Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You are precisely hoping for a no deal brexit but at the same time hoping johnson can negotiate a free trade arrangement. Are you ever so slightly confused about how this process works?

At the risk of seeming to personalize this debate, i wish to say that my view of eskimohunt is that of a Contrarian; Someone who seems to delight in taking an opposing view to the majority position

• Yesterday he argued repeatedly about dilution of culture due to mass immigration. When i pointed out that these views were in line with BNP manifesto policy, he refused to retract them. Never having actually addressed this issue, he moved on
• Today he has migrated to hoping that the conservative party win a massive majority and 'get Brexit done'
• Now he is teetering on the edge of favoring no deal Brexit, or, as he reminds us, 'Clean Break Brexit' ala Nigel Farage

I think eskimohunt, simply likes arguing, a contrarian. Im happy to discuss as are others im sure, politiely and firmly, if he answers the questions, which I, and others have asked

eskimohunt

Do you favor a no-deal Brexit? and if so, Why?

If arguing in favor of No-Deal, explain please how this is better than an orderly Brexit by way of a deal?

And what could you explain, if anything, would you believe to be positive about such a no deal Brexit. for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

What of the effect this will have on the Republic of Ireland, the GFA, and cross border trade?

Do any of these issues concern you?


Respectfully

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

At the risk of seeming to personalize this debate, i wish to say that my view of eskimohunt is that of a Contrarian; Someone who seems to delight in taking an opposing view to the majority position

• Yesterday he argued repeatedly about dilution of culture due to mass immigration. When i pointed out that these views were in line with BNP manifesto policy, he refused to retract them. Never having actually addressed this issue, he moved on
• Today he has migrated to hoping that the conservative party win a massive majority and 'get Brexit done'
• Now he is teetering on the edge of favoring no deal Brexit, or, as he reminds us, 'Clean Break Brexit' ala Nigel Farage

I think eskimohunt, simply likes arguing, a contrarian. Im happy to discuss as are others im sure, politiely and firmly, if he answers the questions, which I, and others have asked

eskimohunt

Do you favor a no-deal Brexit? and if so, Why?

If arguing in favor of No-Deal, explain please how this is better than an orderly Brexit by way of a deal?

And what could you explain, if anything, would you believe to be positive about such a no deal Brexit. for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

What of the effect this will have on the Republic of Ireland, the GFA, and cross border trade?

Do any of these issues concern you?


Respectfully

So, when you disagree with someone, you go on the personal? ("minority" here, on the forum, not in the UK, as shown by 45%+ for the Johnson Deal). I think that's a bizarre way to have a productive dialogue.

Regardless of your personal issue (and I hope you can resolve it soon), the answer to your first few questions are as follows:

• In terms of migration, I answered that question already - namely, that I won't retract my view and that I stand by it and I robustly defended it yesterday. Mod instructions were issued that we are not to discuss this issue further. That's the only reason I didn't proceed with that aspect of this discussion.
• Yes, I have always hoped for a Conservative majority; that's consistent throughout all my posts on this subject.
• I favour Boris Johnson's deal. If, however, the negotiations in the next phase do not go so well, I do hope that No Deal is put back on the table. Again, I've always espoused this view.

Now, in terms of your bolded questions:

• Regarding favouring No Deal Brexit, see my answer above.
• I don't believe it's the most orderly, but it manifests as the purest form of Brexit. If the Johnson Deal and subsequent negotiations don't approximate toward a legitimate Brexit, then I would advocate a No Deal departure.
• Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.
• True, there may be implications re: trade, but that's true also of the Johnson Deal with this border down the Irish Sea, effectively.

I don't have time to comprehensive answer 8 questions put to me, so I answered them as tersely as possible above to sketch out my perspective.

Of course, your view disagrees with mine - in fact, quite consistently so - but I'll refrain from referring to you as a contrarian.

fash

liamtech wrote: »

At the risk of seeming to personalize this debate, i wish to say that my view of eskimohunt is that of a Contrarian; Someone who seems to delight in taking an opposing view to the majority position

• Yesterday he argued repeatedly about dilution of culture due to mass immigration. When i pointed out that these views were in line with BNP manifesto policy, he refused to retract them. Never having actually addressed this issue, he moved on
• Today he has migrated to hoping that the conservative party win a massive majority and 'get Brexit done'
• Now he is teetering on the edge of favoring no deal Brexit, or, as he reminds us, 'Clean Break Brexit' ala Nigel Farage

I think eskimohunt, simply likes arguing, a contrarian. Im happy to discuss as are others im sure, politiely and firmly, if he answers the questions, which I, and others have asked

eskimohunt

Do you favor a no-deal Brexit? and if so, Why?

If arguing in favor of No-Deal, explain please how this is better than an orderly Brexit by way of a deal?

And what could you explain, if anything, would you believe to be positive about such a no deal Brexit. for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

What of the effect this will have on the Republic of Ireland, the GFA, and cross border trade?

Do any of these issues concern you?


Respectfully

I would also note that he answers none of the questions I've asked.

fash

fash wrote: »

I would also note that he answers none of the questions I've asked.

The last question you directly asked me was 5 pages ago and was on the topic of immigration. We've been instructed to avoid that subject as it may descend into a general topic on immigration, hence why I didn't answer that.

Whilst you've made some comments on some of my previous replies, I fail to find one question, unless you'd like to fashion one now?

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

So, when you disagree with someone, you go on the personal? ("minority" here, on the forum, not in the UK, as shown by 45%+ for the Johnson Deal). I think that's a bizarre way to have a productive dialogue.

Regardless of your personal issue (and I hope you can resolve it soon), the answer to your first few questions are as follows:

• In terms of migration, I answered that question already - namely, that I won't retract my view and that I stand by it and I robustly defended it yesterday. Mod instructions were issued that we are not to discuss this issue further. That's the only reason I didn't proceed with that aspect of this discussion.
• Yes, I have always hoped for a Conservative majority; that's consistent throughout all my posts on this subject.
• I favour Boris Johnson's deal. If, however, the negotiations in the next phase do not go so well, I do hope that No Deal is put back on the table. Again, I've always espoused this view.

Now, in terms of your bolded questions:

• Regarding favouring No Deal Brexit, see my answer above.
• I don't believe it's the most orderly, but it manifests as the purest form of Brexit. If the Johnson Deal and subsequent negotiations don't approximate toward a legitimate Brexit, then I would advocate a No Deal departure.
• Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.
• True, there may be implications re: trade, but that's true also of the Johnson Deal with this border down the Irish Sea, effectively.

I don't have time to comprehensive answer 8 questions put to me, so I answered them as tersely as possible above to sketch out my perspective.

Of course, your view disagrees with mine - in fact, quite consistently so - but I'll refrain from referring to you as a contrarian.

Just to pick out a point re a hard border, the EU and Irish government have never said they would not create a hard border between NI and GB, infact they have advocated exactly such a hard border as a fallback position if all else fails to ensure the land border between NI and Ireland stays open.

By clean break Brexit, do you mean that the UK should also repudiate the Withdrawl Agreement it had previously ratified or would you expect the provisions of the Withdrawl Agreement to remain in force regardless of what happens in the next phase of talks on trade.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

By clean break Brexit, do you mean that the UK should also repudiate the Withdrawl Agreement it had previously ratified or would you expect the provisions of the Withdrawl Agreement to remain in force regardless of what happens in the next phase of talks on trade.

I think what's far more likely, and pragmatic, is that the Johnson Deal passes and an amicable settlement is arranged/compromised and suits both the UK and EU.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what's far more likely, and pragmatic, is that the Johnson Deal passes and an amicable settlement is arranged/compromised and suits both the UK and EU.

Indeed, though Brexiteers will probably not like it very much.
But back to the question, do you think repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement is part of the clean break brexit tou mentioned, or will the provisions of that agreement still stand regardless of the outcome of the trade talks?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

[*]I favour Boris Johnson's deal. If, however, the negotiations in the next phase do not go so well, I do hope that No Deal is put back on the table. Again, I've always espoused this view.

I only pick out this particular point as you seem chronically unable to grasp this point. No deal is already on the table. Its not some kind of fall back for the uk if (or when) the negotiations start to break down. Its the default position and has always been the default position.

Also, by brexiteers own logic it is an utterly disastrous scenario as whatever leverage they pretend to have with no deal on the table is then categorically absent when it becomes the reality and you then still have to negotiate a free trade deal from a position of appalling weakness. The eu gets the pick of the deck while uk is left with the jokers.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Indeed, though Brexiteers will probably not like it very much.
But back to the question, do you think repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement is part of the clean break brexit tou mentioned, or will the provisions of that agreement still stand regardless of the outcome of the trade talks?

Hardcore Brexiteers may not, but they're a minority.

Conservative Party was on 35 percent or so, even when Farage declared that he would contest every seat.

So, the vast majority of Brexiteers are willing to support the deal, get Brexit done, and move onto the next phase of negotiations.

The deal is a fair compromise, and if the EU are satisfied with the deal, then so should Remainers too.

It's the Remain side who refuses to budge, to compromise and to come together; as always, dragging things out til kingdom come.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardcore Brexiteers may not, but they're a minority.

Conservative Party was on 35 percent or so, even when Farage declared that he would contest every seat.

So, the vast majority of Brexiteers are willing to support the deal, get Brexit done, and move onto the next phase of negotiations.

The deal is a fair compromise, and if the EU are satisfied with the deal, then so should Remainers too.

It's the Remain side who refuses to budge, to compromise and to come together; as always, dragging things out til kingdom come.

Thats nice, but back to my question: do you think repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement is part of the clean break brexit you mentioned, or should the provisions of that agreement still stand regardless of the outcome of the trade talks?

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Thats nice, but back to my question: do you think repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement is part of the clean break brexit you mentioned, or should the provisions of that agreement still stand regardless of the outcome of the trade talks?

I'll determine my answer to that specific question depending on what transpires over the forthcoming 6 month period.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll determine my answer to that specific question depending on what transpires over the forthcoming 6 month period.

To clarify, the assumption is that the trade talks break down and no deal on trade can be agreed by the end of 2020. In that case you have said you support a so called clean break Brexit, does this clean break include repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement in your opinion, or should the UK abide by the terms of the WA in that scenario?

Leroy42

Eskimo, why do you think that a new tory majority is the answer when they already had a majority and failed to deliver? Simply because Johnson is now the leader?

So you think the likes of Baker, IDS, JRM and many others will now simply give up all their principles on Brexit simply to get the very thing they said wasn't Brexit done?

And remember Johnson stated that he would never allow a separation of NI. Yet he not only gave in on that, he removed any realistic possibility of ever getting it, and thus acknowledging that the "alternative arrangement" which were touted by them all will never be achieved.

So at what point to you start to question their statements? Have you noticed that at no point has Johnson actually stated what positives Brexit will bring? You would think that after 3 years, after being so against TM and everything she did, that he would have pretty detailed explanations. But so far nothing. No plans, no details, no ideas of how to change the economy. He has given no indication of what new countries and industries BRexit will deliver. He has given no indication what he even sees as the overall goal.

Just "Get Brexit done" is no better than "Brexit means Brexit" and you are cheerleading a leader with no plan.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

So, when you disagree with someone, you go on the personal? ("minority" here, on the forum, not in the UK, as shown by 45%+ for the Johnson Deal). I think that's a bizarre way to have a productive dialogue.

Regardless of your personal issue (and I hope you can resolve it soon), the answer to your first few questions are as follows:

• In terms of migration, I answered that question already - namely, that I won't retract my view and that I stand by it and I robustly defended it yesterday. Mod instructions were issued that we are not to discuss this issue further. That's the only reason I didn't proceed with that aspect of this discussion.
• Yes, I have always hoped for a Conservative majority; that's consistent throughout all my posts on this subject.
• I favour Boris Johnson's deal. If, however, the negotiations in the next phase do not go so well, I do hope that No Deal is put back on the table. Again, I've always espoused this view.

Now, in terms of your bolded questions:

• Regarding favouring No Deal Brexit, see my answer above.
• I don't believe it's the most orderly, but it manifests as the purest form of Brexit. If the Johnson Deal and subsequent negotiations don't approximate toward a legitimate Brexit, then I would advocate a No Deal departure.
• Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.
• True, there may be implications re: trade, but that's true also of the Johnson Deal with this border down the Irish Sea, effectively.

I don't have time to comprehensive answer 8 questions put to me, so I answered them as tersely as possible above to sketch out my perspective.

Of course, your view disagrees with mine - in fact, quite consistently so - but I'll refrain from referring to you as a contrarian.

In terms of personalizing this debate, i went to great lengths to give my view as politely as i could. I did not denounce you in any derogatory way. A position of 'Contrarian' in any debate is often a useful one. I would remind you that the late great Christopher Hitchens was often referred to as a Contrarian, a term which he relished. While i find your position very damaging, and your views divisive, at no point did i specifically attack your right to speak your mind, as a contrarian, if you will.

In terms of your position as such, I have not seen your views backed up with hard facts, figures or supporting evidence. Therefore i would ask you to consider doing so as the discussion continues.

As to your views, prior to the mod warning yesterday, i spelled out in clear English the fact that your position on immigration, and the supposed link it has to 'damaging cultural integrity' (dilute was the word you use but the meaning was clear), i invited you to retract- you very clearly, in plain english, refused to do so. All i can say is that your views are fairly in line with hard right thinking on Immigration. Sadly as time moves on these views may well become a majority position within the UK Conservative party, as the Tory's move further right in their ideology. I dare say that is probably why you so readily support them


Your views on dealing with the EU are again in line with Conservative thinking on dealing with negotiating Brexit. I would simply argue, as many have both here, and around the world, that a No Deal Brexit will damage Britain, Northern Ireland, and we in Ireland will suffer collateral damage.

I don't believe it's the most orderly, but it manifests as the purest form of Brexit.

- referencing no deal

How can you judge the purity of Brexit? Was Deal, No Deal, Soft, Medium, Hard et al, on the Ballot paper in 2016?

Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.

While no one is talking about passport control on the border, it needs to be highlighted, as has been done many times, that the consequence of a No Deal Brexit would be an 'Economic Hard Border' around the six counties, which would severely damage industry and the Agri-Food sector on this island. No Deal means no agreement on how to proceed after an un-orderly exit

True, there may be implications re: trade, but that's true also of the Johnson Deal with this border down the Irish Sea, effectively.

Il save you the bother of calling me selfish when it comes to concern about the effect of brexit on Ireland as being more important on potential issues with regard to NI-GB trade - but we did not start this mess, and as a consequence we should not suffer from it. I regret that Unionism feels its under attack, but they did want Brexit - Non-essential Economic damage, caused by Brexit is just that - it is economic and industrial damage that need not have taken place with either a remain, or a softer Brexit

As to not calling me a contrarian, i thought long and hard before posting my opinion of you and your views. I remained polite and have explained that whether one believes contrarian to be an insult depends entirely on ones point of view. therefore if you wish to refer to me as such, i welcome it

respectfully

McGiver

Deleted User wrote: »

• Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.

Untrue. Ireland will be legally obliged to establish a border between RoI and UK-NI if NI does not stay in the EU Customs Union and/or does not adhere to Single Market rules for goods.

McGiver

liamtech wrote: »

In terms of personalizing this debate, i went to great lengths to give my view as politely as i could. I did not denounce you in any derogatory way. A position of 'Contrarian' in any debate is often a useful one. I would remind you that the late great Christopher Hitchens was often referred to as a Contrarian, a term which he relished. While i find your position very damaging, and your views divisive, at no point did i specifically attack your right to speak your mind, as a contrarian, if you will.

In terms of your position as such, I have not seen your views backed up with hard facts, figures or supporting evidence. Therefore i would ask you to consider doing so as the discussion continues.

As to your views, prior to the mod warning yesterday, i spelled out in clear English the fact that your position on immigration, and the supposed link it has to 'damaging cultural integrity' (dilute was the word you use but the meaning was clear), i invited you to retract- you very clearly, in plain english, refused to do so. All i can say is that your views are fairly in line with hard right thinking on Immigration. Sadly as time moves on these views may well become a majority position within the UK Conservative party, as the Tory's move further right in their ideology. I dare say that is probably why you so readily support them


Your views on dealing with the EU are again in line with Conservative thinking on dealing with negotiating Brexit. I would simply argue, as many have both here, and around the world, that a No Deal Brexit will damage Britain, Northern Ireland, and we in Ireland will suffer collateral damage.

- referencing no deal

How can you judge the purity of Brexit? Was Deal, No Deal, Soft, Medium, Hard et al, on the Ballot paper in 2016?



While no one is talking about passport control on the border, it needs to be highlighted, as has been done many times, that the consequence of a No Deal Brexit would be an 'Economic Hard Border' around the six counties, which would severely damage industry and the Agri-Food sector on this island. No Deal means no agreement on how to proceed after an un-orderly exit



Il save you the bother of calling me selfish when it comes to concern about the effect of brexit on Ireland as being more important on potential issues with regard to NI-GB trade - but we did not start this mess, and as a consequence we should not suffer from it. I regret that Unionism feels its under attack, but they did want Brexit - Non-essential Economic damage, caused by Brexit is just that - it is economic and industrial damage that need not have taken place with either a remain, or a softer Brexit

As to not calling me a contrarian, i thought long and hard before posting my opinion of you and your views. I remained polite and have explained that whether one believes contrarian to be an insult depends entirely on ones point of view. therefore if you wish to refer to me as such, i welcome it

respectfully

I'm afraid you are wasting time logically arguing with a person whose arguments are based on a belief in abstract concepts and who is constantly moving goalposts. You cannot use rational arguments and achieve a conclusion if both parties do not use the same methodology i.e. using rational arguments supported by evidence, facts and data.

Spanish Eyes

Seems to me that Brexit has receded somewhat and has lost a lot of fizz now.

The GE I think will be a washout, I doubt many will be interested just coming up to Christmas. However who will a low turnout help?

What a load of mullarkey anyway. It is only a relatively small cohort that want full on Brexit anyway.

I'd love to say that the FPTP system has led to a big engagement in politics, but it is the opposite, so the electorate are left with soundbytes and the paper media to guide them now.

Those who are engaged know it is futile to take a rosette off a donkey in a safe seat, so why bother.

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The last question you directly asked me was 5 pages ago and was on the topic of immigration. We've been instructed to avoid that subject as it may descend into a general topic on immigration, hence why I didn't answer that.

Whilst you've made some comments on some of my previous replies, I fail to find one question, unless you'd like to fashion one now?

You said that Switzerland is outside the EU but that the May withdrawal agreement was "a form of remain"- which statement is correct? Please explain.
Do you accept that the UK is a lot more likely to break up then the EU within 2 decades?
I hope the following questions remain sufficiently within topic as I do not propose to follow up and if not that the mods can clarify/remove text- should general migration into UK be increased or decreased? Do you accept that EU migration is a net economic benefit to UK economy/public purse? Do you accept that EU citizens (secular, democratic, human rights leaning) are more likely to integrate than many of their replacements?
Do you accept that the UK fishing industry will literally be the first to be sacrificed by the UK - and then only to continue the current system - as part of an overall deal?
When you say you want a (I understand reasonably comprehensive - no quotas, no tariffs) FTA with the EU- do you accept that the UK must abide by EU geographic indications requirements? That UK must abide by LPF provisions? That UK cannot be given a better deal than others without triggering terms in other treaties regarding equal treatment?
Do you accept that increasing trade barriers reduces trade?
With which countries precisely do you think the UK will agree FTAs that the EU does not have/or where the EU has/will shortly have a deal, the UK will improve its deal?
Are you happy to sacrifice the Falklands to get a deal with Mercosur?
Are you happy to give unlimited visas to India to get a deal with India?
Are you happy to drop food standards (ractopamine, chlorinated chicken etc.) and pay US prices on drugs to get a deal with US?

listermint

New season of the crown out today. I realise it's such a popular show in the UK. Which is why the Russian spy storyline and the Queen and her husband's reaction to it are quite cutting given current conditions in the UK.

May have some people think twice..

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

Between 13-62% of laws passed or applied to the UK between 1993 and 2014 derive from EU institutions.

Even if we take a lower figure of, say, 25% (as it depends on what you include etc.), that is a staggeringly high figure (though I suspect a figure around 40-50% is more accurate) and it's indicative of how law-making powers are EU-derived. The exact % of laws is irrelevant to me. What matters is the principle; and in my political view, all laws, or at least as many as possible, should be made by the host country and not an ever-integrating political European Union. It creates distance between citizens and where those powers derive. For this fundamental reason, I would rather see the UK dismiss this form of centralised law-generating power, and instead, return that power to the UK - whole and entire - and, if I had my way, more powers would devolve to the component parts of the UK.

Now many Remainers point the finger - which specific EU law are you unhappy with?

Again, it's not about the content of the laws, it's about the principle from which they are developed.

'Derived from Eu institutions' is a very generous term, one tends to leave out that 2 of those 4 institutions are made up of the national leaders/mps of the member states (European council and Council of the European union)

The commission actually is limited in the areas it can legislate exclusively (to 5 areas to be specific, 3 of which deal with the common market and customs union, 1 deals with the Euro and 1 is to do with conservation of fish stocks in eu waters*)

Every where else involves national governments setting the ball rolling. Either with the European Council unanimously agreeing to have the commission legislate in a specific area (again European council is the elected leaders of each state) or with the council of European union developing a framework between the mps/tds etc of the member states.

But all of the pales because (and I'll need to find it again) a great piece of work done by the Norwegian government weighing up EU membership or not on the issue of legislation highlighted an interesting aspect.

It was a common argument to point out how much lower of a % of eu law Norway adopted compared to full eu member states

but Norway themselves found that the reason for this was because EFTA adopts EU laws in singular big annual sessions, while the EU updates and processes laws constantly, the vast majority of the laws the EU passes have to do with the Common Agriculture Policy and those laws are almost entirely temporary, intended to act for a specific crisis or process and then cease.

The article highlighted pig diarrhoea, yeah thats the most common sort of law the EU deals with, temporary adjustments in support of the common market and common agriculture policy, legislation so specific to time and place that once it has passed the legislation is gone.

You could say the EU is involved in 25% of UK law, but of that 25% you'd only be looking at the vast majority of that 25% being legislation that by this time next year would cease to exist.


*this is why fishing is always brought up in these debates, because it is the only area that all member states agreed that such a crisis existed in terms of overfishing that they handed over emergency powers to the EU to ensure no one fishes a species to death, surprisingly the EU has not used that power much at all and as many people keep pointing out, the UK has mostly ****ed over the fishing communities by itself. Also it's rich to see conservatives cry about the hard put on fishermen when they were happy to let the coal communities die out when they'd become obsolete in their eyes.

BlitzKrieg

Found it quicker then I thought: Norweigen study into EU law and Norway: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-2/id669368/sec6#KAP25-3

Its a pain to read in google translate but it is one of the most detailed deep dive study's of the difference between being an EU member and being in the EEA.

IAmTheReign

CelticRambler wrote: »

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

Bet you can't do it.

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. 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.

These are not facts, these are beliefs. Can you provide any factual advantages to leaving the EU?

lawred2

IAmTheReign wrote: »

These are not facts, these are beliefs. Can you provide any factual advantages to leaving the EU?

It's fairly obvious at this stage, 3 and a half years' later that, a few scheming disaster capitalists aside, this vote was not ever based on fact. It was based on feelings.

Waste of time arguing with anyone who believes that their feelings trump reality. And you're not going to change their feelings either with your fact based assessment. I'd give up if I were you. It's clear you're not going to get an answer beyond vague intuitions that some unknown future state might prove better for some reason.

People of a remain leaning have spent a lot of time and effort laying out more facts than should be necessary to convince any like minded person interested in fact based analysis. It hasn't worked. Fact and reason just aren't interesting.

Remember - they've heard enough from experts.

In essence - stop wasting your time. We all know there's no facts coming in return.

First Up

lawred2 wrote:

In essence - stop wasting your time. We all know there's no facts coming in return.

Correct. Let them find out in their own time and in their own way.

Meanwhile the task is to make the best of the mess and the most of the opportunity.

fash

Interesting points from some brexit analysts:
Roland tweet
"Australian points based system" or "Canada plus" deal are in reality vacuous statements that are dog whistles to brexiters. It is of note that the current resident brexiter has been unable to explain anything beyond the empty slogans (and I look forward to his answers to my questions):
And another question for him (pointed out by David Henig, the UK has a tiny market compared to the EU, having tariff and quota free access to a big market is more valuable than having the same access to a tiny market. What extras will the UK offer the EU to provide an equal trade in exchange for tariff and quota free access to the EU?

IAmTheReign

lawred2 wrote: »

It's fairly obvious at this stage, 3 and a half years' later that, a few scheming disaster capitalists aside, this vote was not ever based on fact. It was based on feelings.

Waste of time arguing with anyone who believes that their feelings trump reality. And you're not going to change their feelings either with your fact based assessment. I'd give up if I were you. It's clear you're not going to get an answer beyond vague intuitions that some unknown future state might prove better for some reason.

People of a remain leaning have spent a lot of time and effort laying out more facts than should be necessary to convince any like minded person interested in fact based analysis. It hasn't worked. Fact and reason just aren't interesting.

Remember - they've heard enough from experts.

In essence - stop wasting your time. We all know there's no facts coming in return.

Oh I know yeah. I just found it funny that when asked for facts not beliefs he proceeded to start all 3 points with 'I believe...'. I'll take any laugh I can get on a monday morning :pac:

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

Doesn't the deal on the table still have majorly-concerning clauses? The clause of no parliamentary vote on extending the deal would be a massive one.

Very concerning for the UK population, especially the poor and working class.

Almost as concerning for some sectors in Ireland - tariffs on food into the UK would be a big problem. But we still have a year to reduce exports to the UK.

Not an issue for the rest of the EU really.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly can't see the European Union lasting in its existing form for the next 2 decades.

Agreed, once the UK faffs off the EU will resume its move towards "ever closer union".

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Almost as concerning for some sectors in Ireland - tariffs on food into the UK would be a big problem. But we still have a year to reduce exports to the UK.

The UK imports almost half its food. Any tariffs will be ultimately paid by those eating it. That will go down well.

RobMc59

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Agreed, once the UK faffs off the EU will resume its move towards "ever closer union".

Brexit is a bad idea but the EU does appear to have it's own problems,especially with the drift of many countries towards extreme right wing parties.