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

davedanon

RobMc59 wrote: »

How can anyone provide evidence for an event that hasn't happened yet?

Then why are you saying they will recover and thrive?

declanflynn

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Just means that it's politically important, not economically. Frankly, it's ridiculous that it's been afforded this level of prominence. Modern countries do not base their economies on fishing.

The Faroe Islands base their economy on fishing and the uk have a trade deal with them, I wonder if the uk are taking advice from The Faroe Islands

declanflynn

theological wrote: »

I'm solidly convinced that the vast majority of people here are fawning over the EU. Insisting that it is unreasonable for the UK to regain a similar level of control to Canada or Australia is an example of how far people are willing to bend over backwards to justify the EU's demands in these negotiations.

I noticed your edit also. As a non-patriotic Irish person, it's a bit odd that you're insinuating my viewpoint is Little Englander xenophobia, but I'll attribute that to a hang up of yours rather than mine. You don't have to be a Little Englander to point out that there are problems with the EU.

A lot of Irish people dont really give a toss about the uk and cant wait for them to leave.

RobMc59

davedanon wrote: »

Then why are you saying they will recover and thrive?

That`s an opinion,which is all anyone can give at this time.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s an opinion,which is all anyone can give at this time.

It would be nice if there was a basis for this opinion though. Each time the government has buckled while humiliating itself at regular intervals. If it's possible for Britain to prosper outside the EU, it'll need competent governance based on skill, pragmatism and diplomacy rather than loyalty to a single individual.

RobMc59

declanflynn wrote: »

A lot of Irish people dont really give a toss about the uk and cant wait for them to leave.

It`s a constant mystery to me why some people feign indifference to something when they are in fact obsessed with it?:rolleyes:

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s an opinion,which is all anyone can give at this time.

Given the lack of evidence, it's on the same level as the flat earth or bigfoot opinion.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It would be nice if there was a basis for this opinion though. Each time the government has buckled while humiliating itself at regular intervals. If it's possible for Britain to prosper outside the EU, it'll need competent governance based on skill, pragmatism and diplomacy rather than loyalty to a single individual.

I mentioned that now the deadline has expired and the UK has signalled it`s intention to leave,I thought I detected shell shock amongst some posters.I also suspect in the long run the EU will compromise and a deal of some sort will be agreed.I`d prefer a close relationship with the EU but not being forced to kneel before them as a fawning vassal state castigated for having the audacity to want it`s own rules and laws.

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

I mentioned that now the deadline has expired and the UK has signalled it`s intention to leave,I thought I detected shell shock amongst some posters.I also suspect in the long run the EU will compromise and a deal of some sort will be agreed.I`d prefer a close relationship with the EU but not being forced to kneel before them as a fawning vassal state castigated for having the audacity to want it`s own rules and laws.

:rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

It`s a constant mystery to me why some people feign indifference to something when they are in fact obsessed with it?:rolleyes:

Some people are watching Brexit for a number of reasons but I would say that it's a safe assumption that most are watching it because thy know that it was always a kamikazi political move.
As we watch it now, we're watching what we all expected to unfold actually happen in slow motion. No matter what happens, the impact is coming and nobody with any authority in Westminster seems to care.
As for it being an obsession, I think you'll find that most people couldn't give a rats ass about it. IMO, it really only interests people with a political interest.
Sorry to burst your bubble on this!

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`d prefer a close relationship with the EU but not being forced to kneel before them as a fawning vassal state castigated for having the audacity to want it`s own rules and laws.

Just to clarify, while you're free to have your own preferencea and delusions, the reality is that the EU is not looking for what you say.
What the EU will insist on is that regardless of whatever control the UK decides to hold in terms of standards and rules, it will not trade with the EU if it does not meet the EU's standards (and I'm sure that this would be a reciprocal arrangement). The UK doesn't seem to like this but whatever you or the Uk think, this is not the EU looking to have the UK as a vassal state!
bear in mind that all EU countries and trading partners follow these standards so if the UK wants to have a close relationship with the EU then it will abide by these standards too.

Out of curiosity, what laws are the EU insisting that the UK have?

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just to clarify, while you're free to have your own preferencea and delusions, the reality is that the EU is not looking for what you say.
What the EU will insist on is that regardless of whatever control the UK decides to hold in terms of standards and rules, it will not trade with the EU if it does not meet the EU's standards (and I'm sure that this would be a reciprocal arrangement). The UK doesn't seem to like this but whatever you or the Uk think, this is not the EU looking to have the UK as a vassal state!
bear in mind that all EU countries and trading partners follow these standards so if the UK wants to have a close relationship with the EU then it will abide by these standards too.

Out of curiosity, what laws are the EU insisting that the UK have?

Food standards,employment laws to name two.
The mere mention of the UK wanting control of it's own aviation,fishing or ability to trade elsewhere has caused outrage in some quarters.
Do you think the UK is wrong to want it's own laws?

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

Food standards,employment laws to name two.
The mere mention of the UK wanting control of it's own aviation,fishing or ability to trade elsewhere has caused outrage in some quarters.
Do you think the UK is wrong to want it's own laws?

No one is outraged, you're picking that up wrong. Confused more like. It just seems like the UK are cutting their nose to spite their face.

Enforcing high levels of food standard and employment laws are bad? Are the British people happy to have their standards degraded? Bear in mind that many standards are adopted from the British Standards and many Brits are present on standards bodies.

What about British aviation does it not control?
Fisheries are a tiny fraction of GDP, why sacrifice the good of the many for the one? Especially when that "one" is actually doing alright.
The UK can trade with whoever they want, as part of the EU, and trade deals already exist. Why are they starting from scratch on a worse footing?

These are the questions that people have no good answer to, it's empty rhetoric to fool people into a UK Good, EU Bad way of thinking.

Seth Brundle

Padre_Pio wrote: »

These are the questions that people have no good answer to, it's empty rhetoric to fool people into a UK Good, EU Bad way of thinking.

Well it appears to have worked successfully!

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well it appears to have worked successfully!

You still haven`t answered my question about the UK having it`s own laws.

Padre_Pio

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well it appears to have worked successfully!

Yep, it's populist nonsense with no basis. Same as Trump's MAGA stuff. Great slogans, great nationalism, no substance.

Add to that all the anti-immigration stuff (which is what Brexit is really about) and you have the Brexiters cheering and side waving flags and Remainers shaking their heads and wondering what the f*ck is going on.

RobMc59 wrote: »

You still haven`t answered my question about the UK having it`s own laws.

You haven't answered mine about why you think life in the UK is going to be rosy and prosperous, despite all evidence to the contrary.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

I mentioned that now the deadline has expired and the UK has signalled it`s intention to leave,I thought I detected shell shock amongst some posters.I also suspect in the long run the EU will compromise and a deal of some sort will be agreed.I`d prefer a close relationship with the EU but not being forced to kneel before them as a fawning vassal state castigated for having the audacity to want it`s own rules and laws.

You're repeating nonsense Brexit tropes and in doing so have not answered my question.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

Yes it can. Because it imports a lot of food produce (and exports a lot as well) that doesn’t mean it can’t feed itself, only that it chooses not to.

Ah, of course. The same as how I choose not to win any Olympic gold medals.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're repeating nonsense Brexit tropes and in doing so have not answered my question.

You asked me whether the EU is worried and I answered.
My views aren't extreme and I'd prefer a deal where the UK voluntary aligns with the EU but not one that shackles the UK and demands compliance.What is the EU so afraid of?

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

You asked me whether the EU is worried and I answered.
My views aren't extreme and I'd prefer a deal where the UK voluntary aligns with the EU but not one that shackles the UK and demands compliance.What is the EU so afraid of?

They're afraid that the UK will deregulate in all areas of business and undercut the EU as a result. So they won't let that happen without severe damage to the UK economy.

theological

RobMc59 wrote: »

You asked me whether the EU is worried and I answered.
My views aren't extreme and I'd prefer a deal where the UK voluntary aligns with the EU but not one that shackles the UK and demands compliance.What is the EU so afraid of?

The fun thing about the hard remain side is, one they are terrible at gaining support, and two they are terrible at listening to other perspectives. This is why they lost in the referendum and this is why they are failing to convince people now.

I think both you and me were remain supporters in 2016. I'll speak just for me, it was in watching the intervening years of the negotiations and how they were handled that have convinced me that the right thing for the UK was to leave the EU. I thought the EU could be reformed initially, but the EU can be reformed, in the wrong direction. All reform is about taking control from member states and pooling more control at a EU level.

Part of the motivation of people like ancapailldorcha, by dismissing reasonable points as being a Little Englander (despite not being English), or claiming that reasonable points are tropes is just to refuse to engage, and to marginalise any view that isn't their own. That's unfortunate. They could learn a lot about what happens to take a remain voter like myself to a point where I support Brexit.

Unfortunately many of the people here want to maintain an echo chamber rather than taking an opportunity to explore another side of the argument.

Irish Praetorian

RobMc59 wrote: »

Do you think the UK is wrong to want it's own laws?

I see this quite a bit in arguments against the EU and I ask, what exactly happens when you take the argument to its logical conclusion? Firstly its Britons 'making their own laws', then the Scots and Welsh might want to do it also, then you might have the regions like Cornwall and the North East wanting to do the same, and eventually you continue down the road of a society (or rather no society) where everyone is their own country and we collapse into a mire of atomisation.

There are two groups I could see looking to such an outcome; one would be anarchists and libertarians who are apparently taken with their own ideological convictions. The other would be private industries particularly at the higher level, who would greatly profit from having no extant entities of size and power except their own. I would argue neither group offers a particularly appealing future for the UK and even this (relatively) small step of de-coupling the UK from the EU seems like a step in the wrong direction.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They're afraid that the UK will deregulate in all areas of business and undercut the EU as a result. So they won't let that happen without severe damage to the UK economy.

I wouldn't want a lowering of standards but if the UK was genuinely more competitive with the same regulations then I could understand that would be unacceptable to the EU.

Junkyard Tom

theological wrote: »

Lose what?

Single-state island integrity which is strategically valuable. Possible access to Scotland's Naval Bases where Britain's nuke-subs dock. A competitor for FDI with largely the same legal system on the same land mass.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that the EU is a military threat to the UK, or that the military partnerships that the UK has with many other EU countries in NATO is likely to end anytime soon.

It's not a problem at the moment but it's a possible downstream problem. The US has become unpredictable, the Germans are pissed off about US pressure over Nordstream II, the French are NATO sceptics, and so on.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wouldn't want a lowering of standards but if the UK was genuinely more competitive with the same regulations then I could understand that would be unacceptable to the EU.

I don't understand that. If they keep the same regulations that what is stopping now from being more competitive?

They are not worried about the UK being more competitive with the same regulations, it is using lessor regulations to create a competitive advantage.

It is why China is able to undercut all EU companies whilst still adhereing to the EU stanards. THey have less human regulations ie. time off, healthcare, sick leave etc etc.

RobMc59

theological wrote: »

The fun thing about the hard remain side is, one they are terrible at gaining support, and two they are terrible at listening to other perspectives. This is why they lost in the referendum and this is why they are failing to convince people now.

I think both you and me were remain supporters in 2016. I'll speak just for me, it was in watching the intervening years of the negotiations and how they were handled that have convinced me that the right thing for the UK was to leave the EU. I thought the EU could be reformed initially, but the EU can be reformed, in the wrong direction. All reform is about taking control from member states and pooling more control at a EU level.

Part of the motivation of people like ancapailldorcha, by dismissing reasonable points as being a Little Englander (despite not being English), or claiming that reasonable points are tropes is just to refuse to engage, and to marginalise any view that isn't their own. That's unfortunate. They could learn a lot about what happens to take a remain voter like myself to a point where I support Brexit.

Unfortunately many of the people here want to maintain an echo chamber rather than taking an opportunity to explore another side of the argument.

I agree,I also voted to remain but would rather go it alone now if a mutually agreeable deal can't be worked out. Being subservient to Brussels which many here seem very comfortable with is comparable with Orwell's '1984'.

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wouldn't want a lowering of standards but if the UK was genuinely more competitive with the same regulations then I could understand that would be unacceptable to the EU.

Well, if you don't want a lowering of standards across the board, let's hope that there really is a level playing field next January. Otherwise, a WTO UK won't have any choice but to dump regulations left, right and centre if they want any semblance of an economy.

Irish Praetorian

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree,I also voted to remain but would rather go it alone now if a mutually agreeable deal can't be worked out. Being subservient to Brussels which many here seem very comfortable with is comparable with Orwell's '1984'.

That's another point I'd also like to pick up on. What exactly is the difference for a hairdresser from Hull in 'subservience to Brussels' versus 'subservience to Westminster'? I don't see our hairdresser drafting legislation in either case or having much of a say in anything at all apart from the occasional election, in which case one might argue they have lost some agency by no longer having a representative body with a PR system to give a better reflection of differing political opinions.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The fun thing about the hard remain side is, one they are terrible at gaining support, and two they are terrible at listening to other perspectives. This is why they lost in the referendum and this is why they are failing to convince people now.

Well that and the lies and fraud that the leave side committed.

theological wrote: »

I think both you and me were remain supporters in 2016. I'll speak just for me, it was in watching the intervening years of the negotiations and how they were handled that have convinced me that the right thing for the UK was to leave the EU. I thought the EU could be reformed initially, but the EU can be reformed, in the wrong direction. All reform is about taking control from member states and pooling more control at a EU level.

But surely you knew what type of organisation the EU were, I mean they have carried out loads of trade deals, and the 4 pillars were well signposted. The issues with NI, the issues about funding agriculture and maintaining food standards. These were all well known.

But you have changed to a Brexiteer because the EU didn't give TM want she wanted, even though she never actually said what that was and she couldn't even get her own cabinet to agree with her, not to mention her own party!

theological wrote: »

Part of the motivation of people like ancapailldorcha, by dismissing reasonable points as being a Little Englander (despite not being English), or claiming that reasonable points are tropes is just to refuse to engage, and to marginalise any view that isn't their own. That's unfortunate. They could learn a lot about what happens to take a remain voter like myself to a point where I support Brexit.

Unfortunately many of the people here want to maintain an echo chamber rather than taking an opportunity to explore another side of the argument.

There are been years of engagement. Brexiteers only ever reply to questions with things like sovereignty, our laws, our money, faceless bureaucrats, world trade deals. There is never any actual details. The only people avoiding a proper discussion are Brexiteers.

Even now, with less than six months to go, can you explain what the economic impacts are based on a No Deal? What are the costs involved, which areas are going to lose out, how will the country bail out hose companies facing lost markets?

Nothing from the government. No plan. At this stage there should be a Day 1, Week 1, Month 1, 6 months, year. What are the new systems going to cost, where are they going to be based, who is going to pay. How will truck driver get their licence. Where are the vets going to come from to provide the EU with the necessary signoff on standards?

What are the new rules for healthcare abroad? What about people who already live and work in the EU? Wil they we allowed to stay?

And yet there is no plan. The biggest change in a generation and nothing concrete has been published. No cost/benefit analysis. No projections as to what the new global trade deals will deliver. No discussion about how they will deal with the inevitable trade disputes with the WTO.

It is hard to have an open discussion when one side has nothing but faith and hope and some faint desire to break free. To where, why? Not sure but it 100% has to happen at whatever costs.

RobMc59

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

That's another point I'd also like to pick up on. What exactly is the difference for a hairdresser from Hull in 'subservience to Brussels' versus 'subservience to Westminster'? I don't see our hairdresser drafting legislation in either case or having much of a say in anything at all apart from the occasional election, in which case one might argue they have lost some agency by no longer having a representative body with a PR system to give a better reflection of differing political opinions.

That's a strange comparison,how is following the law/rules of your country(which ever country that might be)the same as following law/rules from Brussels?