Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Switzerland? :pac: The same Switzerland that is closely aligned with EU rules and regulations, accepts the principles of Free Movement, is part of the Schengen Area ?

Anyway, if you stand by this belief, would you then agree that the anti-independence campaigners (i.e. the Tory Government) were wrong to tell the Scots that they were doomed to economic failure if they tried to go it alone?

Or to put it another way, would you accept that an Independent Scotland has at least as much of a chance at becoming a great economic power as a deeply fractured UK?

Yes, it probably does.

True, Switzerland has closer alignment with the EU, but I mentioned that already in my original post; that it's possible to be outside the primary political structures of the EU, but within a form of the economic zone and be successful. That's my whole point. I stand by that comment and I appreciate your resuscitation of my post.

Scotland has every chance to be successful. What I dislike is that Ms. Sturgeon claimed that the vote was "once in a generation", but then went on to argue about "material" difference; basically, a propaganda term that applies to pretty much any circumstance. It's clever, I have to give that to her.

It's not up to me whether Scotland should remain or leave. Just don't call it "independence" if you transfer legislative powers from Westminster to Brussels.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, Europhilics will claim that the UK gains no democratic controls by leaving the EU.

I disagree.

You disagree, fair enough. So give us an example of a few democratic controls that the UK will (re)gain after Brexit.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

no you asked how it would be so damning to his electoral campaign.
again for the 3rd time i repeat. I never did.

You single out the IRA as being particularly callous and as the only child killers then said that if Johnson brought Corbyns association with the IRA up it would have an effect on the election.

Where we meant to think you meant a 'good effect'?


You are dodging here.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not up to me whether Scotland should remain or leave. Just don't call it "independence" if you transfer legislative powers from Westminster to Brussels.

Are you saying that France is not an independent nation? Or Cyprus? Or Hungary?

Or Ireland? :eek:

hometruths

hotmail.com wrote: »

Have you been to parts of the North of England?

The 5th largest economy means nothing to them.

You could argue that access to the Freedom of Movement of goods, capital, services and labour don't mean a whole lot to them either.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Scotland has every chance to be successful. What I dislike is that Ms. Sturgeon claimed that the vote was "once in a generation", but then went on to argue about "material" difference; basically, a propaganda term that applies to pretty much any circumstance. It's clever, I have to give that to her.

It's not up to me whether Scotland should remain or leave. Just don't call it "independence" if you transfer legislative powers from Westminster to Brussels.

'Once in a generation' is a figure of speech. Even the poiliticians competing in the General Election are using it to try and rally the numbers

The material difference is exactly that, the SNP campaigned and won the Scottish Parliament elections with that material difference for Indyref2

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584?lang=en

It is up to the people in Scotland but the Tories say no it is not

prawnsambo

schmittel wrote: »

You could argue that access to the Freedom of Movement of goods, capital, services and labour don't mean a whole lot to them either.

Well FoM means that they can move elsewhere in Europe for work if they can't get it at home. That option isn't open after brexit.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You disagree, fair enough. So give us an example of a few democratic controls that the UK will (re)gain after Brexit.

So you've moved away from my economic points toward now the democratic argument?

Methinks that's because you have no cogent argument against my economic view. And you're right - because the view I hold is a sensible one, and to knit together some random position against it is fruitless.

A "few democratic controls"?

I can go one better.

How about no controls whatsoever, by leaving the European Union and restoring all controls to the parliament in London.

No European parliament. No European Council. No European President.

Nothing.

Just the United Kingdom, MPs of which pass all legislation.

First Up

boring accountant wrote: »

Tragically, this is not the case. Europe, by that I mean European companies, are very far behind the curve. Completely missed the boat on Internet 2.0. Missing out on 5G. Likely to be 3rd best or maybe a distant second in electric vehicles.

A lot of this comes down to domestic politics and entrenched national interest. Take for example the reaction to todays announcement of a depositary banking union. It looks like its implementation will hinge upon the support of Merkel's coalition partners. Not an effective way to run a union of 27 member states.

Europe is still great at producing the inventions of the 20th century, but the 21st century is passing us by.

I would question your statement that the EU has "missed out" on 5G. European companies (facilitated by EU programmes) are actively collaborating across borders and sharing research and good production practice, with 5G a central part.

European industry is in a competitive battle with the US and China in particular. Europe won't win on all fronts but this battle is better fought by cross border collaboration within the EU and SM than by going it alone.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Are you saying that France is not an independent nation? Or Cyprus? Or Hungary?

Or Ireland? :eek:

Somewhat independent yes, but not completely independent.

We both know that Ireland can only act in accordance with the EU, not the other way around.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

'Once in a generation' is a figure of speech.

Political euphemism for a "lie".

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it probably does.

True, Switzerland has closer alignment with the EU, but I mentioned that already in my original post; that it's possible to be outside the primary political structures of the EU, but within a form of the economic zone and be successful. That's my whole point. I stand by that comment and I appreciate your resuscitation of my post.

That's gas. You're making a selling point of having no say over the rules you have to abide by instead of being in the rule maker's chair? Really?


I suppose you'll have to get used to it anyway, since every trade deal will include rules you don't like but will have to swallow.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Political euphemism for a "lie".

Do you think a General Election is a once in a generation event?

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't suggest that the UK should adopt a Singaporean model; what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more. This doom and gloom is horrifying.

The idea the UK will sink into the depths of economic oblivion is a symptom of Project Fear Mark II.

There are several countries in the world with populations similar to the UK, who are entirely free of the EU and are able to follow their own independant trade policy to their hearts content. The population of the UK is around 67 million. Lets take countries with a populaition within 20 million of the UK, say from 55 million to 85 million.

From largest to smallest population within that range you have Congo, Germany, Turkey, Iran, Thiland, UK, France, Italy, South Africa, Tanzania and Myanmar. Four of those countries are in the EU, the other seven are not. Why do you think the UK will do any better than its peers, population wise, outside the EU? I am confidant that the UK can struggle economically just like the seven other countries with a similar population who currently have their own independant trade policy outside the EU.


You have provided no evidence to support your opinion. The best you have managed to do is cherry pick a small number of examples that you think support your argument while ignoring the large number of examples that do not support your argument. You can create any argument you want as long as you are willing to ignore the vast majority of available data.

Your argument really holds no water and now you are just retreating to the tired old empty slogans of the Brexit referendum which really adds nothing to this thread.

A Dub in Glasgo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

There are several countries in the world with populations similar to the UK, who are entirely free of the EU and are able to follow their own independant trade policy to their hearts content. The population of the UK is around 67 million. Lets take countries with a populaition within 20 million of the UK, say from 55 million to 85 million.

From largest to smallest population within that range you have Congo, Germany, Turkey, Iran, Thiland, UK, France, Italy, South Africa, Tanzania and Myanmar. Four of those countries are in the EU, the other seven are not. Why do you think the UK will do any better than its peers, population wise, outside the EU?

'because if you really really believe in something, it can come true'

Leroy42

To get a FTA the UK is going to have to agree to the standards of the EU. Nobody anywhere is even trying to suggest that the EU will instead opt for UK standards.

And who decides the standards? The EU. And will the UK have any say? Not once they leave

So even taking out the economic argument, brexit won't even deliver the very thing people claim they want.

And on the economic argument, it is easy for those fairly cosseted from any negative effects to claim that drop in economy is a price worth paying. If they really believed that they why all the claims about project fear? Why not deal with it head on? Admit the possibility and tell those at food banks that they will be shutting down. Tell those waiting for training courses, or school repairs, or decent school dinners, or extra police ( not 1000 less than it used to be) or for their tower block to be reclad. Tell them all that there will be another few years of cuts but at least they can claim to have won.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The population of the UK is around 67 million. Lets take countries with a populaition within 20 million of the UK, say from 55 million to 85 million.

From largest to smallest population within that range you have Congo, Germany, Turkey, Iran, Thiland, UK, France, Italy, South Africa, Tanzania and Myanmar. Four of those countries are in the EU, the other seven are not.


Your argument really holds no water and now you are just retreating to the tired old empty slogans of the Brexit referendum which really adds nothing to this thread.

This is literally the worst economic argument I've ever, ever, EVER come across.

You are somehow assuming that population size can be equated with economic success?

You dare compare the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) with Congo, Tanzania, and Myanmar, and expect to take you seriously? I have clearly compared Singapore and Switzerland etc. with economic independence and success, and that the UK - should it decide to - can reorient in a similar direction.

This is beyond the pale of expectation.

To offer a quote, this argument "really holds no water".

Bannasidhe

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

no you asked how it would be so damning to his electoral campaign.
again for the 3rd time i repeat. I never did.



if you cannot recall accurately your own postings, then perhaps it's expecting too much to accurately interpret others.

Oh for goodness sake.
I was responding to you bringing it up.
If you didn't think it would have some kind of impact I fail to see why you even mentioned it.
But you did.
Now you don't want to clarify why you did.
Glad we cleared that up.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Somewhat independent yes, but not completely independent.

Lie.

Were we coerced to join and stay within the structures of the EEC/EC/EU?

Seems like independence to me.

We both know that Ireland can only act in accordance with the EU, not the other way around.

That's part of being in a club eh? Following the rules?

Political euphemism for a "lie".

But you said lying was okay sometimes?

Leroy42

You keep mentioning that the UK is the 5th in the world.

Do you know where it used to sit? 100 years ago it was the worlds greatest empire. You seem to believe that some things never change when the recent history shows it to be untrue.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Lie.

Were we coerced to join and stay within the structures of the EEC/EC/EU?

Seems like independence to me.

That's part of being in a club eh? Following the rules?

But you said lying was okay sometimes?

Yes, just the club shouldn't have been formed.

That's foregoing any independence that countries have hitherto held. Ireland fought for 800 years to become "independent" from the UK parliament and sovereign, only to hand many of those law-making powers to Brussels and a directly un-removeable EU president. It's almost comical.

Lying is okay sometimes yes, I just find the EU means quite disgusting.

hometruths

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well FoM means that they can move elsewhere in Europe for work if they can't get it at home. That option isn't open after brexit.

Not sure if that is the best angle to sell the advantages of FoM!

But no doubt those citizens of Middlesbrough who wish to have the option of seeking employment in Paris for example, were not amongst the 66% who voted to give it up.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, just the club shouldn't have been formed.

That's foregoing any independence that countries have hitherto held. Ireland fought for 800 years to become "independent" from the UK parliament and sovereign, only to hand many of those law-making powers to Brussels and a directly un-removeable EU president. It's almost comical.

Lying is okay sometimes yes, I just find the EU means quite disgusting.

We didn't 'hand' anything, we elected to be in it for our own benefit. Same as the UK did.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We didn't 'hand' anything, we elected to be in it for our own benefit. Same as the UK did.

And many electorates have voted for dictatorships; that irony exists throughout history, but it doesn't make it right.

Of course, the EU is not a direct dictatorship, but that's not the point I'm attempting to make.

FrancieBrady

Two big names struggling in the polls.

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1192186338075918336

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1192212243309568001

Joe_ Public

The aptly named James BROKENshire, currently being picked up in little pieces off the newsnight studio floor, after a monstering from Emily Maitless. There's nothing in the Tom Watson thing, likely personal reasons and will be forgotten about by next week. The real story is the conservative party and the utter calamitous state of it and the chaos we're inevitably going to witness over the course of this campaign.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

And many electorates have voted for dictatorships; that irony exists throughout history, but it doesn't make it right.

Of course, the EU is not a direct dictatorship, but that's not the point I'm attempting to make.

We are in a 'union' that only works if there are rules. It's an adult way to do business and accept what it is you are doing.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, just the club shouldn't have been formed.

That's foregoing any independence that countries have hitherto held. Ireland fought for 800 years to become "independent" from the UK parliament and sovereign, only to hand many of those law-making powers to Brussels and a directly un-removeable EU president. It's almost comical.

Lying is okay sometimes yes, I just find the EU means quite disgusting.

Do not compare Ireland's struggle for independence from a bloodthirsty empire with joining a league of nations to pool sovereignty on behalf of all the people in the league. That is a disgusting comparison and you need to withdraw it. Irish people were starved, murdered and exiled by the British. Countless thousands murdered by Cromwell all the way to British soldiers murdering civilians in Derry.

There are words I'd love to use to describe this post, but I'll refrain.

FrancieBrady

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The aptly named James BROKENshire, currently being picked up in little pieces off the newsnight studio floor, after a monstering from Emily Maitless. There's nothing in the Tom Watson thing, likely personal reasons and will be forgotten about by next week. The real story is the conservative party and the utter calamitous state of it and the chaos we're inevitably going to witness over the course of this campaign.

Did he actually start to blush under fire?...she roasted him. But then what he was trying to defend was impossible tbh.

Strazdas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We didn't 'hand' anything, we elected to be in it for our own benefit. Same as the UK did.

If you join a club of any description and agree to abide by their rules, you are giving up sovereignty to a certain extent.

The whole UK sovereignty argument is an utter nonsense : if they wanted to be truly 'sovereign', then they couldn't even sign a free trade deal with someone, as it involves compromises and not being fully in charge of what is happening.

FrancieBrady

Strazdas wrote: »

If you join a club of any description and agree to abide by their rules, you are giving up sovereignty to a certain extent.

The whole UK sovereignty argument is an utter nonsense : if they wanted to be truly 'sovereign', then they couldn't even sign a free trade deal with someone, as it involves compromises and not being fully in charge of what is happening.

Are you though? You are 'choosing' to follow the rules, that is a sovereign decision. You can also make a sovereign decision to not follow them and get kicked out and a sovereign decision to leave.