|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Jean Claude J. has said that Britain will come to 'regret' leaving the EU. For the cynical and nervous among us an under-his-breath appendage to that statement might well have been We'll make sure of that
The EU don't need to do anything to make sure we'll regret leaving the EU. The UK government has already managed that all by itself. Helped by a small majority of the UK population who voted for it.
quote:
Cards are currently being held so close to the chest it is impossible to speculate what the actual difference for the average UK Joe will be cometh the day.
Some of the impacts are obvious, and have been since before the start of the campaign. Reduced service from the NHS and other services - less doctors, nurses and other workers (because they've been told they aren't welcome here), reduced tax income from European employees who leave, reduced employment and staff quality (again because of reductions on immigration and a deliberate policy to make the UK an unattractive place to work). Increased red tape to maintain UK production in line with EU regulations, so that UK products can be sold to the EU - even if there aren't any tariffs etc. That will increase costs to business, compensated for by reducing staff costs (less people, or less pay).
But, 52% of the population voted for it. Which makes it OK to take the "Great" out of our national identity, and become simply Britain - or, more accurately Little England.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"Theresa May is due to meet her "Brexit cabinet" to discuss for the first time what the UK's future relationship with the EU should be."
I thought I misheard that on the TV this morning, but it's there in print as well. The FIRST TIME? Of course, you know my view that the official Leave campaign should have defined what relationship they wanted, and campaigned for it before the referendum so we had the opportunity to say whether we want it. At the very least as soon as Mrs May took over her "Brexit Cabinet" should have thought that through from their first meeting, before starting the clock and triggering Article 50. But too have waited so long before even starting to discuss the question is disgraceful.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Can't argue with that, Alan. Whatever one's view of the theoretical merits of Brexit may be, it's undeniable that the government seems to be doing its level best to bollocks the whole thing up.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
<snip>
But, 52% of the population voted for it. Which makes it OK to take the "Great" out of our national identity, and become simply Britain - or, more accurately Little England.
52% of the electorate voted for Brexit, there was a 72.2% turnout, which means 37.4% of the population voted for Brexit. Although the turnout was larger where there was greater Brexit vote.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I noticed that phrase, 'for the first time', in the papers. It's a weird mixture of farce and horror we are in. We voted on something that hardly anybody understood, least of all the politicians, and they still don't.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
An good comment in the Guardian today.
quote:
I’m sure this has been said many times already, but Brexit has now become a quasi-religion with its associated language of “doubters”, “mutineers” and “traitors”. Facts and reason are the enemies of the true believers, with their high priests Rees-Mogg, Jenkin, Gove and Johnson.
Factions are developing and heretics being denounced. Faith and belief are all that matters. Reality doesn’t exist.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
An good comment in the Guardian today.
quote:
I’m sure this has been said many times already, but Brexit has now become a quasi-religion with its associated language of “doubters”, “mutineers” and “traitors”. Facts and reason are the enemies of the true believers, with their high priests Rees-Mogg, Jenkin, Gove and Johnson.
Factions are developing and heretics being denounced. Faith and belief are all that matters. Reality doesn’t exist.
Must dig out my copy of "The Crucible".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some of the confusion among politicians can be seen in Boris's latest effluvia, saying that we need frictionless trade, but also the ability to determine our own regulations.
But those two things are surely contradictory? In the modern world, nation states don't determine their own rules, but tend to be enmeshed in trade deals with other countries, where regulations are mutually agreed. This is what the EU does, but the Ultras seem to have the fantasy that outside the EU, we can 'plough our own furrow'.
https://behindthepaywallblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/boris-johnson-brexit-mustnt-leave-us-a-vassal-state/
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
It's just more "cake and eat it" stuff, for consumption by the Tory faithful.
Anyone who thinks that anybody can just make up their own regulations these days, doesn't have much experience of international trade.
[ 18. December 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"Theresa May is due to meet her "Brexit cabinet" to discuss for the first time what the UK's future relationship with the EU should be."
I thought I misheard that on the TV this morning, but it's there in print as well. The FIRST TIME?l.
It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
Imagine a kid at school doing so little preparation for handing a GCSE project in; they’d be mullered by their teachers, rightly so. Seems there’s no problem with it for die-hard Brexiteers when it’s the government rather than a kid, and instead of a project it’s an enormous change to the constitution and status of the entire nation.
(There are not enough of these in the world -> ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And Mrs May keeps stressing the need for a smooth and orderly Brexit. Well, irony is truly dead.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
If Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A different mess, yes, probably, but perhaps a more edifying one...and with decent frites instead of the soggy monstrosities served up in most UK chippies...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A different mess, yes, probably, but perhaps a more edifying one...and with decent frites instead of the soggy monstrosities served up in most UK chippies...
IJ
With proper bread shops, unions with teeth ...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Would be bloody lovely if we woke up and the “it was all a dream” trope reset us to our previous level of mediocrity.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Would be bloody lovely if we woke up and the “it was all a dream” trope reset us to our previous level of mediocrity.
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now. The cabinet appears as split as the Tory party was before the referendum but and it is drifting under the captaincy of Theresa May, who has confused "static" for "stable".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think she's confusing "stable" with making sure all the horses in her party are corralled together. And, ignoring the fact that stabling horses creates a lot of muck to be cleaned out.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think she's confusing "stable" with making sure all the horses in her party are corralled together. And, ignoring the fact that stabling horses creates a lot of muck to be cleaned out.
In some ways this is a very dangerous state of affairs - more so as the transitional arrangement seemed 'reasonable' and thus people (Remainers and soft Leavers) are lulled into a false sense of security.
The end destination could differ radically from the transition - and in the worst case the UK will just fall out of a transition period without any agreement.
[ 19. December 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The end destination could differ radically from the transition - and in the worst case the UK will just fall out of a transition period without any agreement.
Is it awful that there’s a bit of me that almost hopes that happens* just because we've make such a fuckadoodle of it that we kinda deserve it?
*except I don’t really because we all know that if it all goes pear-shaped, it’ll not be the rich powerful players who created the Brexit mess who suffer, it’ll be the poorest and most vulnerable people who take th biggest hit.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
it’ll not be the rich powerful players who created the Brexit mess who suffer, it’ll be the poorest and most vulnerable people who take th biggest hit.
According to this, it's even more ironic than that.
quote:
Figure 2 depicts the GDP exposure to Brexit of European regions. The highest levels are found for many of the UK's non-core regions in the Midlands and the North of England, many of which voted for Brexit
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That should save the UK government from doing impact studies. Just read what experts are saying ... allow them to get on with actually thinking of a plan before they start negotiations.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.
I take it from this that you accept a "Brexit" in which the UK accepts the four freedoms, is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, pays into the EU budget, accepts all regulations emanating from Brussels and is unable to have an independent trade policy, but without having any representation in the decision making bodies of the EU? Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
Doesn't really have salience, and wasn't on the ballot paper.
ISTR you asserting up thread that it would be trivial for the UK to stay in the SM without accepting any regulation from the EU. How's that working out for you?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
ISTR you asserting up thread that it would be trivial for the UK to stay in the SM without accepting any regulation from the EU. How's that working out for you?
Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels. But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause? I've worried for many years about lack of democracy in the EU, especially as successive British governments have signed up to treaties which seriously changed our relationship with Europe, without ever giving us a vote, which was given in many other countries.
But it could always be argued that we had our commissioners, MEP's and our share of civil servants involved in the rule making process. After March 2019 we will have none of them, ie no one representing British interests in the EU. In those circumstances I have no wish to commit to being bound by those rules beyond a transition period which the EU says will end in December 2020. Is this not a democratic deficit of big proportions?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
PaulTH: quote:
I've worried for many years about lack of democracy in the EU, especially as successive British governments have signed up to treaties which seriously changed our relationship with Europe, without ever giving us a vote, which was given in many other countries.
[emphasis added] And the government is taking advantage of the Brexit chaos to award itself a lot of extra powers. That's the same government which is quite happy with the excessively gerrymandered and highly centralized British political system.
Seems to me that the democratic deficit is going to get worse instead of better. Right now the balance of power in Parliament is being held by ten MPs from Northern Ireland. Does that sound democratic to you? Voting for their party isn't even an option in mainland Britain - although to be fair, we have batshit crazy politicians over here, too.
[ 20. December 2017, 23:26: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels. But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause?
I think this gets to the heart of the disingenuousness of the Brexiteers.
There may well be a lack of democracy in the EU, but control is not just about direct universal suffrage. Britain had far more opportunity to exercise a degree of control (including over voting legislation) over its environment by being at the negotiating table and in the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg than it has by "taking back control", which as far as I can see means relinquishing what control it had.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The UK already has a democratic deficit, at least in comparison to most other democracies (eg: other EU nations). That is mostly at the local level, since we have such a strong centralised government in Westminster. When it comes down to it, local government is what most people will be more concerned with - the issues most of us have are under local authority control (schools, bin collection, road repairs, planning issues etc), with a system that to a large extent limits local government in what can be done about local issues that affect people. It's a bit better in Scotland, Wales & NI with devolved Parliament/Assemblies giving us additional elected representatives.
But, at local level we have very large local authorities with a relatively small number of councillors. Where I am, South Lanarkshire is a "local" government covering parts of Glasgow, new and commuter towns, former coal mining areas, and a large area of small rural towns. In most countries that would be divided down into smaller areas that can be classified as local communities, with probably an area the size of S Lan (or a couple of such areas) as a second level of government above that.
I've been trying to find some statistics I saw in the spring, in the run up to the local elections, detailing how other countries manage local government (and, failing to find them ... so, from memory). As I recall, in the UK we have somewhere around 1 councillor per 3500 voters (which makes up the vast majority of people we elect - the number of MPs, MEPs, MSPs is small in comparison so doesn't make a big difference to the elected person/voter ratio). The stats I saw showed that in much of the rest of Europe local authorities cover smaller areas, even to small councils for individual villages of a few thousand people. With a much higher number of councillors per capita, many countries having an average below 2000.
Which is only tangentially relevant to EU membership. Except that I do believe we need genuine local government, with increased powers, at the expense of central government that (in the UK) is currently too powerful. The UK, in the current world system, is too large for many things (where we would be better devolving downwards to local and regional government) and too small for others (eg: environmental regulation, where we need trans-national government). There is some areas where being an island makes that a logical governmental entity, but IMO that's not a large area of governmental authority. I'd be very happy with a system of genuine local government, regional governments (maybe even up to the size of the Scottish Government), and then European scale government and drop the largely superfluous government covering the mainland of Britain and associated smaller isles. Of course, for that to work there would also need to be a similar move to dissolve the current French, German, Spanish etc governments.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the same government which is quite happy with the excessively gerrymandered and highly centralized British political system.
Seems to me that the democratic deficit is going to get worse instead of better. Right now the balance of power in Parliament is being held by ten MPs from Northern Ireland. Does that sound democratic to you? Voting for their party isn't even an option in mainland Britain - although to be fair, we have batshit crazy politicians over here, too.
With this and subsequent posts, we seem to be moving onto the subject of democracy itself. I no longer agree with the FPTP system of UK elections, but when the Lib Dems, in coalition, forced a referendum on a modest change in the electoral system, it was completely rebuffed. Nor do I relish the headbanging DUP holding the balance of power, but coalitions, even in countries which have PR, often result in small parties having a disproportionate leverage on power. I also agree with Alan that power in the UK is much too centralised.
Presently the country, parliament and the main political parties themselves are hopelessly polarised over Brexit. With the utter chaos of this government, Labour should be 20% ahead, as was Tony Blair in the mid 1990's. But the parties are still neck and neck as they were in June of this year. Some polls give a small lead to Labour, but at least one recently gave the Tories a small lead. May still polls ahead of Corbyn because many people, myself included, would never vote to put men like Corbyn and McDonnell in power. I could never vote for a party which allows Ken Livingstone to remain a member.
But the defects in British democracy don't change my central point. The UK may be offered a Norway or a Canada type future, as Mr Barnier suggests. But the British economy is several times over more important than Norway and Canada combined as a market for the EU, so we have the right to seek a bespoke deal. What I could never accept, and I think many Britons would agree, although I don't know how many, is that we should be subject to all the rules and constraints of the SM and CU, without a voice in the decision making process. That is the exact opposite of what the Brexit vote was about, however we may feel about it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the British economy is several times over more important than Norway and Canada combined as a market for the EU, so we have the right to seek a bespoke deal.
You don't have the right. You are entitled to seek one. But a larger market does not make a deal easier. quote:
What I could never accept, and I think many Britons would agree, although I don't know how many, is that we should be subject to all the rules and constraints of the SM and CU, without a voice in the decision making process. That is the exact opposite of what the Brexit vote was about, however we may feel about it.
I don't know about the "exact opposite", but that is indeed what was stupid about a Leave vote in my view. It is simply unrealistic to think you can be so close to such a huge and regulated market and not feel some of its rules are being "imposed" on you if you want to trade with it. Being in the EU allowed the UK to have a voice in all that.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You don't have the right. You are entitled to seek one.
You are right. I meant we have the right to seek a bespoke deal, not necessarily to have one. It goes without saying that any country which sells to the EU has to meet its regulatory standards, as does any country which sells to Japan or the US. That's up to the exporters. I don't see why it means that we must align our whole export market permanently with the EU.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know about the "exact opposite", but that is indeed what was stupid about a Leave vote in my view. It is simply unrealistic to think you can be so close to such a huge and regulated market and not feel some of its rules are being "imposed" on you if you want to trade with it. Being in the EU allowed the UK to have a voice in all that.
This.
This is the heart of all of this. Trade agreements are not really about tarrifs. Tarrifs are easy, you can freely reduce of eradicate them at a stroke. Regulational alignment is the hard bit.
Essentially, all countries have regulatory arrangements and only the extreme-free-market people think you don't need them. Let's give one simple example; there are minimum standards for the effectiveness of car brakes. In theory you could not have a standard but just let the market decide - i.e. people would choose to buy safer cars thus pushing up standards. In practice, this doesn't work very well for two reasons: 1) The vast majority of consumers (me included) do not have enough knowledge to know what they're looking for here and 2) in order for me to be safe on the roads, not only do I need car with effective brakes, but I need you to have one as well. Hence in all developed economies, standards exist - and for all other critical parts of cars. And aeroplanes. Across all sectors of the economy there are key standards (usually to do with safety). Now, we can quibble over individual regulations, but no one who actually knows about these things is anti-all regulation.
To trade across borders between jurisdictions you have to do one of two things: either you have border controls with a system of checks to make sure that what you're importing meets the standards or you have a trade agreement between the exporter and the importer to use the same standards.
Trade Harmonisation - as it's called - in turn comes down to essentially one of two approaches; either you go for the lowest common demoninator - bring all regulations down to the minimum (see TTIP) or you agree on standards that protect consumers and are obtainable and then you form a customs union whereby all goods and services produced in that area meet the standards of the whole area and can thus be freely traded.
Interestingly, if you talk to experts on EU law, Britain (as one of the big 3) has always had significant influence on the formation of EU regulations.
The EU, for all it's faults (and there are many) has been astoundingly successful at unifying 28 different nations and cultures in a serious a trading agreements that both protect consumers and enable trade.
So Britain outside the EU has two choices: either we act as though we are still in and that will really help trade or we diverge and struggle to trade with the EU. One would mean minimal loss economically but a huge loss of sovereignty. The other means a very large economic hit.
And all these mythical trade deals with the rest of the world? They come at a sovereignty price because the only way to have a trade deal with anyone is to forego some sovereignty and have mutually agreed rules.
I suppose, I should mention, there is another theoretical possibility - Britain could conquer the world again and impose our rules on everyone...
So, ultimately there is no path to being better off trade-wise outside the EU. Being part of the EU means voluntarily diluting some sovereignty for big gains. (And not that much sovereignty when you're a big power like Britain). The only justifications I can see for leaving that are even remotely conherent, is 1) That full sovereignty is so important that it's worth the cost. (Although, it's vital to note here that the kind of Brexit we are being promised involves ultimately much less sovereignty). or 2) Because you believe that the EU will unravel itself and we need to get out before that happens.
If you are inline with 1 or 2 then I disagree but respect your position. Anything else is just Bollocks. It really, really is.
I don't particularly like the EU but it's so much better than the alternatives...
But apparently it's the will of the (lied to, ignorant, misinformed and not actually a majority) people...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think there is a basic contradiction in the govt position - they have rejected the single market, but want 'frictionless trade'. I don't see the EU accepting this, as it makes the single market pointless!
Having your cake and eating it, indeed. If you want to be a third country, you can't simultaneously ask for special privileges. Cue all the analogies with leaving gym/golf club, but asking if you can use it at weekends.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
ISTR you asserting up thread that it would be trivial for the UK to stay in the SM without accepting any regulation from the EU. How's that working out for you?
Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels.
Nobody except you upthread
quote:
But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause?
Short of having a referendum over ever trade deal how do you propose to fix that ? (at various points in this thread you seem to consider anything that isn't subject to direct vote undemocratic - see your comments about leaving the EHCR).
As alien points out above, once you commit yourself to seeking free trade agreements of any sort you are subject to regulation decided elsewhere (or equally are subject to having local legislation over-ruled elsewhere - the dreaded chlorine chicken problem). The easiest way to replace lost trade with the EU is by making deals with large trade blocks - and in any such deal the larger trade block will have the whip hand.
[ 21. December 2017, 09:43: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have been present (as interpreter) at discussions about trade in tangible goods between France and the Channel Islands (which are not part of the EU but are - for now - part of the EEA, but which basically get all their stuff from the UK).
The difficulties relate not so much to customs issues (though there are some of these) but to regulatory harmonisation - and that's within what is basically an EU market for a couple of tiny islands. Imagine the headaches if regulations aren't aligned at all for somewhere the size of the UK.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.
I take it from this that you accept a "Brexit" in which the UK accepts the four freedoms, is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, pays into the EU budget, accepts all regulations emanating from Brussels and is unable to have an independent trade policy, but without having any representation in the decision making bodies of the EU? Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
It's not the EU's fault we voted for no representation.
This is a sunk costs fallacy. The fallacy being that because otherwise the effort you've already put in to doing something stupid would be pointless, you keep on doing something even more stupid.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, it's incredible and farcical that the EU is being blamed in some quarters for treating us as a third country. Hang on, that's what we voted for, or at least some of us.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, now the news is of a different non-issue. The colour of UK passports will be changed to blue. Which is a) one of those "who cares?" things and b) if it was important that could have been changed anyway without leaving the EU (there was no need to change the colour to the burgandy we currently have, and no one has ever, to my knowledge, said the colour couldn't be changed back).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, now the news is of a different non-issue. The colour of UK passports will be changed to blue. Which is a) one of those "who cares?" things and b) if it was important that could have been changed anyway without leaving the EU (there was no need to change the colour to the burgandy we currently have, and no one has ever, to my knowledge, said the colour couldn't be changed back).
Firstly I completely agree that this is unbelievably irrelevant.
But I was intrigued by the change - and so did a bit of looking. Whilst I agree with you that if it was important the UK could so easily have agreed to a change of colour from within the EU but this is the council resolution introducing the common passport regulations. I does seem to be something that all members are expected to go along with and it does specify that the passport be burgandy...
Although I note Croatia does not have a burgandy passport...
Of course the much more important point is how safety, security and movement across Europe is massively enhanced by having a common standard and what I really want to know (and is, of course not mentioned in the BBC news report this morning) is if we are changing more than the colour. (And yes, I know there is a redesign underway anyway. That's as irrelevant as the colour; that's cosmetics. It's the standards and security features that are important: Who wants a bet, we're keeping the same EU standards?)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Unless the old cardboard covers with pointy edges useful for poking uncooperative border officials while protesting loudly in a suitably plummy voice are restored, it's a sell-out.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
To give you a start, here's a Twitter thread pointing out some of the, er, in-depth analysis that has gone into the making of these...
(I suspect this may well be grossly unfair and the sort of thing you should put in a sector analysis, but on face value it seems to fit with the general incompetence that has surrounded Brexit thus far).
Edit: x-posted with Eutychus, this was in response to alienfromzog.
[ 22. December 2017, 08:38: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
These are critical documents and I suspect it will take some time for meaningful analysis, but I thought I'd share in case anyone else (like me) wants to have a look.
At first glance, they provide overviews of the current state of play, not impact assessments or suggestions for moving forward. It would have been nice to have these before the referendum.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
And apparently some of it's copy and pasted from Wikipedia.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
These are critical documents and I suspect it will take some time for meaningful analysis, but I thought I'd share in case anyone else (like me) wants to have a look.
At first glance, they provide overviews of the current state of play, not impact assessments or suggestions for moving forward. It would have been nice to have these before the referendum.
Yep, I scanned through the aerospace one (coz I think this is an area where we really are in trouble if not in the customs union and coz Britain is currently a world-leader, for now).
It did not tell me anything I didn't already know (as an interested amateur) and had no assessment whatsoever of the impact of various post-brexit scenarios, so yep, a complete waste of time.
I also note the redactions which I suspect are fascinating...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To give you a start, here's a Twitter thread pointing out some of the, er, in-depth analysis that has gone into the making of these...
(I suspect this may well be grossly unfair and the sort of thing you should put in a sector analysis, but on face value it seems to fit with the general incompetence that has surrounded Brexit thus far).
Edit: x-posted with Eutychus, this was in response to alienfromzog.
Excellent Twitter thread. It would all be hilarous if it wasn't so tragic...
How, how, how are we governed by such incompetents????
As I seem to have been saying for years now, propaganda wins... Brexit means taking back control and a brave new world*
AFZ
*It really doesn't; any simple examination of the facts undermines the entire case but apparently that doesn't matter.
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And apparently some of it's copy and pasted from Wikipedia.
The "sexed-up dossier" that got us into Gulf War II looks a sound and reasonable analysis now.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Just wanted to say, I was completely wrong.
It took no time at all for meaningful analysis.
If I - with my utter contempt for the competence of our current government - didn't expect this...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Just wanted to say, I was completely wrong.
It took no time at all for meaningful analysis.
I'll confess to not having read them, but I suspect this:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
is all the analysis required...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
