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

lawred2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trade only. No over reaching unelected bureaucratic trough fest.

As slippery Farage once said in the EU parliament " who are you"

"The primacy of EU law

EU law is superior to national law. This means that Ireland (along with other member states) cannot pass national laws that contradict EU laws. It also means that an EU law can over-rule an Irish law, even if that Irish law was enacted before the EU law came into effect"

Can you provide a list of these troublesome bureaucratic instruments that you'd like to see removed?

Can you provide a few bills you'd like to see passed into law here that might contravene an EU law?

Can you provide examples which you've found particularly distressing where EU law supplanted Irish law? And why?

lawred2

Love to see Ireland exist in a "trade only" environment.. Ireland is not a primary economy.

Might as well put a bullet in our heads

ExMachina1000

lawred2 wrote: »

Can you provide a list of these troublesome bureaucratic instruments that you'd like to see removed?

Can you provide a few bills you'd like to see passed into law here that might contravene an EU law?

Can you provide examples which you've found particularly distressing where EU law supplanted Irish law? And why?

I will yeah.

Stay tuned. I'm drafting a report right now

lawred2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I will yeah.

Stay tuned. I'm drafting a report right now

Empty rhetoric.

I'm so surprised.

ExMachina1000

lawred2 wrote: »

Empty rhetoric.

I'm so surprised.

Yeah you really showed me up there.

lawred2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yeah you really showed me up there.

Showed yourself up you massive bluffer. Don't need anyone to help you.

ExMachina1000

lawred2 wrote: »

Showed yourself up you massive bluffer. Don't need anyone to help you.

Me and my lack of on hand detailed EU reformation document.

lawred2

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Me and my lack of on hand detailed EU reformation document.

Well when you take a position counter to the status quo; it's usually prudent to have a few reasons why..

Well to my mind at least

If it had been London instead of Brussels, none of this would have ever happened.

Choosehowevr.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it had been London instead of Brussels, none of this would have ever happened.

This thread would never have happened?

MadYaker

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Me and my lack of on hand detailed EU reformation document.

Why bother commenting so? You never add anything of value to any discussion I’ve seen you take part in. You make a half point and then when pushed on it you stop responding. You do it in the trump threads and now your doing it here.

fergiesfolly

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trade yes.

EU jurisdiction over national laws and systems no

I listened to James O Brien ask UK callers to his show ask how being out of the EU improves life in the UK.
Not one in 4 years has given one single actual example. Not one.
Politicians, economists, man in the street.
Not 1. In 4 years.

And you can't either.
You're a contrarian.
Not a good one either.
No argument. No defined reasoning. No logic
Nothing. Empty. Useless.
I'd say you were a really por example of a Russian bot. But even they wouldn't hire you.

Nothing. Empty. Useless.

Eric Cartman

Ive been watching this for years to see what way it could go.

As nice as the idea was, farages promises of free-er markets and closed borders were always a bit pie in the sky , there was however a good opportunity for the UK to make some serious ground here on freeing up from over regulation and other market infringing rules.

However the deal they've struck achieves very little of this. The UK is worse off for having done this in terms of both trade and losing free movement. They couldn't even keep their full fishery rights.

2/10, they voted for a dream and got a nightmare.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ive been watching this for years to see what way it could go.

As nice as the idea was, farages promises of free-er markets and closed borders were always a bit pie in the sky , there was however a good opportunity for the UK to make some serious ground here on freeing up from over regulation and other market infringing rules.

However the deal they've struck achieves very little of this. The UK is worse off for having done this in terms of both trade and losing free movement. They couldn't even keep their full fishery rights.

2/10, they voted for a dream and got a nightmare.

Farage failed seven times in trying to become an MP. He was in no position to promise anything.

The free market thing is nonsense when you consider that the three regulatory powers are Bejing, Brussels and Washington. If you want access to those markets, you'll have to toe their lines. London could have influenced the single market easily if it had deigned to but now it will have none whatsoever.

And as for the migration thing, I fail to see how replacing migrants from white, Christian and secular European countries with Africans and Asians is a win there.

igCorcaigh

The whole thing has been an utter waste of time, money, and attention.
A charade.

The likes of Farange will now pivot to make their careers relevant, and the result of it all is the cheapening of political discourse and impoverishment of the population along with the status of the UK.

But at least that phase is now done.

fergiesfolly

fergiesfolly wrote: »

I listened to James O Brien ask UK callers to his show ask how being out of the EU improves life in the UK.
Not one in 4 years has given one single actual example. Not one.
Politicians, economists, man in the street.
Not 1. In 4 years.

And you can't either.
You're a contrarian.
Not a good one either.
No argument. No defined reasoning. No logic
Nothing. Empty. Useless.
I'd say you were a really por example of a Russian bot. But even they wouldn't hire you.

Nothing. Empty. Useless.

I got reported for this post.
So well done.
Coward.

fash

Choosehowevr. wrote: »

And if they sign new, maybe better deals among themselves

That could start to get messy

Better for whom? The UK? Specifically a corrupt few within the Tory party?
Certainly not the citizens of the poor benighted country whose gullible population voted to leave the EU.

fash

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trade yes.

EU jurisdiction over national laws and systems no

You can't really have substantial trade without supranational control though - so you mean "(massively reduced) trade?

fash

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trade only. No over reaching unelected bureaucratic trough fest.

You can't have "trade only" without "unelected bureaucrats" to administer it.
Furthermore by leaving you massively, massively increase the "bureaucratic trough fest" - just look at the massive massive increase in unelected bureaucrats and red tape in the UK.

As slippery Farage once said in the EU parliament " who are you"

They are the EU parliament - who is Farage? Who are you? Why are you here?

"The primacy of EU law

You can't have trade without primacy of the agreement.

EU law is superior to national law. This means that Ireland (along with other member states) cannot pass national laws that contradict EU laws. It also means that an EU law can over-rule an Irish law, even if that Irish law was enacted before the EU law came into effect"

That's the point of a trade agreement - otherwise how do you have trade?

Choosehowevr.

Choosehowevr. wrote: »

This thread would never have happened?

Brexit. This notion of being ruled by Europe wouldn't have taken hold if the EU's institutions were next to Parliament.

jimmycrackcorm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm happy to let the UK and other countries that might leave try create something better. If it happens, everyone will go for it and it'll be the new EU.

Like the Brexit arguments staying that britain will prosper mightily workout giving actual facts.

The problem with trying to have something better is that too ensure that, you have to create a set of rules and laws to ensure that all countries get equal benefits. So you end up with guess what, what we have, the EU.

I've yet to see what laws or rules there are that the EU has implemented to detriment. Just a lot of made up stuff like bendy bananas.

For Ireland, we've had to share our fisheries, but the benefits that we've gotten in exchange have vastly outweighed the loss.

"Within the EU, prior to Britain’s departure, the UK controlled the largest amount of fishing waters with its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covering some 743,965 sq kms followed by Spain with 560,957 sq kms, Ireland with 425,346 sq kms and France with 344,395 sq kms."

When you consider Ireland's population, the size of our waters, and the size of the EU market, giving up some fishing is an extraordinarily good deal. We give up very little per capita and gain a massive market per capita.

France for example only gains around 6x its population in terms of market size by being in the EU while Ireland, with its larger fishing waters, gains 88x its population by being in it.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Farage failed seven times in trying to become an MP. He was in no position to promise anything.

The free market thing is nonsense when you consider that the three regulatory powers are Bejing, Brussels and Washington. If you want access to those markets, you'll have to toe their lines. London could have influenced the single market easily if it had deigned to but now it will have none whatsoever.

And as for the migration thing, I fail to see how replacing migrants from white, Christian and secular European countries with Africans and Asians is a win there.

I think normally we disagree, but I have always believed you were one of the few on the opposing aisle who posted in good faith, still ill believe that as 99% of the time its correct, but to bring up the farage election issue knowing how broken fptp is , thats not good faith.

I absolutely agree with you on the last paragraph, brexit was sold on controlled borders and limited migration, this deal does nothing to help the UK allow the overwhelmingly positive influence of EU migration while keeping out the negative non EU migration.

On the second point I somewhat agree, the outcome has been faulty to say the least. My argument was that there was a chance to make the UK a genuinely competitive economic force, but their argument and deal brokering gave that away, they had a cushy lot in the EU with some of the most autonomy of any member state and now theyre an external island nation with almost no bargaining power.

Choosehowevr.

I like starmers style voting for the deal

Abstaining is a joke imo for a serious party

Professor Moriarty

Choosehowevr. wrote: »

I like starmers style voting for the deal

Abstaining is a joke imo for a serious party

I think he's making a terrible mistake. It will be passed no matter what they vote. The large majority of Labour supporters are anti Brexit as are his parliamentary party. He is now telling them they must accept and vote for an extremely hard Brexit. Morally and strategically wrong. Labour has become a fragmented waste of time.

Choosehowevr.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think he's making a terrible mistake. It will be passed no matter what they vote. The large majority of Labour supporters are anti Brexit as are his parliamentary party. He is now telling them they must accept and vote for an extremely hard Brexit. Morally and strategically wrong. Labour has become a fragmented waste of time.

Definitely 2 ways of looking at it

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think normally we disagree, but I have always believed you were one of the few on the opposing aisle who posted in good faith, still ill believe that as 99% of the time its correct, but to bring up the farage election issue knowing how broken fptp is , thats not good faith.

I absolutely agree with you on the last paragraph, brexit was sold on controlled borders and limited migration, this deal does nothing to help the UK allow the overwhelmingly positive influence of EU migration while keeping out the negative non EU migration.

On the second point I somewhat agree, the outcome has been faulty to say the least. My argument was that there was a chance to make the UK a genuinely competitive economic force, but their argument and deal brokering gave that away, they had a cushy lot in the EU with some of the most autonomy of any member state and now theyre an external island nation with almost no bargaining power.

FPTP prevents anyone from gaining any significant number of seats unless they win about 25% of the vote at a general election. At their zenith, UKIP were about half that and claimed a single seat as a result of the 2015 election. Unfair? Absolutely but that's the British electoral system for you.

It remains as fact that Brexit was going to be whatever the ruling party decided it was. If Corbyn had won in 2017, we'd probably have seen more concessions to the EU to minimise economic disruption. But he was a disaster in the end so that's irrelevant.

All people voted for was to leave the EU with no more detail than that? Norway, Canada, Singapore and North Korea are outsider the EU. Whose relationship do you want? As above, the answer lies in the whims of the ruling party, the Conservatives so it is entirely relevant and fair to point out that after he'd spooked Cameron into promising the referendum. After that, all he did was provide entertainment for one side and trigger material for the other. I don't think that noting this is in bad faith. Even if he won a seat for himself, all he'd be doing is influencing the few meaningful votes and votes on May's deal in the same bloc as Rees-Mogg and Baker.

If you want either zero or minimal immigration and unfettered free markets, that's fine. You acknowledge that EU migration is positive so fair dues IMO FWIW. However, non-EU migration has always been 100% in the gift of Westminster. Brexit was never going to change that. As for free markets, Britain is a small island in the east of the Atlantic which has based its economy on financial services, technology and the sciences. Those are all sectors staffed by highly mobile people who, once the covid-ban is up may start to ponder their standing here. I was talking to a friend last night and people on this site who seem to think I'd have opportunities in Dublin.

Ultimately, services need to be exported. I don't think London's lobbyists can achieve much in Washington or Bejing but they had huge influence in Brussels. We even saw George Osborne veto a "Robin Hood" tax, measures against Chinese dumping of steel onto European markets and limits on bankers' bonuses with no diplomatic repurcussions, ie they were able like no other state to curb the EU's protectionist instincts. If you want to do business with the EU, you have to adhere to their rulebook and you've ditched your chance to edit and change it.

I've a close friend who I'm 99% sure is in the Irexit party. We're still friends, no bother. He'd be skeptical of non-EU migration, EU migration, pro-small state, anti-unification and libertarian on free markets. Grand, but Brexit was never going to deliver this.

Hamsterchops

igCorcaigh wrote: »

The whole thing has been an utter waste of time, money, and attention.
A charade.

The likes of Farange will now pivot to make their careers relevant, and the result of it all is the cheapening of political discourse and impoverishment of the population along with the status of the UK.

But at least that phase is now done.

Thing is, the Brexit idea was simmering away on the hob for at least thirty years. There has been disquiet under the surface for a long time within sections of British society, who wanted greater control over such issues as immigration into GB.

I think the writing has been on the wall since Cameron went to Brussels asking for a cap on immigration numbers into Britain, which, (according to the tabloids) were massive at the time, Brussels kicked Cameron out the door saying NO, we will not bend and we will not reduce the annual influx into Britain.

Cameron then returned to Westminster 'tail between legs' having achieved ZERO in Brussels, this episode lit the fuse in my opinion.

And for good or for bad, here we are today.

Leroy42

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Thing is, the Brexit idea was simmering away on the hob for at least thirty years. There has been disquiet under the surface for a long time within sections of British society, who wanted greater control over such issues as immigration into GB.

I think the writing has been on the wall since Cameron went to Brussels asking for a cap on immigration numbers into Britain, which, (according to the tabloids) were massive at the time, Brussels kicked Cameron out the door saying NO, we will not bend and we will not reduce the annual influx into Britain.

Cameron then returned to Westminster 'tail between legs' having achieved ZERO in Brussels, this episode lit the fuse in my opinion.

And for good or for bad, here we are today.

Except that is not what actually happened.

Cameron wasn't told no, he was told to implement the rules as they existed. But to do that would have been to accept that they hadn't done it so easier to blame the EU

timetogo1

It's mad that 4 years after the referendum some people still post the soundbites that we know are rubbish. He went with a list of requirements.

Here's what Cameron came back with. Spoiler alert. It wasn't "ZERO"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

The UK didn't get 100% what they wanted so in the Trump style of negotiation that means they lost.