BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…176177179181182…2110

Comments

  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Ballysmate wrote:
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I too voted remain for reasons given here, although I also regard the EU as deeply flawed.
    I think most people who voted Remain would admit to the EU being flawed, but then all government is, as are all versions of democracy. But, accepting all that, the UK of July 2016 was a far far better place than the UK of the 1970s I knew by just about every indicator you can find, and I, for one, don't think that's a coincidence. Neither do I think it's a coincidence that both of the generations before me fought in world wars, and I didn't.

    Well said Brian, ten years of Margaret got this country back on its feet.
    As regards world wars, everyone in Europe was united looking at Russia as the common enemy and the nuclear genie was out of the bottle.

    But looking further at your premise, until 1973, the Common Market consisted of 6 countries, West Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries. Now, I suppose it was possible that Luxembourg would kick off and invade someone, but I doubt it. :wink:
    So the main antagonists would be France and West Germany. A Germany that had been divided and heavily invested in and rebuilt. Yes, a trade agreement,(that was the crux of the relationship then) between France and West Germany was beneficial in their mutual coexistence, but to suggest that they were held back from war by Italy and Benelux until UK, Ireland and Denmark joined, is nonsense. Since we joined, which members have been restrained from aggression towards another? What were the potential flash points?
    Where can anyone point to and say that potential conflict was averted because the two likely foes were members of the Common Market, EEC or EU?

    well, we dont know do we? its an unknown unknown that we dont know!!
    of course the Soviets and NATO played a huge part but the EU gives a forum for talks, would the mayhem that erupted in Yugoslavia happened if that country had been in the EU ?

    Wonder what the brexiters will make of the new french Government (next year), almost certainly demanding the UK border move back to the UK.
    i guess its a case of taking back control :lol: and an example of why we need cross border co-op, such as the EU can give.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Mamba quoting G.W. :shock: :lol:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R87f7gGnrA
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Yugoslavia?
    An amalgam of independent states forced unwillingly into a political union? What could possibly go wrong?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,921
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    TheBigBean wrote:
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    Even if it isn't the main reason for peace (I'm not sure who's saying it is), it's been part of the political make-up that has seen the longest peace in Europe. (The Washington Post certainly thinks it has made a contribution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ace-prize/) Anything that upsets that status quo should be viewed as a risk. Keeping fingers crossed isn't enough of a risk mitigation strategy.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean wrote:
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.

    Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

    Once immigrants set foot in the U.K. they can claim asylum here. By moving the border to France they can not set foot here. It is a remarkably generous situation that the French have allowed.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

    I'm no great student of Asian history, but wasn't there fairly frequent conflicts between Japan, China and Russia prior to the end of WWII? There haven't been any since, despite the absence of an EU type arrangement in the region.

    And whilst the EU has had "ever closer union" as its aim since the mid 50s, until the serious work began on the Euro (late 80s / early 90s) the EU was not much more than a free trade area with a few agricultural bungs on the side. If the EU has been a major force in keeping the peace in Europe, then surely this demonstrates that the full trapping of the EU aren't actually necessary, as peace was maintained for 35 years by a glorified trade arrangement.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    And whilst the EU has had "ever closer union" as its aim since the mid 50s, until the serious work began on the Euro (late 80s / early 90s) the EU was not much more than a free trade area with a few agricultural bungs on the side. If the EU has been a major force in keeping the peace in Europe, then surely this demonstrates that the full trapping of the EU aren't actually necessary, as peace was maintained for 35 years by a glorified trade arrangement.
    Worth reading the Washington Post link in my post above, if you want a counter view.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • RideOnTime
    RideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

    I put this down to the universal adoption of more comfortable and agreeable underwear...
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Worth reading the Washington Post link in my post above, if you want a counter view.

    I did thanks. There seemed to be a heavy emphasis on trade and spreading democracy. All of which were features of the old EEC. It's not obvious what the Euro and political integration since the early 90s has done to enhance the peace-promoting aspects of trade and democracy.

    In summary: "EEC good. EU un-necessary."
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,921
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.

    Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

    Once immigrants set foot in the U.K. they can claim asylum here. By moving the border to France they can not set foot here. It is a remarkably generous situation that the French have allowed.

    By moving the border to the UK it will be no easier to set foot there because there will still be security. Same as airports. It is a red herring.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,921
    briantrumpet wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    Even if it isn't the main reason for peace (I'm not sure who's saying it is), it's been part of the political make-up that has seen the longest peace in Europe. (The Washington Post certainly thinks it has made a contribution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ace-prize/) Anything that upsets that status quo should be viewed as a risk. Keeping fingers crossed isn't enough of a risk mitigation strategy.

    The article doesn't make reference to any sort of control sample such as East Asia or South America, and I genuinely couldn't read much after the implied suggestion that democracies don't start wars. It's clearly a US publication!
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.

    Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

    Once immigrants set foot in the U.K. they can claim asylum here. By moving the border to France they can not set foot here. It is a remarkably generous situation that the French have allowed.

    By moving the border to the UK it will be no easier to set foot there because there will still be security. Same as airports. It is a red herring.


    How do you see it as a red herring?
    The security will be handled by the French only and if they decide not to search a lorry or turn a blind eye to a car full of Afghans, once outside of the french border, it ll be our problem - France will have zero incentive to enforce exit controls.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,921
    mamba80 wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
    1. EU is the main reason for peace.
    2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.

    Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

    Once immigrants set foot in the U.K. they can claim asylum here. By moving the border to France they can not set foot here. It is a remarkably generous situation that the French have allowed.

    By moving the border to the UK it will be no easier to set foot there because there will still be security. Same as airports. It is a red herring.


    How do you see it as a red herring?
    The security will be handled by the French only and if they decide not to search a lorry or turn a blind eye to a car full of Afghans, once outside of the french border, it ll be our problem - France will have zero incentive to enforce exit controls.

    Eurotunnel (the company) will have security and passport checks otherwise they have no business. Same as airports.

    All passport controls do is prevent a delay on arrival. Imagine a Eurostar train where everyone needs to queue to go through passport control. They wouldn't have been allowed on the train without Eurostar checking the passport and checking security. It's just a question of efficiency. It becomes the same as flying.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    The damning comments I am referring to are what was said by the Canadian trade minister. Doesn't matter who reported them.
    If you're going to damn the entire EU project on the back of one angry politician's opinion, I would say it does matter.
    See my other comments above on the main reasons why the project is fundamentally flawed. This is just additional evidence.
    You're in the same cognitive bias loop that you accuse all 'lefties' of being in. If it's so fundamentally flawed, I'm confused as to why you voted Remain: the EU hasn't changed that much since July (though I'm afraid that the UK has).
    In the end it was on balance better not to pick a fight with the EU on this, rather let the Euro and the project run its course and be part of what emerges from that. I think we had sufficient insulation from Euro crises (e.g. not being part of the single currency, not having to contribute to Euro zone bank bailouts etc) before we left to weather that sort storm.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    Good news for UK manufacturing exports stemming from a weaker sterling:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37748667
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    You'd hope so. Otherwise it'd be chuffing terrible!
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    We are much freer now to tear down these trade barriers witb the rest of the world. And much more capable of striking deals compared to negotiating as a part of the EU.

    I think you misunderstand who owns the trade barriers. They are not ours to tear down
    They tend to be mutual - hence negotiations. My point is that we are not hamstrung by having to get multiple constituents with conflicting priorities to unanimously approve a deal as the EU do.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    We are much freer now to tear down these trade barriers with the rest of the world. And much more capable of striking deals compared to negotiating as a part of the EU.

    I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately the EU has the combined virtues of proximity and size, which makes it quite important.
    I know. That's why I referred to deals with the rest of the world. We know the EU one will be hard going, as we have seen with the Canada example.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    Latest on Canada negotiations - Wallonia says it will not respect the EU ultimatum:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749609

    "Wallonia, a staunchly socialist region of 3.6m people, wants stronger safeguards on labour, environmental and consumer standards."
    Bloody lefties messing it up for everyone else :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    We are much freer now to tear down these trade barriers with the rest of the world. And much more capable of striking deals compared to negotiating as a part of the EU.

    I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately the EU has the combined virtues of proximity and size, which makes it quite important.
    I know. That's why I referred to deals with the rest of the world. We know the EU one will be hard going, as we have seen with the Canada example.

    This sort of report should focus the minds of the EU negotiators somewhat. The industries will immediately see the negative effect of their politicians acting in a 'childish' manor towards a UK-EU trade deal.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sa-civitas
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    In the end it was on balance better not to pick a fight with the EU on this, rather let the Euro and the project run its course and be part of what emerges from that. I think we had sufficient insulation from Euro crises (e.g. not being part of the single currency, not having to contribute to Euro zone bank bailouts etc) before we left to weather that sort storm.
    Quite so. We were in a very good position - the sort of pragmatism that the UK has been rather good at. We're throwing that position away on a 'point of principle', which, as lawyers will tell you, is always good news for the lawyers, and rarely good news for anyone else. Having nailed our destructive colours to the mast, even if we did one of the biggest u-turns in political history, it would be hard to regain the (sceptical) trust we had. That several UK politicians would delight in the demise of the EU in its entirely is hardly the way to build good relations.

    For the Rabid Righties, this has always been a 'matter of principle', not pragmatics: the meaningless (and thus dishonest) 'take back control' mantra was the evidence of that.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,428
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    In the end it was on balance better not to pick a fight with the EU on this, rather let the Euro and the project run its course and be part of what emerges from that. I think we had sufficient insulation from Euro crises (e.g. not being part of the single currency, not having to contribute to Euro zone bank bailouts etc) before we left to weather that sort storm.
    Quite so. We were in a very good position - the sort of pragmatism that the UK has been rather good at. We're throwing that position away on a 'point of principle', which, as lawyers will tell you, is always good news for the lawyers, and rarely good news for anyone else. Having nailed our destructive colours to the mast, even if we did one of the biggest u-turns in political history, it would be hard to regain the (sceptical) trust we had. That several UK politicians would delight in the demise of the EU in its entirely is hardly the way to build good relations.

    For the Rabid Righties, this has always been a 'matter of principle', not pragmatics: the meaningless (and thus dishonest) 'take back control' mantra was the evidence of that.
    Unless the legal challenges somehow work, we are where we are and we have to make the best of it. As I've said before.

    Some of my input into this thread is simply because we have far too much doom mongering - the impact on us in my view is not as bad as some on here seem desperate to make out for some reason.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Latest on Canada negotiations - Wallonia says it will not respect the EU ultimatum:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749609

    "Wallonia, a staunchly socialist region of 3.6m people, wants stronger safeguards on labour, environmental and consumer standards."
    Bloody lefties messing it up for everyone else :wink:
    Of course, you could view this in a positive way, if you were minded to:

    "EU constitution respects the right of member nations to block new treaties that threaten to undermine their own principles".

    Of course, somewhere in between the trampling over national interests and bowing to every nation's whims is the world of practical diplomacy, where deals are done. This is what we are seeing now, very much in public. We see it just as much in the UK, with tensions between local and national government, but most people don't suggest with doing away with national government as a result - though we might want to modify/improve the way the relationship works.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Unless the legal challenges somehow work, we are where we are and we have to make the best of it. As I've said before.

    Some of my input into this thread is simply because we have far too much doom mongering - the impact on us in my view is not as bad as some on here seem desperate to make out for some reason.
    You call it 'doom-mongering', others might label it 'risk assessment' ("What's the worst outcome?"). As we stand, the risks are still much lower remaining in the EU - with all its flaws. Brexit feels like we're going in for a very invasive experimental operation when all we had was a bit of a cold.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    Lordy, what a mess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... brexit-as/

    I think I'm going to coin the word "clusterf" (cf. "bumf"). As each day passes, the clusterf grows.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Lordy, what a mess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... brexit-as/

    I think I'm going to coin the word "clusterf" (cf. "bumf"). As each day passes, the clusterf grows.

    Not really surprising to see Nicola making as much headline as she can around this. Let's face it, she wants out of the UK and sees Brexit as an ideal opportunity (with some justification I guess) that the last Scottish independence vote did not include leaving the EU. Still, the Scots voted to stay as part of the UK so I am sure Nicola will respect the vote...or perhaps not.

    I get the impression that, even if there is another Scottish referendum then it won't be the last whatever the outcome. That appears to be a real case of neverendum.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-campaign

    Nicky the Fish is in no position to call any referendum.
    29% of SNP voters voted for Brexit.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,387
    Bobbinogs wrote:
    Not really surprising to see Nicola making as much headline as she can around this.
    Absolutely. If I thought the ship I was on was in danger of sinking, I'd either be saying "Do you think that that that iceberg might cause a slight problem", or "Please can I try one of the lifeboats?".
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    Ballysmate wrote:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/scottish-brexit-voters-pose-quandary-for-independence-campaign

    Nicky the Fish is in no position to call any referendum.
    29% of SNP voters voted for Brexit.

    If I was pro Scottish independence, I might have voted leave in the EU referendum. It was trailed by the remain side as a possible side effect of leaving.

Categories