being excluded from the EU.
But the question now is whether (assuming the SNP are returned as the majority party in Scotland) that country has the right to decide for itself that it's time to ask the question again, without needing approval from the "higher authority".

Deleted User wrote: »

There are advantages and disadvantages of Brexit

Give us three objective advantages of Brexit. No "opinion" or "belief" but objective, factual advantages.

Bet you can't do it.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That is very much a matter of opinion and priorities. If you want to undermine workers rights, food production standards or safety regulations then there are certainly advantages.

The point however is that Brexit supporters are no longer trying to present Brexit as beneficial for the UK. You get the odd throwback who still tries to trot out some of the tired old lines from the referendum campaign about the wonderful trade deals the UK will make, but they have been so widely discredited by now that most have given up on that and simply stick to the "will of the people" mantra and desperate sounding threats of civil disorder if they dont get what they want.

Why is it the European Union attracts this special attention that other parts of the successful globe are unaffected by?

For example: South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, United States, Canada, Switzerland - all of which are outside the confines of the European Union, but which are prospering in their own unique ways. (I'm not suggesting these countries are perfect, but they are in their own way successful).

Why do we have to assume the UK, just because it happens to be parked next to the European Union, will fail miserably as a country and, dare I say, become a second-rate country (to quote Donald Tusk today) in the months and years to come?

Where is the evidence for this? Leaving aside political preferences, isn't it just fear-mongering nonsense?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do we have to assume the UK, just because it happens to be parked next to the European Union, will fail miserably as a country and, dare I say, become a second-rate country (to quote Donald Tusk today) in the months and years to come?

It's only Leavers that say the country will fail, when trying to attribute blame to Remainers.

Otherwise, GB without a Free Trade Agreement with it's largest food supplier and a key player in GB industry's supply lines, and a country hugely dependent on Single Market access for its services industry will struggle to maintain its current position - especially when all the other countries that you mention are actively engaged in strengthening their alignment with the EU (except the US, of course)

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's only Leavers that say the country will fail, when trying to attribute blame to Remainers.

So the UK can succeed outside of the European Union?

(As a leaver myself, I have never doubted that the UK can/could succeed outside of the EU)

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

So the UK can succeed outside of the European Union?

What do you mean by "succeed"? If you mean "keep the lights on and avoid everyone dying in a famine" well yeah. If North Korea can do it, so can a no-deal GB.

But if you mean "prosper, to a greater extent than today" - probably not, because that would require GB adopting one or more of the strategies chosen by the countries that you mention - alignment with EU standards (Switzerland), FTA with the EU (Switzerland, Singapore, Korea), Freedom-of-Movement (Switzerland) pooled sovereignty between adjacent states (Canada, Australia, the US) ... all of which you say the British electorate voted to reject when they voted Leave.

But back to the question which you refuse to answer: give us three objective advantages of Brexit. Not "opinion" or "belief" but objective, factual advantages.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it the European Union attracts this special attention that other parts of the successful globe are unaffected by?

For example: South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, United States, Canada, Switzerland - all of which are outside the confines of the European Union, but which are prospering in their own unique ways. (I'm not suggesting these countries are perfect, but they are in their own way successful).

Why do we have to assume the UK, just because it happens to be parked next to the European Union, will fail miserably as a country and, dare I say, become a second-rate country (to quote Donald Tusk today) in the months and years to come?

Where is the evidence for this? Leaving aside political preferences, isn't it just fear-mongering nonsense?

The question you should be asking is how will the UK do compared to if it remained a member of the EU. There is no evidence to support the idea that the UK erecting barriers to trade with its nearest and most important market is a strategy for success.

Will the UK fail miserably as a country? Probably not. Will it do better than if it remained a member of the EU? Probably not. Most likely it will fall behind and underperform compared to continuing membership and will likely end up seaking close alignment with the EU in years to come to mitgate as much damage as possible.

You mention other developed economies outside the EU and ignore the many poor countries outside the EU. It is possible to be successful outside the EU, it is possible to be poor outside the EU. What I do not see in any of this is an arguement that leaving the EU is a good idea for the UK. If you think the UK will do well, you should really explain why. Pointing out the existance of a handful of prosperous countries outside the EU is not an argument that leaving the EU will be beneficial for the UK.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

But back to the question which you refuse to answer: give us three objective advantages of Brexit. Not "opinion" or "belief" but objective, factual advantages.

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled.

2 - I believe it's better to have de-centralised power. In fact, the more decentralised, the better. Given the European Union is about a centralised power structure (not just of power, but of nation-states), with a parliament and a council and a president, and all the trappings of a State, it is the opposite of the type of political structure I would like to see. The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities. And with the added complexity of Merkel's request that as many migrants from Africa and the Middle East should come, the problem as only amplified further.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage.

An advantage in what sence? On some objective basis, or just because less people from other countries around the place makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

2 - I believe it's better to have de-centralised power. In fact, the more decentralised, the better. Given the European Union is about a centralised power structure (not just of power, but of nation-states), with a parliament and a council and a president, and all the trappings of a State, it is the opposite of the type of political structure I would like to see. The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition.

This does not follow. Small nation states can have very centralised and corrupt power structures, just look at North Korea. It is not a given that the EU is about a centralised power structure, infact I would say the opposit is true. It is a multi-layered power structure. The EU is a very good example of a large political entity with difuse and decentralised power structures. The principal of subsiduarity is intended to put power at the lowest effective level. You want to replace this with a structure where all power is vested in one body, the house of commons.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that it's culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of cultural integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked, all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities.

This is an opinion, and one that I do not agree with. It is far feom an objective benefit.

gooch2k9

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled.

2 - I believe it's better to have de-centralised power. In fact, the more decentralised, the better. Given the European Union is about a centralised power structure (not just of power, but of nation-states), with a parliament and a council and a president, and all the trappings of a State, it is the opposite of the type of political structure I would like to see. The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

Can I query points one and three there.

Point one: given the UK has had the ability to apply controls to date to both EU and non-EU immigration and hardly bother, do you see leaving the EU having a significant difference? Certainly they will gain greater control of EU immigration but their record to date would lead me to believe they won't utilise it.

Point three: From what I have seen EU migrants integrate quite well, with it being non-EU migrants who don't. You don't get areas dominated by Polish people for example in the same way you do with some south east Asian nationalities.

gooch2k9

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Point three: From what I have seen EU migrants integrate quite well, with it being non-EU migrants who don't. You don't get areas dominated by Polish people for example in the same way you do with some south east Asian nationalities.

Okay, you've raised some fair points.

I'm curious to learn why you believe that "non-EU migrants don't" integrate "quite as well?"

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why is it the European Union attracts this special attention that other parts of the successful globe are unaffected by?

For example: South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, United States, Canada, Switzerland - all of which are outside the confines of the European Union, but which are prospering in their own unique ways. (I'm not suggesting these countries are perfect, but they are in their own way successful).

Why do we have to assume the UK, just because it happens to be parked next to the European Union, will fail miserably as a country and, dare I say, become a second-rate country (to quote Donald Tusk today) in the months and years to come?

Where is the evidence for this? Leaving aside political preferences, isn't it just fear-mongering nonsense?

All.

Literally all of the countries you listed hitched their trailor very closely to larger countries or economic entities.

Are you trying to make a case against brexit if yes then you are doing an absolute fine job sir.

Excellent

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

What do you mean by "succeed"? If you mean "keep the lights on and avoid everyone dying in a famine" well yeah. If North Korea can do it, so can a no-deal GB.

Yeah , about that.


Brexit is taking focus off big things like keeping the lights on in a literal sense.

The UK is a nett importer of electricity, a lot of it from France. Also more than a quarter of the electricity produced in Scotland is exported to the rest of the UK. The old nukes are going offline and most of the planned new ones aren't being build. We've heard about the stopgap floating power plant plans for NI too.



Someone should tell Priti Patel that mocking is catching.

50% of UK potatoes are rotting in the ground because of the floods.



Brexit is a never ending car crash.

gooch2k9

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, you've raised some fair points.

I'm curious to learn why you believe that "non-EU migrants don't" integrate "quite as well?"

Mainly from my own experience of such communities here in NI. They tend to stick together, not unlike the way Irish people have previously and still do. Which isn't an issue in itself but stifles integration.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

An advantage in what sence? On some objective basis, or just because less people from other countries around the place makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

This does not follow. Small nation states can have very centralised and corrupt power structures, just look at North Korea. It is not a given that the EU is about a centralised power structure, infact I would say the opposit is true. It is a multi-layered power structure. The EU is a very good example of a large political entity with difuse and decentralised power structures. The principal of subsiduarity is intended to put power at the lowest effective level. You want to replace this with a structure where all power is vested in one body, the house of commons.

This is an opinion, and one that I do not agree with. It is far feom an objective benefit.

Really? This is the best you can do?

Okay, I'll respond:

1 - "having less foreign people" is nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that immigration matters, a lot in fact, but that a country has the right to control the quality and quantity of people entering that country. I believe immigration is a good thing, but only when controlled.

2 - Multi-layered power structure is how you interpret that; I see the same structure as too distant from ordinary people. That's just a difference between us. The idea that the EU is a "decentralised" power is something I've never actually heard from a Remainer before! That's quite new on me, it might take some time to digest.

3 - No, I do not want all powers invested in the House of Commons; I believe far, far more powers should be divested to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, than is currently the case. I think the HoC has far too much power, and rather than dominating the UK, the UK should function as a Power of Four nations, rather than what it is today. To get there, though, requires some quite extraordinary political manoevures.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Really? This is the best you can do?

Okay, I'll respond:

1 - "having less foreign people" is nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that immigration matters, a lot in fact, but that a country has the right to control the quality and quantity of people entering that country. I believe immigration is a good thing, but only when controlled.

2 - Multi-layered power structure is how you interpret that; I see the same structure as too distant from ordinary people. That's just a difference between us. The idea that the EU is a "decentralised" power is something I've never actually heard from a Remainer before! That's quite new on me, it might take some time to digest.

3 - No, I do not want all powers invested in the House of Commons; I believe far, far more powers should be divested to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, than is currently the case. I think the HoC has far too much power, and rather than dominating the UK, the UK should function as a Power of Four nations, rather than what it is today. To get there, though, requires some quite extraordinary political manoevures.

So you believe in the break up of the UK then. Each can be strong on their own. Which is what anyone can ascertain from your post.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage.

2 - The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. .... Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

Fair play to you for finally answering the question.

1. What advantage is it to have "complete and utter control" of your borders when successive (mostly Conservative) British governments have refused to exercise the control they already had/have? And how does leaving the EU enable the UK to better control immigration from non-EU countries, when the "worst" kind of immigrant (see para 3) is typically a non-EU migrant, and the type that is currently increasing in number because of the UK's decision to Leave?

2. The Conservative Party under Theresa May, passed legislation to re-centralise powers devolved to the constituent nations of the UK, and to an extent far greater than those areas of British sovereignty pooled with other EU member states. If, by your definition, the UK is heading rapidly towards becoming either a facist or communist state (presumably depending on the result of the next election) how does leaving the EU change that?

3. At what point do you draw the line under "culture". Should WHSmith shred every Christmas card that bears an image of a Victorian/Dickensian Christmas, seeing as these are essentially an import from Prussia? Should we ban all words in English of Norman origin? How about insisting that all British children learn Scottish céilidh dances and play the bagpipes instead of the recorder, because that's a more British tradition than singing "Wheels on the Bus". Obviously pizza, pasta, curry and sweet-n-sour pork are going to be off the menu. A huge amount of mathematics and medicine is based on Arab-Islamic study, and oh, those Gothic cathedrals dotted around the English landscape - well, they're ... Gothic, not English.

Do you seriously believe that leaving the EU will stop British people importing cultural aspects of the US (such as "Black Friday") or Japan (Japanese character tatoos) or West Africa (samba dancing)? In fact, what you have described is Chinese-style social conditioning, which would require intensive surveillance of everyone who walks that Green And Pleasant Land.

Is that what Leave voters voted for in the referendum?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

So you believe in the break up of the UK then. Each can be strong on their own. Which is what anyone can ascertain from your post.

I've stated, probably at least four times now, that the UK should have far more devolved powers.

If one of those powers opts to leave, we must - at all costs - respect that vote. Otherwise we may risk a return to violence.

I'm not against the breakup of the UK. I just believe that if the UK wants to exist going forward, it should probably divest more powers rather than centralizing power within the HoC.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've stated, probably at least four times now, that the UK should have far more devolved powers.

If one of those powers opts to leave, we must - at all costs - respect that vote. Otherwise we may risk a return to violence.

I'm not against the breakup of the UK. I just believe that if the UK wants to exist going forward, it should probably divest more powers rather than centralizing power within the HoC.

Okay let's have a vote next year for each of the countries. Let's say one month after brexit.



Two months to give it time to bed in.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I've stated, probably at least four times now, that the UK should have far more devolved powers.

If one of those powers opts to leave, we must - at all costs - respect that vote.

OK, I think we can all accept that you have indeed been clear on that point. But it's not an advantage of Brexit, is it? It's entirely a domestic UK matter. And it also puts you at odds with Johnson, in whose speech - which you described as "excellent" - he warned us several times that a vote for Corbyn would see the Scots given a second IndyRef.

At some point, though, you've got to stop devolving powers, otherwise you literally end up with every person above the age of reason deciding for themselves how to live their life. Where do you draw the line? And at what point do the advantages of acting collectively justify ceding power to a governing body?

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

1 - "having less foreign people" is nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that immigration matters, a lot in fact, but that a country has the right to control the quality and quantity of people entering that country. I believe immigration is a good thing, but only when controlled.

You might not like it, but having less foreign people around is exactly why a lot of people oppose FOM.
As for controling the quantity and quality of people entering the country, should the state also get involved in controling the quantity and quality of its citizens being born? Do the rights of the state extend that far?

2 - Multi-layered power structure is how you interpret that; I see the same structure as too distant from ordinary people. That's just a difference between us. The idea that the EU is a "decentralised" power is something I've never actually heard from a Remainer before! That's quite new on me, it might take some time to digest.

It should be quite obvious, the EU does not even have one leader. It has a president of the European Council, a President of the European Commission, a President of the European Parliament, and if that were not enough, it also has a rotating six month Presidency between member states. It is terribly defuse, its driving force is a committee of the heads of government in each member state which works on the basis of consensus. That they ever get anything done is frankly astoundng.

3 - No, I do not want all powers invested in the House of Commons; I believe far, far more powers should be divested to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, than is currently the case. I think the HoC has far too much power, and rather than dominating the UK, the UK should function as a Power of Four nations, rather than what it is today. To get there, though, requires some quite extraordinary political manoevures.

Constitutionally all power is vested in Parliament. Any powers delegated to devolved administrations are just that, merely delegated from Parliament. The power of those devolved administrations can be striped away by the simple passing of a vote in Parliament.

The UK is a vastly more centralised power structure than the EU is. Perhaps you would like this to change and for the UK to become less centralised, but that has nothing to do with Brexit.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's far, far more likely that you are so wedded to your views that you cannot possibly see any benefit, none whatsoever, of a proper Brexit.

The UK must always remain in the EU, and that must never change. That is your view and you're entitled to that.

But there's also the question of dogmatism, almost religious in nature. Many here, throughout the many pages I've discussed this question, have brought up issues such as lies around the single market by Farage and others, yet all the evidence I adduced shows that there was almost unanimity on the question that the UK should leave the single market.

Rather than admit they were wrong, they ignore the evidence I adduce and move onto another problem with leaving the single market.

That's not objective accuracy; that's the blind adherence to dogma.

It's quite funny to witness, too, because many others here will accuse me of blind adherence to Brexit (even though I have infinitely admitted weaknesses within its leaders, the campaign, and the actual delivery of Brexit), but, from the other side, they are so arrogantly confident that they are absolutely right about absolutely everything - now, in the past, and eternal to the future - that no possible sense of perspective is sought.

Cool story bro. Nice word salad.

So, tell me again, what are the tangible and quantifiable benefits to leaving the EU?

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So for purely clarificative purposes, are you willing to admit that there are no benefits, no positives - nothing worth considering - when it comes to leaving the European Union?

Imreoir is selling the status quo. You're selling the change in status. It's up to you to tell us the benefits.

So, what are the tangible and and quantifiable benefits to leaving the EU?

A Dub in Glasgo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Constitutionally all power is vested in Parliament. Any powers delegated to devolved administrations are just that, merely delegated from Parliament. The power of those devolved administrations can be striped away by the simple passing of a vote in Parliament.

This is a very good point and I think the Tories are after devolution in Scotland because the people of Scotland are not voting the way the Tories like