Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

theological

fash wrote: »

1. When (if ever) were Johnson or Trump elected by the respective electorates of their countries?
2. Just search my previous posts regarding all of the questions on the lack of legitimacy of the Brexit vote - there are a lot but to start:
Why not allow require a legally complaint vote on Brexit?
Why disrespect the overwhelming will of the people to remain in the single market?
Why not put the current form of proposed Brexit to the vote now the proposed way forward is reasonably clear?
Why do you disrespect the will of the people who voted in the 1970's to be in the EEC?
Why disrespect the will of the people who for 4 years after the Brexit vote by a significant majority wanted to remain in the EU?
Why do you disrespect the will of the people of Northern Ireland and the will of the people of Scotland?
3. Please explain why you hate democracy so much?

This post comes across like you want to re-debate everything that has already been settled. The UK has left the EU. The debate has been had over the last 4 years.

The questions that actually matter now are about what next after the transition period.

fash

theological wrote: »

This post comes across like you want to re-debate everything that has already been settled. The UK has left the EU. The debate has been had over the last 4 years.

The questions that actually matter now are about what next after the transition period.

Not at all - they were in response to silly statements made by blinding. Ask him why he is making silly points. As for you, I've put specific questions to you upon which I am still awaiting a response with considerable interest.

blinding

Leroy42 wrote: »

Blinding, the vote was respected, hence why the UK have left.

You, again, seem to be confusing democracy with denying freedom of speech. The very essence of democracy is that I must accept the result I do not have stop talking about my views.

As usual, brexiteers have no actual positives to talk about in relation to Brexit so are forced to talk about remainers and EU democracy and other irrelevant nonsense. It's like they are stuck in the campaign and have no idea what to actually do next.

What are the economic impacts of WTO?
If negative, how long before it turns positive?
What services will be cut to deal with reduced taxes?
What laws will change due to leaving the EU?
What will replace EU funding for farmers?
What is the plan now that Britons have lost their right to work in the EU?
What is the plan for foreign professionals if the EU do not agree to equivalence?
What is the plan for the auto makers if tariffs or quotas are imposed?
How quickly will the third party trade deals be agreed?
What happens in the meantime?
What happens if a NI resident takes the UK to the ECJ?
What plans are in place if an agreement on fisheries isnt reached and UK fishermen can't export?

You completely underestimate the importance of Democracy to the British People and the People of the Nation State.

The British never liked the Eu, They always were suspicious of the lack of respect the Eu had / has for Democracy and the Democracy of the Nation State.

The British People are more than willing to take on any and every outcome in Order To Keep the Democracy of their Country and to keep the Sovereignty of their Nation State.

There is nothing the British People have seen from the Eu or Eu-Philes to suggest that they were wrong. Hence the Eu has been kicked out of Britain and it won’t be coming back. Bye Bye Eu and Good Riddance ! !

Tokyo

blinding wrote: »

You have been dumped. get some counselling. Maybe go on a few dates ! !

Mod: Experience is teaching you nothing it seems. Don't post in the thread again.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

This post comes across like you want to re-debate everything that has already been settled. The UK has left the EU. The debate has been had over the last 4 years.

The questions that actually matter now are about what next after the transition period.

Exactly. So what happen then. It's been 4 years to prepare these answers. The very fact that you, and no one else, has any answers proves the point.

You have no idea what the economic impact of No deal, no idea the comparison between extended transition or WTO.

4years. And still no one has a clue.

Seth Brundle

blinding wrote: »

Has anybody actually found out when the last time was, that Donald Tusk did face the Electorate of an Eu Country ?

You keep asking about Tusk. Can you not search this info yourself?

Seth Brundle

blinding wrote: »

The British electorate booted the Eu out of their Country. Bye Bye , Good Riddance and your not fooking coming back ! :D

...and yet the UK government continue to hold dialogue with the EU.
If the UK's plan was to say to the EU " Bye Bye , Good Riddance and your not fooking coming back" why havent the UK negotiation team or indeed the government themselves not said this?

davedanon

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You keep asking about Tusk. Can you not search this info yourself?

Yes, while you're looking for C4's election coverage.

Seth Brundle

blinding wrote: »

The sooner Northern Ireland and Scotland get 50% + 1 to leave the UK the better. It should be a doddle. I can’t believe there is not 50%+1 at the door of the Secretary for Northern Ireland’s door every single day ! Where are ye , Where are Ye ?

The people of Scotland or Northern Ireland cannot hold a referendum on exiting the UK until they are given permission by the PM and this is not forthcoming. So your childish point is moot.
Furthermore, do you not think it is somewhat ironic to stand up for the United Kingdom by wishing that two of its four constituent countries leave as quickly as possible?

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...and yet the UK government continue to hold dialogue with the EU.
If the UK's plan was to say to the EU " Bye Bye , Good Riddance and your not fooking coming back" why havent the UK negotiation team or indeed the government themselves not said this?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The people of Scotland or Northern Ireland cannot hold a referendum on exiting the UK until they are given permission by the PM and this is not forthcoming. So your childish point is moot.
Furthermore, do you not think it is somewhat ironic to stand up for the United Kingdom by wishing that two of its four constituent countries leave as quickly as possible?

He's been threadbanned so he will not be responding.

The Brexit brigade do not care about the union. They care about Brexit. Not enough sadly to advocate any sort of meaningful vision of a post-Brexit UK. Instead, we get the same canards about sovereignty and control that we were subjected to in 2016. They were meaningless then. Now, they're beyond parody.

The best that can happen is that Scotland and NI are allowed to hold referenda so they can govern themselves and extricate themselves from the UK in the likely event that it begins to deteriorate economically. If the Tories want to push for this no deal nonsense then let them eat sovereignty.

davedanon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's been threadbanned so he will not be responding.

Some stars are just too bright to burn for long...alas, the clown show is over, for now.

davedanon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's been threadbanned so he will not be responding.

The Brexit brigade do not care about the union. They care about Brexit. Not enough sadly to advocate any sort of meaningful vision of a post-Brexit UK. Instead, we get the same canards about sovereignty and control that we were subjected to in 2016. They were meaningless then. Now, they're beyond parody.

The best that can happen is that Scotland and NI are allowed to hold referenda so they can govern themselves and extricate themselves from the UK in the likely event that it begins to deteriorate economically. If the Tories want to push for this no deal nonsense then let them eat sovereignty.

I still think their 'plan', as far as it goes, is to push right to the brink because despite all, they still nurture the fond notion that the EU will eventually 'blink', and make compromises when push comes to shove. Beyond that, I don't think they've even considered a Plan B. They may bluster that WTO/no deal is just fine thanks very much. But when the economic consequences begin to bite there'll be some sort of kneejerk reaction. Boris doesn't really care, he's only there to be in power, he's not even interested in running the country.

ancapailldorcha

davedanon wrote: »

I still think their 'plan', as far as it goes, is to push right to the brink because despite all, they still nurture the fond notion that the EU will eventually 'blink', and make compromises when push comes to shove. Beyond that, I don't think they've even considered a Plan B. They may bluster that WTO/no deal is just fine thanks very much. But when the economic consequences begin to bite there'll be some sort of kneejerk reaction. Boris doesn't really care, he's only there to be in power, he's not even interested in running the country.

Despite it always being the UK that blinks.

I don't think Johnson really cares one way or another. I'd say he'd be perfectly happy with the Norway option as would I at this stage. The EU won't be blinking now that it solved the NI issue.

mdudy

blinding wrote: »

You completely underestimate the importance of Democracy to the British People and the People of the Nation State.

Lmao - are you even aware of their current Government? Their highest-level Spad is literally in contempt of Parliament; their PM unlawfully used prerogative power; and, there is now open hostility between the civil service and Government.

The Westminster Parliament is the bedrock of British democracy as it's a parliamentary democracy. Their democracy is literally failing and they've managed to map that onto an abstract and false-idea of the EU. They and people like you overestimate the importance of democracy for the average Brit.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Despite it always being the UK that blinks.

I don't think Johnson really cares one way or another. I'd say he'd be perfectly happy with the Norway option as would I at this stage. The EU won't be blinking now that it solved the NI issue.

This is precisely why the UK must not "blink" this time. It isn't in the UK's interest to leave on a Norway style deal because it does not regain control and it does not mean that major policy decisions concerning the UK are made in Westminster.


I'd much rather a WTO exit than a Norway option.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I'd much rather a WTO exit than a Norway option.

Why? Norway seem to be doing reasonably ok.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why? Norway seem to be doing reasonably ok.

Why? Because having more control over UK affairs is better than having less. Norway isn't particularly happy with the relationship it has. I'd rather the UK not be trapped into something similar. The UK needs to regain control over its borders, its laws, its fishing and agricultural policy, and over its trade policy this December.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Why? Because having more control over UK affairs is better than having less. Norway isn't particularly happy with the relationship it has. I'd rather the UK not be trapped into something similar. The UK needs to regain control over its borders, its laws, its fishing and agricultural policy, and over its trade policy this December.

Theo, the only "control" it will ever have is the ability to spend them as bargaining chips in any deal. Which is what it is doing now.


Brexiteers seem to be of the deluded opinion that they will never have to give up anything in exchange for another country giving the UK something

2u2me

Donald Trump wrote: »

Theo, the only "control" it will ever have is the ability to spend them as bargaining chips in any deal. Which is what it is doing now.

Brexiteers seem to be of the deluded opinion that they will never have to give up anything in exchange for another country giving the UK something

Cult members trying to free themselves from the shackles of a cult are also told they hold a deluded opinion. Why do you and others constantly strawman this argument? The only 'brexiteer' opinions in this thread I've read are admitting that they will suffer at least temporarily.

Why don't you and others accept the actual reason that they state; autonomy. It's beyond ridiculous at this stage.

Didn't they also already give up their best bargaining chip with the EU, the NI backstop?

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Why? Because having more control over UK affairs is better than having less. Norway isn't particularly happy with the relationship it has. I'd rather the UK not be trapped into something similar. The UK needs to regain control over its borders, its laws, its fishing and agricultural policy, and over its trade policy this December.

Apart from the usual Brexiteer rhetoric I'm reading above, there is also a delusion there that the UK wont have to abide by EU standards if the UK does exit on WTO terms but wishes to continue trading with its nearest neighbours.
What say will the UK have in deciding those standards?

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apart from the usual Brexiteer rhetoric I'm reading above, there is also a delusion there that the UK wont have to abide by EU standards if the UK does exit on WTO terms but wishes to continue trading with its nearest neighbours.
What say will the UK have in deciding those standards?

It seems like you're unable to distinguish between:
1) The UK selling goods that comply with EU standards for the EU market.
2) The UK having to comply with EU standards for domestic goods.


Both are different.

1 is similar to the UK complying with US standards for the US market.
2 is compelling Britain to have the same standards domestically.

The 2nd is what shouldn't fly.

Donald Trump

2u2me wrote: »

Cult members trying to free themselves from the shackles of a cult are also told they hold a deluded opinion. Why do you and others constantly strawman this argument? The only 'brexiteer' opinions in this thread I've read are admitting that they will suffer at least temporarily.

Why don't you and others accept the actual reason that they state; autonomy. It's beyond ridiculous at this stage.

Didn't they also already give up their best bargaining chip with the EU, the NI backstop?

Well the UK don't seem to be doing too well in terms of getting what it wants in a deal then does it?



Why not seeing as how it is so simple and easy? Multiple extensions and a resurrection from being dead in a ditch. Especially given that reality is only a delusion?


All the evidence suggests that any delusions are on the UK side of the discussion

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

It seems like you're unable to distinguish between:
1) The UK selling goods that comply with EU standards for the EU market.
2) The UK having to comply with EU standards for domestic goods.


Both are different.

1 is similar to the UK complying with US standards for the US market.
2 is compelling Britain to have the same standards domestically.

The 2nd is what shouldn't fly.

Is Britain going hoping to trade with the EU (as it will therefore follow EU standards (with no say in their design))?
Will the UK product to lower standards for home consumption and, if so, to what benefit? Maybe you can provide a few examples where EU standards are too strict and new UK standards will be better.
Will there be much in terms of cost implications for producers in having two standards to follow? Maybe you could supply some evidence for your assertion here.

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is Britain going hoping to trade with the EU (as it will therefore follow EU standards (with no say in their design))?
Will the UK product to lower standards for home consumption and, if so, to what benefit? Maybe you can provide a few examples where EU standards are too strict and new UK standards will be better.
Will there be much in terms of cost implications for producers in having two standards to follow? Maybe you could supply some evidence for your assertion here.

Obviously if the UK trades with the EU it will follow EU rules.
Similarly if the UK trades with the US it will follow US rules.
If the US trades with Britain it will follow UK rules.
Similarly if the EU trades with Britain it will follow UK rules.

I don't know why you are claiming this is profound. The point is that matters that affect British policy will be settled in Westminster.

fash

theological wrote: »

It seems like you're unable to distinguish between:
1) The UK selling goods that comply with EU standards for the EU market.
2) The UK having to comply with EU standards for domestic goods.


Both are different.

1 is similar to the UK complying with US standards for the US market.
2 is compelling Britain to have the same standards domestically.

The 2nd is what shouldn't fly.

The EU never asked for the second-however it will happen automatically as that is what business wants. Rather the bit that the UK will be forced to comply with however are the rules around slave labour, environmental protection and most likely state aid.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Similarly if the EU trades with Britain it will follow UK rules.

So why would the UK choose to have lower standards than those set by the EU unless they want inferior quality?
Can you think of a single example where having something of inferior quality will be better for the UK people?

fash

It should be noted that the major thing the UK loses is the ability to set EU policy. An example was in relation to lawnmower noise regulations. At one stage these were different in the. MSs, then harmonised. Some British politicians were then complaining about EU red tape- and unusually actually investigated the matter. As it turned out, the EU regulations had been developed by the British themselves: Germany had had the strictest national requirements plus the biggest market. They'd used their higher national standards to deliberately keep the market German. As foreign companies had developed for local markets with lower standards they couldn't sell into the lucrative German market. However as the UK managed to push through a pan European standard, UK lawnmower makers were then able to sell in. Obviously the British politicians discovering that the UK itself had developed these regulations - and done so to benefit UK industries was quickly hushed up - it being rather embarrassing.

The moral of that story of the incompetence of the UK politicians as well as the fact that having a voice in relation to the establishment of regulations is important. From now on the UK will however be the rule taker - a vassal state.

theological

Obviously if the UK leaves the EU it won't determine EU policy. Understood.

Equally the EU won't be able to determine UK policy.

@Seth Brundle - the point is that the UK can set whatever standards it feels is appropriate for the UK. That's what regaining control means. I'm pretty sure that UK standards will be always pretty high, but like all decision making that will be a matter for subsequent governments within the UK rather than a matter for the EU in Brussels.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Obviously if the UK leaves the EU it won't determine EU policy. Understood.

Equally the EU won't be able to determine UK policy.

@Seth Brundle - the point is that the UK can set whatever standards it feels is appropriate for the UK. That's what regaining control means. I'm pretty sure that UK standards will be always pretty high, but like all decision making that will be a matter for subsequent governments within the UK rather than a matter for the EU in Brussels.

As we've been hearing this rhetoric for several years now, I presume it won't be hard for you to provide an example of something that will be better whilst being produced to a lower standard. This is what it was all about so surely you've loads of examples to hand???

timetogo1

theological wrote: »

Obviously if the UK leaves the EU it won't determine EU policy. Understood.

Equally the EU won't be able to determine UK policy.

@Seth Brundle - the point is that the UK can set whatever standards it feels is appropriate for the UK. That's what regaining control means. I'm pretty sure that UK standards will be always pretty high, but like all decision making that will be a matter for subsequent governments within the UK rather than a matter for the EU in Brussels.

Id have thought that the standards the UK can set are dependent on whatever deal the UK agrees with the EU. And vice versa but i don't think anybody believes the UK will have much say over the EU.

Obviously if there's no deal the UK can do whatever they want.