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

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

Why? The UK doesn't have control over what standards other sovereign nations such as the US require, or the EU member states require. Similarly, my argument is that the EU shouldn't dictate British law after the Brexit transition.

My argument is consistent.

It's consistent, but incomplete. Withdrawing from collaborative standard-setting will cause the UK to incur very signficant costs. Your argument doesn't acknowledge these costs, identify what is secured in return and attempt a justification for the trade-off.

joeguevara

theological wrote: »

I think my point is that it is relatively uncontroversial because it makes sense that the UK would produce to EU standards for exporting to the EU. In the same way that the UK would conform to US standards for exporting to the US. This is not a key issue in respect to Brexit at least as I see it. It is primarily about regaining control of domestic policy that matters (immigration, trade, fishing, agriculture, and so on) and ensuring that these are decided in parliament and not in Brussels.

The question by a poster was asked as to how difference laws would effect a hairdresser in Hull if they were made in Westminister or Brussels.

theological

joeguevara wrote: »

The question by a poster was asked as to how difference laws would effect a hairdresser in Hull if they were made in Westminister or Brussels.

I'm not sure why the answer to this isn't obvious.

The people of Hull elect 3 MPs that represent them in parliament. The MPs have constituency surgeries, and are contactable by the people of Hull. The hairdresser can decide to contribute towards booting them out in the next election if their concerns aren't dealt with.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

I'm not sure why the answer to this isn't obvious.

The people of Hull elect 3 MPs that represent them in parliament. The MPs have constituency surgeries, and are contactable by the people of Hull. The hairdresser can decide to contribute towards booting them out in the next election if their concerns aren't dealt with.

Oh, and why was Farage et. al. allowed to just decide to go over to Brussels and get a big salary (and pension) just on his own whim? Given that you are basically implying there were no elections for EU representation in the UK?

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Oh, and why was Farage et. al. allowed to just decide to go over to Brussels and get a big salary (and pension) just on his own whim? Given that you are basically implying there were no elections for EU representation in the UK?

I'm not re-debating the referendum. I was replying to another poster about the hairdresser in Hull.

In Parliament the focus is more granular (for example Hull has 3 MPs just for the city), and the focus is more particular (British concerns rather than the whole of the EU27). The wider the region, the less particular the considerations are, which is why perhaps people in Hull might find Brussels more disconnected from their daily lives than parliament would be.

Just a thought.

ohnonotgmail

theological wrote: »

Why? The UK doesn't have control over what standards other sovereign nations such as the US require, or the EU member states require. Similarly, my argument is that the EU shouldn't dictate British law after the Brexit transition.

My argument is consistent.

Prior to brexit the UK had input into the EU standards. now they have none and just have to accept whatever the EU decides their standards are going forward. How is that taking back control?

theological

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Prior to brexit the UK had input into the EU standards. now they have none and just have to accept whatever the EU decides their standards are going forward. How is that taking back control?

For trading into the EU market, yes.

That's something I'm OK with in exchange for increased control in the areas that matter.

I'm not claiming that there are no downsides to leaving the EU. I just think that the benefits are greater than the drawbacks at this point.

But again, we've been through all these sorts of arguments before, and I'm not sure much value is going to be gained in rehashing it.

Brexit isn't about the UK gaining control over what happens in the EU. It is about gaining more control over domestic policy.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

I'm not re-debating the referendum. I was replying to another poster about the hairdresser in Hull.

In Parliament the focus is more granular (for example Hull has 3 MPs just for the city), and the focus is more particular (British concerns rather than the whole of the EU27). The wider the region, the less particular the considerations are, which is why perhaps people in Hull might find Brussels more disconnected from their daily lives than parliament would be.

Just a thought.

Who is talking about a referendum. You are talking about electing representatives and you still seem to be under the impression that EU citizens don't have representation or elected representatives in Brussels. I mean really, at this stage, how can you still think that?



Actually the UK style of FPTP means that your choices are effectively restricted to choosing between whomever the respective big parties' strategists choose for your area! (The UK has only had about a dozens independents in total elected since the second world war.........ironically, UK representation to Brussels appeared to be a lot more diverse than in the UK parliament itself)

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

For trading into the EU market, yes.

It is quite common for deals with one trading partner to contain restrictions on deals with another.


Given that the EU will be by far the bigger partner in any trade deal with the UK, expect them to be the ones laying down such conditions. (As will the US and China and anyone else). That wouldn't sit well with the imagined self-perception of British exceptionalism but that's the reality



It is also why you will see some countries having to wait until EU deals are finalised before entering into their own deals with the UK

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

It is quite common for deals with one trading partner to contain restrictions on deals with another.


Given that the EU will be by far the bigger partner in any trade deal with the UK, expect them to be the ones laying down such conditions. (As will the US and China and anyone else). That wouldn't sit well with the imagined self-perception of British exceptionalism but that's the reality



It is also why you will see some countries having to wait until EU deals are finalised before entering into their own deals with the UK

Please read my post properly instead of claiming I said things I didn't.

I said the EU is entitled to set whatever standards it likes, and I said that the UK is not asking for any say in what those are.

Please read my posts properly before replying to them.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Please read my posts properly before replying to them.

You should take your own advice there Theo and read your own posts before posting them, or a few minutes after posting them as you appear to forget what you post!


You posted that:

theological wrote: »

I'm not sure why the answer to this isn't obvious.

The people of Hull elect 3 MPs that represent them in parliament. The MPs have constituency surgeries, and are contactable by the people of Hull. The hairdresser can decide to contribute towards booting them out in the next election if their concerns aren't dealt with.

To which I responded that:

Donald Trump wrote: »

Oh, and why was Farage et. al. allowed to just decide to go over to Brussels and get a big salary (and pension) just on his own whim? Given that you are basically implying there were no elections for EU representation in the UK?

You said that the "difference" vs. the EU is that the people of Hull have representative that they can contact. This implies that you think that the people of Hull did not have EU representatives that they could contact. No? I was merely correcting your basic misunderstanding of how the EU works.


It blows my mind that you still believe, at this stage, the Brexiter lie that EU citizens have no representation in the EU.

source

Donald Trump wrote: »

You said that the "difference" vs. the EU is that the people of Hull have representative that they can contact. This implies that you think that the people of Hull did not have EU representatives that they could contact. No? I was merely correcting your basic misunderstanding of how the EU works.


It blows my mind that you still believe, at this stage, the Brexiter lie that EU citizens have no representation in the EU.

Expanding on this point, Hull is in the Yorkshire and Humber region for EU Elections, a constituency which has 6 seats in the 705 seat EU Parliament. Which means that Hull actually has more elected representation through it's 6 MEPs in the EU than it does through it's 3 MPs in the 650 seat Westminster Parliament.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

You should take your own advice there Theo and read your own posts before posting them, or a few minutes after posting them as you appear to forget what you post!

You posted that:

To which I responded that:

You said that the "difference" vs. the EU is that the people of Hull have representative that they can contact. This implies that you think that the people of Hull did not have EU representatives that they could contact. No? I was merely correcting your basic misunderstanding of how the EU works.

It blows my mind that you still believe, at this stage, the Brexiter lie that EU citizens have no representation in the EU.

You also didn't read this properly also. I never said this.

What I did say is here:

theological wrote: »

I'm not re-debating the referendum. I was replying to another poster about the hairdresser in Hull.

In Parliament the focus is more granular (for example Hull has 3 MPs just for the city), and the focus is more particular (British concerns rather than the whole of the EU27). The wider the region, the less particular the considerations are, which is why perhaps people in Hull might find Brussels more disconnected from their daily lives than parliament would be.

Just a thought.

Please, read it slowly and carefully before replying. If you cannot reply in good faith, I'd ask you not to at all.

source wrote: »

Expanding on this point, Hull is in the Yorkshire and Humber region for EU Elections, a constituency which has 6 seats in the 705 seat EU Parliament. Which means that Hull actually has more elected representation through it's 6 MEPs in the EU than it does through it's 3 MPs in the 650 seat Westminster Parliament.

Yorkshire and the Humber included representation for Leeds, Sheffield and York too which are quite urban areas plus their hinterlands and other towns. If I am to compare the MPs in Westminster for that entire region we can be sure it is more than 6.

Edit: So in reply to the original poster, Hull definitely has better representation in parliament. Parliament is also solely concerned with British matters rather than matters for the whole EU27.

First Up

theological wrote:

Brexit isn't about the UK gaining control over what happens in the EU. It is about gaining more control over domestic policy.

Give us some examples of the domestic policies outside the UK's control.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Give us some examples of the domestic policies outside the UK's control.

You know what these are. I'm not going to rehash these points with you. I've stated them repeatedly and at length on this thread in the past.

If you need a reminder you can look up both the shared and exclusive competences of the EU in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

First Up

theological wrote:

You know what these are. I'm not going to rehash these points with you. I've stated them repeatedly and at length on this thread in the past.

Just copy and paste them for me like a good chap. I don't recall any.

source

theological wrote: »

Yorkshire and the Humber included representation for Leeds, Sheffield and York too which are quite urban areas plus their hinterlands and other towns. If I am to compare the MPs in Westminster for that entire region we can be sure it is more than 6.

Edit: So in reply to the original poster, Hull definitely has better representation in parliament. Parliament is also solely concerned with British matters rather than matters for the whole EU27.

Not so as it is constituency based. Hull as a constituency, going by what you've said, has 3 seats in Westminster. The Yorkshire and Humber constituency has 6 seats in the EU parliament. Hull as a constituent part of the Yorkshire and Humber constituency has 6 elected representatives to the EU Parliament.

If you want to merge the consituencies within the Yorkshire and Humber region for the Westminster parliament then yes you would have a greater number of seats, but Hull will still only have 3 representatives in Westminster vs 6 in Brussels.

First Up

Domestic policies are things that only affect the UK. For example tax rates, speed limits, pub opening hours, the price of stamps - stuff like that.

Any examples of the EU butting in on stuff like that?

theological

source wrote: »

Not so as it is constituency based. Hull as a constituency, going by what you've said, has 3 seats in Westminster. The Yorkshire and Humber constituency has 6 seats in the EU parliament. Hull as a constituent part of the Yorkshire and Humber constituency has 6 elected representatives to the EU Parliament.

If you want to merge the consituencies within the Yorkshire and Humber region for the Westminster parliament then yes you would have a greater number of seats, but Hull will still only have 3 representatives in Westminster vs 6 in Brussels.

I don't think anyone can argue genuinely that 6 MEPs for an entire region with multiple cities is better than 3 MPs for one city. To come to that conclusion it would be very laboured and result in a significant straining of logic.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

I don't think anyone can argue genuinely that 6 MEPs for an entire region with multiple cities is better than 3 MPs for one city. To come to that conclusion it would be very laboured and result in a significant straining of logic.

So now that you've agreed with the corrct figures, was the hairdresser in Hull represented by 6 MEPs or not?

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So now that you've agreed with the corrct figures, was the hairdresser in Hull represented by 6 MEPs or not?

I never disagreed with this figure. If you're not interested in arguing in good faith please don't reply to my posts.

The obvious point is that 3 MPs just for Hull is better than 6 for a much wider area in a parliament which has to deal with much broader concerns. If you didn't understand that from my posts, that is your problem and not mine.

source

theological wrote: »

I don't think anyone can argue genuinely that 6 MEPs for an entire region with multiple cities is better than 3 MPs for one city. To come to that conclusion it would be very laboured and result in a significant straining of logic.

There's no strained logic at all, the EU population is 500m, the UK population is 64. So it stands to reason that the electoral constituenies are going to be larger for the EU.

Going by your logic, let's say... Marfleet, doesn't have 3 MPs because they represent the overall larger area of Hull, rather than its constituent parts.

Seth Brundle

Theo - your suggestion was that a person would not be represented by the 6 MEPs properly when compared to their representation by MPs and started talking about multiple cities, etc to deflect from the fact that the person did actually have better representation at EU level than at national level.
You're still trying to do it because that's suits your narrative!

theological

theological wrote: »

I never disagreed with this figure. If you're not interested in arguing in good faith please don't reply to my posts.

The obvious point is that 3 MPs just for Hull is better than 6 for a much wider area in a parliament which has to deal with much broader concerns. If you didn't understand that from my posts, that is your problem and not mine.

The only thing I can take from this is that the UK should split since its parliament is dominated by England.

Seth Brundle

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing I can take from this is that the UK should split since its parliament is dominated by England.

It appears that the Brexit vote will create this outcome.
NI will leave once a nationalist party takes a majority - something I suspect WM will be happy to let go.
Scotland are pissed off because NI got itself a good deal, so Scotland will look to leave.
Wales will probably follow too because, being British, they won't want to be a vassal state to another country!

source

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Scotland are pissed off because NI got itself a good deal, so Scotland will look to leave.

Also part of the reason they voted no to independence last time was because they wanted to remain in the EU and we're facing being outside the EU as a small nation having to work towards reentry... At least that is what the no side was saying.

Irish Praetorian

I see people have taken my 'hairdresser from Hull' point and run with it. I'll try to make clearer what I was attempting to argue in making that point. Essentially, for the argument of 'taking back control' articulated by the Leave campaign, I'm left wondering why it is that one voter amongst 65 million is considered to be 'in control' whilst one voter amongst 500 odd million is considered to be 'dictated from Brussels'. Fundamentally, our democratic systems exist with the assumption that the views and votes of the individual will invariably be leavened out by size and only the most popular views and parties will get any traction. At the most basic level, the single voter always ends up dictated to, be it by Brussels, London, or their local Council, and the history of Democracy has largely been a case of trying to bring more people into the class of voter rather than subdividing more and more the area of representation. This to my mind, is what renders the argument of 'taking back control' completely dissonant - what is to stop people saying (as is presently the case in Scotland) that they need to divide themselves away from Westminster in order to 'take back control'? The argument taken to its logical conclusion is one of continuous subdivision, whilst for all practical implications, the nuts and bolts of government and the primary levers of control will continue to be held not by voters living in the periphery, but by the small cadre of elected officials and the slightly wider circle of bureaucrats, policy specialists and pundits that surround them. In this sense, Brexit might be the start of the great pulling of the thread which leads to the ruin of the shirt.

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Theo - your suggestion was that a person would not be represented by the 6 MEPs properly when compared to their representation by MPs and started talking about multiple cities, etc to deflect from the fact that the person did actually have better representation at EU level than at national level.
You're still trying to do it because that's suits your narrative!

I disagree. It isn't. I explained why. 3 MP's for just Hull is better than 6 for a larger region. If you want to ignore that fact that is up to you.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

I'm discussing how a third party, the UK will keep standards of other markets it trades into such as the US and the EU. Not being a member of the single market.

I'm at a loss to understand how a discussion on how a country is going to deal with being outside a single market it formerly belonged to isn't a discussion about the single market.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

Why? The UK doesn't have control over what standards other sovereign nations such as the US require, or the EU member states require. Similarly, my argument is that the EU shouldn't dictate British law after the Brexit transition.

My argument is consistent.

But isn't one of your central arguments that laws applicable to the UK should be enacted through the UK parliament?

It certainly does have influence over the standards that EU countries require, or did until Brexit. It was part of the process of agreeing those standards.

Do you think that the UK involvement in the US standards or the EU standards was greater?

And again you keep stating that you believe that EU dictates UK laws. It doesn't. The UK government had the right, at all times to not enact the EU rules, EU rules that they were party to agreeing. They could have voted against them, they could have used a veto, they could have refused to implement it. But the democratically elected government of the UK never did those things.

But you then accept that standards, regulations etc are perfectly acceptable to be decided upon by outside of the UK? You point to the US as an example.

The difference with Brexit is that you are now moving the UK to a similar position with the EU that it had with the US, ie no influence or decision making capabilities at all.

I don't see how you accept that business should have to abide by rules and regulations set by foreign entities but that somehow it is undemocratic for UK citizens to represented in that endevour.