What meritQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Printable View
What meritQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Soubry makes the point that those with "gold plated pensions and inherited wealth" won't be affected, and it is they who argue that "the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it in regaining their sovereignty". She also argues that "people didn't vote to make themselves poorer". Given the discrepancy between what Leave promised in their campaign and what they're ending up with, especially the hard/no deal Brexit angled for by Rees-Mogg, how does that square with your outrage that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth? Should Brexit go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU? NB. her point about modern trade and industry before you talk about new markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
That point still doesn't really go anywhere, as framed by Husar, but to address your points:
By my reckoning, lefties have cost the country 0.5% gdp growth, compound for about the last twenty years.
By my reckoning, the likes of Clegg et-al were equally deceitful/hopeful in promising an EU that would be the same in future.
Sorry, do I have "outrage" that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth?
Brexit should go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU, I consider it slightly immoral that the great tariff wall of the EU adds so much 'friction' to trade with the developing world. Obviously, as a free-trader, I want minimal friction all round.
No, it does not, because unlike my question, it is not related to what you said. Unless you're admitting to being a neoliberal or that they run your country. Neoliberals will get their cheap labor anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The merit of being born in the right place. When you say British jobs for British workers, you're applying exactly the same standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The Electoral Commission have found Leave guilty of breaking electoral law and have fined one of their carrier mules, and handed over the case to the police with the admission that it deserves more action that's not within their power.
And May's government have broken a pairing agreement a Labour MP, agreeing to pair off with said Labour MP who's just given birth and is on maternal leave, then having their MP vote anyway.
Does Parliament have effective sovereignty any more, or does it not matter as long as Leave get their wish?
So long as we're being precise, I challenge you to clarify who exactly the rebels were expecting help from: Was it NATO? Was it Europe? Was it the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.E. Bravo
Now recall that you said this:
Is NATO really the crux of the matter here, if nothing changes but the existence of NATO?Quote:
I don't think the financial setbacks are something that can inhibit the US from managing a post-NATO order.
I think you're too caught up in the identification of the name NATO with the history of "Western" actions, you end up losing sight of an organization like NATO not being an organic entity but a vehicle and front for the action of individual members - which is what it was created for in the first place.
This was my whole point. The Western order IS (as of yet) dominant, and Russia has identified its interests with undermining that order. Both the US and Russia are now set into an intractable conflict in which there is no return to a status quo because both sides seek to neutralize the capacity of the other side to resist the imposition of their side's interests.Quote:
Right but you are still starting from a position of Russia’s sense of entitlement rather than it responding to NATO’s offensive posturing. Russian military planners and policy makers now assume that the only way to stop NATO's encroachment on Russia's perceived spheres of influence is to clearly signal red lines and act firmly to defend Russia's interests as it was done with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia made it clear that it is not afraid of taking risks if its needed for enforcing its definition of core geopolitical interests.
As for domestic developments, wouldn't you describe the critics of Russia and supporters of western hegemony in the international system to be the dominant group, constraining attempts to reach out to Russia in a meaningful way? Especially in the US's current political climate.
That's why I called the conflict "quasi-existential" - the object to be eliminated is not the existence of any country as sovereign state, but the ability to maintain a sovereign foreign policy that could be used to harm the other side.
Who can back down when the fight is over the destruction of national power? I can't reiterate enough that this conflict is not about a concrete disagreement between parties, not something that can be resolved with rhetoric, or horse-trading, or good-will concessions.
That wasn't aimed at you, since you weren't (?) advocating for a US or NATO or EU need to rearm to deter Russia. It was not aimed at a specific person.Quote:
You're right. I oversimplified.
Without diving very deep into UK immigration history, there are signs that your hypotheticals don't represent the UK experience with immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...United_Kingdom
Looking at the graph on net migration, before freedom of movement there was 1-2 to 2/3 less immigration to the UK, unclear what national breakdown but apparently not many from what was later the EU. With freedom of movement of persons, EU intake increased by orders of magnitude but non-EU immigration increased concomitantly. EU-source immigration has always been much lower than non-EU (i.e. all other sources) immigration, and without more information it doesn't look obvious that at any point EU immigration suppressed, or allowed the suppression of, non-EU immigration. So your take on the allocation of immigrants is probably wrong.
The wiki entry points out that a lot of the "Janek" influx is cyclical, not permanent in nature, and indeed one of the primary advantages of a free movement regime is its facilitation of such short-term stays for work, education, etc. It would be useful to find data comparing immigrant populations on this factor.
But I didn't address your point that residency is more difficult to attain as a procedural matter for Commonwealth and other citizens than EU members. First we should realize that this is by definition, since the UK had freedom of movement within the EU and not without. Second, if your point was that the UK government from the recent past imposed more restrictions on immigration from outside the EU (in order to balance the overall numbers given the influx from the EU), it's again not obvious from the numbers and should be justified with some references. Third, if you are correct and if you like British subjects so much, you ought to advocate for lesser imposed restrictions and hurdles on that demographic so that more can come and stay more easily. Another 50-100K a year from Canada plus the rest shouldn't approach so uncomfortably close to a regime of absolute unrestricted immigration as to overwhelm your British affinity, should it? Especially taking account that UK net immigration has been numerically at least half of net immigration since the millenium. This could all be done without entanglement with any EU-faced policy (though now made moot by Brexit).
How would this all round frictionless trade work? NB. we still have to comply with WTO regulations, unless you want to break free of the WTO as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Do you recognise that the EU custom's union is a protection racket for internal business?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"You can sell us your coffee beans, but who, if you want to add value to your export by grinding them then you'll pay a much higher tariff!"
"p.s. we're very sorry you're poor, would you like some gender diversity officers from our national aid quango?"
I live in England. As the US has shown, others will screw us given the opportunity. Why do we need to volunteer the opportunity? And you still haven't answered the question of how you propose we should follow WTO regulations. Unless your answer is that we should withdraw from the WTO as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
In other news, the EU has voted to ban imports of palm oil. Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your view? Do you think the EU is unfairly penalising farmers in third world countries who rely on palm oil as a cash crop?
The rebels viewed NATO intervention as vital in light of the government’s superior military resources. Like I said, the early signals of support from NATO countries brought about the expectation of support from NATO itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I am responding to your claim regarding NATO not being an instigator per se. NATO’s security strategies from the 1990s embraced various concepts of sovereign inequality, ranging from humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, regime change, countering rogue states, and the global war on terror. A dangerous precedent is set by its missile defense system as well, which is bereft of any international treaty or political assurances to regulate and constrain its advancement.Quote:
Is NATO really the crux of the matter here, if nothing changes but the existence of NATO?
I think you're too caught up in the identification of the name NATO with the history of "Western" actions, you end up losing sight of an organization like NATO not being an organic entity but a vehicle and front for the action of individual members - which is what it was created for in the first place.
The fact that this framework exists to prevent potential Russian aggression makes hostilities a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think its absence has the potential to be destabilizing in favor of Russia, you cannot ignore the current state of affairs that are destabilizing in favor of western powers.Quote:
This was my whole point. The Western order IS (as of yet) dominant, and Russia has identified its interests with undermining that order. Both the US and Russia are now set into an intractable conflict in which there is no return to a status quo because both sides seek to neutralize the capacity of the other side to resist the imposition of their side's interests.
That's why I called the conflict "quasi-existential" - the object to be eliminated is not the existence of any country as sovereign state, but the ability to maintain a sovereign foreign policy that could be used to harm the other side.
Who can back down when the fight is over the destruction of national power? I can't reiterate enough that this conflict is not about a concrete disagreement between parties, not something that can be resolved with rhetoric, or horse-trading, or good-will concessions.
You’ve mentioned this before and used a similar approach to China. Why is that? Where is the proof of a problem that a new framework won’t fix?
But you saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Quote:
Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely.
So you mean, the United States?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.E. Bravo
This is the US national orientation from the same period.Quote:
I am responding to your claim regarding NATO not being an instigator per se. NATO’s security strategies from the 1990s embraced various concepts of sovereign inequality, ranging from humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, regime change, countering rogue states, and the global war on terror.
This is specifically a US technology. Anyway, we should not be made to feel rueful by complaints against a purely defensive technology that literally cannot be used except against large missiles. If Russia or China are concerned about the mitigation of their second strike capability, they ought to invest in a defense system of their own. If it were admissible as a bargaining chip, I would support looking into whether we can outright gift some aspects of this technology to shut them up.Quote:
A dangerous precedent is set by its missile defense system as well, which is bereft of any international treaty or political assurances to regulate and constrain its advancement.
You keep talking about US orientations and practices, yet name NATO as though it were the source or chief expression. NATO isn't managing small-force combat operations in dozens of countries. Are you sure you aren't just hostile to a concept of a Transatlantic Alliance, which is what NATO formalizes?
It was not a self-fulfilling prophecy until recently, or was it? If it was, then only in the sense that any dominant order (status quo) attracts (revisionist) challengers. I'm not extensively read on Putin's career, but to my knowledge even he found use in international institutions in his early years at the top.Quote:
The fact that this framework exists to prevent potential Russian aggression makes hostilities a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think its absence has the potential to be destabilizing in favor of Russia, you cannot ignore the current state of affairs that are destabilizing in favor of western powers.
I think it has been stabilizing in favor of Western powers, especially in the 20th century. The problem now is exactly that it is being destabilized, and there is no easy answer. If overwhelming Russian intransigence through diplomatic or economic means were a simple proposition, its undertaking would be favorable. For the time being the only prospects for the present conflict are stalemate or surrender. I prefer stalemate until the logic of the "liberal alliance" can be changed to a more social democratic one (at least), which I believe would be constitutionally resistant to Russian blandishments and techniques.
Refresh my memory? Anyway, I have been saying even in this chain of posts I am in favor of a new framework. China is clearly a much bigger challenge to US standing than Russia. (No wonder the two are eager to embrace each other). China has a neo-colonial/mercantilist program to bend the world toward its interests which it calls "community of common destiny". I hope the "West" can offer the same in more collaborative fashion under leftist and democratic principles.Quote:
You’ve mentioned this before and used a similar approach to China. Why is that? Where is the proof of a problem that a new framework won’t fix?
you misunderstand me: I question whether your skim reading a wiki article leaves you in a sound position to come to the conclusion you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?
Seems to be heading that way regardless, the deal is hardly a deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
More EU lulz, Druncker is confabulating korsakovski that he is. He doesn't remember being drunk at the Nato-top, his leg hurted. My leg also has hurted at times like that and I also don't remember it but it must have been funny just like the Nato-top summit, I was also very cheerful and couldn't stand straight and liked hugging and kissing, I heard.
Attention, Druncker was not drunk, I repeat, Druncker was not drunk. I say it twice because that's how he sees things
Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"
~:smoking:
So if it came down to no deal, you'd support it whilst blaming the EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You going to address me post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Why would I have any strong feelings about that? I voted for the status quo. I didn't ask for no deal. Did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes, let me try it this way: what's your basis for your claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
This angle brought up a connection to the fore:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Trump exits Iran deal. 'Worst deal ever, we'll negotiate a much better one this time!' Iran deal was multilaterally negotiated according to the geopolitical parameters of its time. In a different era, negotiating a similar deal is impossible or much less favorable.
So, timing and context affect the process and the outlook. It's not just that it comes down to bad timing for the UK though, a complex and deep set of arrangements like EU membership is sure to be destabilizing to sever, for all parties involved, much more so than a more traditional diplomatic pact. More so even than a mere body of rules on trade and customs.
"But it was promised that we could leave at any time." On paper, yes, but in practice it's like melding as a conjoined twin into someone's body, then ripping yourself out again once all the bone is set, vascular network enmeshed... At this time the EU is too drunk, per Fragony, to successfully perform the delicate surgeries necessary for an amicable and propitious result.
In short, this type of enmity and chaos is almost assured when picking apart such a tangled clump of economics and politics. I predict no more large countries will attempt to leave the EU, unless during a whole-cloth unraveling.
You would put pride above security?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I've seen the quote "52 has been rounded up to 100, while 48 has been rounded down to 0". The close numbers should mean a moderate solution that changes things in a certain direction whilst bearing the other half in mind. Instead, we are heading for the most drastic solution, which even the most radical campaigners promised would not happen. And unlike Trump's presidency, this solution aims to not be undoable within multiple generations, with the typical Leave boast being "You can have another vote in 40 years time".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Where is this trade occurring?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
~:smoking:
From the Adam Smith institute, 30th March 2016, "The liberal case for Leave"
From twitter, 16th July 2018Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Smith
The terms of Brexit as set by May violates the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI, which was facilitated by their mutual EU membership. The EU has offered terms to allow both Brexit and the GFA, but the DUP and hard Brexiteers are both driving in the opposite direction. This problem was incidentally highlighted by Major and Blair, both NI experts, before the referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
i agree, and I think the white paper is a very moderate solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
the EU offered terms of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1. EEA+CU, two things that 'many' consider to be in breach of the spririt of brexit in general, and in breach of the Tory manifesto specifically.
2. An internal border within the territory of the UK which no british gov't can be expected to tolerate.
This was a border around Northern Ireland. Though there is already such an unofficial border in place anyway. Many things in the UK regularly put into fine-print: "Does not include Northern Ireland".Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Was a good solution to the problem as it never affected things where it was necessary for the working Joe Bloggs and you already needed papers and identification to leave to the Main land from Northern Ireland anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Are Leavers going to keep any of their promises?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vote Leave (official Leave campaign)
1.4Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
UK Immigration Policy
Until the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, all Commonwealth citizens could enter and stay in the United Kingdom without any restriction. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 made citizens of the United Kingdom and its Colonies whose passports were
not directly issued by the United Kingdom Government subject to immigration control. By 1972, only holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry which significantly reduced primary immigration from Commonwealth countries. The British Nationality Act 1981 distinguished between a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. The former holds nationality by descent and the latter holds nationality other than by descent. Citizens by descent cannot automatically pass on British nationality to a child born outside the United Kingdom or its Overseas Territories (though in some situations the child can be registered as a citizen). After 1997, the previous Labour Government passed more than 10 Acts that dealt directly with immigration and asylum alongside a raft of policy
initiatives, while developments within Europe further changed the policy backdrop to
immigration. 17 The UK signed up to the right to the free movement of people within the EU as codified in EU Directive 2004/38/EC, which included provision for the free movement of workers within the territory of the Member States and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Since the expansion of the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK has accepted immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus (ie the A8 countries). There are restrictions on the benefits that members of the A8 countries can claim, which are covered by the Worker Registration Scheme. The Government announced that the same rules would not apply to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria when those countries acceded to the EU in 2007. Instead, restrictions were put in place to limit migration to students, the self
employed, highly skilled migrants and food and agricultural workers.The UK has for some time operated a managed migration approach, which describes various schemes that control all legal labour and student migration from outside of the EUand this accounts for a substantial percentage of overall immigration figures for the UK.Many of the immigrants who arrive under these schemes bring skills which are in short supply in the UK. This area of immigration is managed by the UK Border Agency. Applications are made at UK embassies or consulates or directly to the UK Border Agency, depending upon the type of visa or permit required.In April 2006 changes to the managed migration system were proposed that would create a points based immigration system for the UK in place of all other schemes.
Tier 1 in the new systemwhich replaced the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme gives points for age, education, earning, previous UK experience but not for work experience. The points based system was phased in over the course of 2008 and is composed as follows:
Tier 1 for highly skilled individuals, who can contribute to growth and productivity;Tier 2 for skilled workers with a job offer, to fill gaps in the United Kingdom workforce; Tier 3 for limited numbers of low skilled workers needed to fill temporary labour shortages; Tier 4 for students; Tier 5 for temporary workers and young people covered by the Youth Mobility Scheme, who are allowed to work in the United Kingdom for a limited time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives.
18 In June 2010, the Coalition Government brought in a temporary cap on immigration of those entering the UK from outside the EU, with the limit set at 24,100, in order to stop an expected rush of applications before a permanent cap is imposed in April 2011.
https://www.parliament.uk/pagefiles/...igrationFP.pdf
there was a limit in phyto-sanitary measures, and a few other areas. EEA+CU would have made NI a separate economic unit from the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
why is this more acceptable than than those same measures on the Ir/NI border? Either way, paddy's will threaten to kill other paddy's.
you will note the separation between between a campaign group and a gov't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
do you not think the white paper is a very moderate solution?
Compared with hard Brexit, maybe. But it has also been shelved by the Tory loons led by Rees Mogg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Also, where does May get her mandate from? The Tories don't have a majority.
I cannot remember where you are, so I am going to just place you in.. Bristol for hypothetical purposes. Now, you got some hypothetical family living in Cardiff, or maybe you sometimes do some work over there. I am not sure why, but you really like commuting to Cardiff. In the current situation this is friction-less. You just get in your car, bus or train and you are in your merry way to Cardiff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
So let's say Wales was part of the EU (and separate from the UK). Due to Brexit, there needs to be a hard border between England and Wales. Now your trip is not friction-less, and as Joe Public, your enjoyment or travel to Cardiff just got pretty terrible by consequence. You can no longer just travel there to see your family where you please, needing your passport/photographic ID in order to travel there and having to go to a border stop just as if you were travelling off the Mainland as if to Ireland/NI, France, Channel Islands, wherever.
Now let's say for convenience, the UK and EU governments decide to enforce the border at the coast. As a result of this, it doesn't affect you, as you can happily see your family in Cardiff with no problems at all. Nothing in a real terms situation has changed.
lovely hypothetical, but all the fun and jazz about hard borders has zero impact on the common travel area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I believe it was the largest vote share ion 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It is a moderate proposal, in keeping with the 52/48 result.
What's to complain about?
If you want to talk about vote share as opposed to Commons seats, IIRC Major's 1992 government was the most popular in living history in terms of votes received. Was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
As to the moderation of the proposal: it's already been rejected by the ERG faction, even prior to its rejection by Barnier (which was predictable, as it broke the rules that the UK had a part in setting out. I'm assuming you're saying that May has a mandate for a moderate Brexit. If the ERG force a hard Brexit, does May have a mandate for that too? Cf. that VoteLeave quote I posted above. Also read "The Liberal Case for Leave" that I linked to above, and the author's recent follow up to it.
You know what, Thatcher would have been horrified by the ERG. I'm reading a speech of hers proclaiming the creation of the Single Market, not just in terms of tariffs, but in terms of regulations, standards, and everything else, proudly claiming Britain's lead in this project.
she has a mandate for whatever she can get through the commons, that is what parliamentary sovereignty is about.
the erg haven't invalidated the white paper.
What do we default to if nothing gets through the HoC? AFAIK there are various mutually contradictory red lines in domestic and international law, unless the decision is made by the executive to put them aside. And that's even before you start involving the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I thought it did and that was the biggest objection to it? I might have been mistaken thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
at this point, hard brexit or indefinate extension (otherwise known as remain).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
More EU-lulz comming up. Druncker is going to Washington to meet Trump. Trump is mean enough to actually give him water when Druncker wants water, in Brussel it means he wants gin, he will be desperate. He gots two hours or so before he will start violently shaking, after six hours without alcohol at the press conference he will probably have an insult and will have to be rushed to intensive-care. Kinda hoping he will try to kiss Trump, he will still be drunk enough to try he always licks faces
Would you be happy with either? Or are you going the rory route and saying it's bad, but it's the EU's fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i'm a classical liberal free marketeer that likes my government lean and my public servants keen.
from a personal point of view, i'd be willing to tolerate a level of creative destruction with regulation going back to "demonstrable harm" from "precautionary principle", and spending droping to ~35% of GDP... because I believe it will lead to higher GDP growth in the medium to long term. we'd all be richer, which right-minded person wouldn't support this!?!?!?!?
but, i don't live in a country populated by me. there are other people who're quite happy to reach into their pocket to fund another diversity awareness officer, and to take sweets from kids lest we give peadophiles another tool with which to do harm.
these people exist, and I as a responsible citizen have a duty to take their view into consideration too.
thus, i'm willing to curb my inner red-blooded-capitalist, and suck up a softer brexit than is to my own personal taste. that means I'm willing for May to build a compromise package that seeks to minimise the damage even as it minimises the benefit. so be it.
but, like rory, I believe it is abolsutely the solemn duty of the EU to consider this compromise package with sincere good will, with the intention of finding a new relationship that works for both (all?) parties. if they don't, then hey "we tried", but Singapore. it. will. be.
Have you read the piece I linked to above, "The Liberal Argument for Leave", and the recent follow up by the same author? If the first is too long for you, the second is shorter, and more importantly, more relevant as it's a reflection on current reality and an update on the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Yes I have. I think I read it at the time it was published some years back, I also read it when it you linked it a few days back, and again just now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Good article, broadly agree with everything it says. Particularly amused by:
"This shifts the equilibrium: it is now possible for people to be part of the same economic area, without having to be part of the same political entity. They are able to trade with one another without having to agree on politics."
Given the most trade in goods is indeed regulated by the likes of UNECE, etc, it almost feels like we've entered a mirror world:
"They are able to politically integrate with one another without having to worry about how many threads should be found on a 15mm flanged gasket." Well quite, and I have NO interest in political integration.
I wouldn't mind the EEA, though I'd be happy to ditch the flanking policies as they have nothing to do with trade.
But I certainly don't mind HMG aiming to go better than that, and separate goods (ECJ makes the rules), from Services (where we do), because the EEA places us in a position of jeapardy with our greatest economic advantage. Our services industry, something for which the continental countries have always had a slight natural aversion. An aversion to the anglo-saxon free-booting finance model.
The same can be said for things like fracking, and biotech/gmo: We don't really like it very much, so we'll make up a reason to strictly control it, and we'll call it "The Precautionary Principle!" Competition, hmmm, we don't like that very much, so we'll make up a reason to strictly control it, and we'll call it "Product Safety Standards!" Yes, that's why you pay a 25% tariff on ground coffee, but only 5% on coffee beans.
So, no, I have no objection to the UK trying to do better than the EEA, and I'm more than willing to accept the risk of no deal as a natural consequence of bargaining hard to get what we want. But, at the end of the day, I won't cry if we do arrive back at EEA/Efta. Personally, I'm hoping we end up in Efta regardless; a marvellous geopolitical tool to lever away the periphery of Europe from subservience to the EU. What fun, do they realise we'll have a field day in Efta at their expense?
I think the liberal case for leave was excellently made. Would you agree? :D
Have you read his more recent comments from a few days back? I quoted some of them earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
These ones, yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"I'm withdrawing my support for Brexit. Did not sufficiently account for: the incompetence of UK politics; the madness of Brexiteers; the deep aversion to EEA; NI; Customs; and of course Trump. Not switching to Remain but if we do now remain I'll shrug. /1"
"I therefore don't think I have much value to add anymore, so I expect to reduce tweets on this subject. That is all. /2"
"Some interesting replies from Leavers and certain "Academic" sub-tweeters to this & derivative threads: basically saying I was never a Leaver in the first place and that EFTA-EEA is not leaving. If true, then the "real Leave" majority doesn't exist. And it never existed."
"Nope. The strategy was all discussed and agreed with Richard and understood by The Leave Alliance. He even boasted about it here. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86087 … I did my very best to take Flexcit to places it didn't reach, and for that I had buckets of slime thrown at me. Nice."
Like about 0.01% of the UK population I have in fact read flexcit, and I think there is a lot to commend it.
I too was surpised that May decided to make such a fuss about freedom of movement. It isn't something I really care about, and I didn't expect a free-marketeer tory party in gov't to make such a fuss about it either.
"The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years"
Jacob Rees Mogg, 21st July 2018.
I guess I won't be alive to see it then.
In your hypothetical scenarios the EU and USA respectively have the UK by the balls. A military embargo or economic sanction by either entity would devastate the UK. But your response implies the proper response is to thumb your nose at them and take the hit...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
According to the Times 24% are prepared to back an explicitly far right anti-immigration anti-Islam party. This isn't the Britain I grew up in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You have too little faith in NHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yes, it is. It's just that prior to the Brexit vote, these people didn't feel confident enough to state their actual views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That's what political correctness inevitably spawns after a very long incubation-time, nothing has changed it's always thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I am not sure that all 24% held such views prior to the kerfluffle surrounding the Brexit, but your general point that some number of persons held these views well prior and now feel comfortable enough to publicly state them is a virtual certainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Nigel Farage, fronting the drive for Brexit for years. And now Steve Bannon is planning to support other far right causes in Europe, with Farage also having lent his voice to them. Lovely people, Brexiteers. And of course, one of them assassinated an MP campaigning at the time for Remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That comment is just as ignorant as saying "Lovely people, Muslims. And of course some of them raped young white girls."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Lovely people, Germans. And of course, one of them set about to solve the Jewish 'problem'. Do you see how this logic takes you to unhelpful places?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Austrian! He was Austrian! If you're going to reduce it to "the one", then the origin is pretty clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Lovely people, Germans. And of course, one of them insists on unnecessary precision. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Alles ist in Ordnung. Hervorragende.
Only Bavarians can think that Austria belongs to Germany ("unnecessary precision"), don't be like a Bavarian!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Bavaria is basically the buffer zone between Austrian and German culture. :sweatdrop:
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different. Or to shepherds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
LOTR, The fellowship of the ring, BOOK II, Chapter 1 MANY MEETINGS
You really shouldn't go there, Mr. Russian Guy. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
"It is about time we brought the Treason Act up to date and made it apply to those seeking to destroy or undermine the British state. That means extreme jihadis. It also means those in future actively working undemocratically against U.K. through extreme EU loyalty"
David Bannerman, MEP (Conservative Party, 25th July 2018
The logical next step from calling opponents of Brexit "Enemies of the People"; make it legally treasonous to do so.
Given that Treason is disloyalty to the Crown, that can pretty much mean anything one wishes it to mean. Of course there would be a Constitutional Crisis if the Crown were to use the powers apart from delegating to the PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Politicians spouting meaningless rhetoric... whatever next!
~:smoking:
We might invent a new game where we try to guess whether something was said by David Bannerman or by Recep Tayip Erdoğan...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Apparently the above quote was the second version of his tweet. The original omitted "future", meaning current opposition to Brexit would count as treason. Nice people, these Brexiteers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
You lot are getting to be as politically bi polar as we yanks.
In this case, it's because the decision, once implemented, cannot be reversed within a generation or more. I certainly don't expect to see any reversal within my lifetime, and I'm not exactly old. Normal elections run in cycles of a maximum of 5 years; there have been 3 general elections since 2010. If there is a referendum to suspend democratic elections for 50 years, as Jacob Rees Mogg claims it will take for the benefits of Brexit to become clear, then I'd say that even a victory for suspension would not be democratically valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Oh, and do you remember Monty mocking my predictions of chaos should no-deal occur? The UK government is now preparing on that basis, taking steps to ensure "an adequate food supply" and the NHS stockpiling essential supplies. A 10 mile motorway has also been designated as a lorry park after incoming customs checks cause queues. That's now the expected outcome, rather than an improbable what-if.
I bloody well told you that I was reprinting your prediction because I took it seriously and found it important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Now, are there any legal conditions to Brexit that prevent a reversal for many decades, or is just a request for the benefit of the doubt from Team Brexit? If the latter, you're clear to offer them a two-fingered salute as soon as the unionist worm turns. Obviously it would thereupon take many years to negotiate this new arrangement, but my question is about what prevents the initiation of the attempt.
(And as long as I'm posting, I'd like to contend that there is no such thing as meaningless rhetoric.)
Admission into the EU requires ratification by all existing members. Every single one of them has a veto should the UK change its mind. The Brexiteers have been doing their best to burn all bridges and boats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The EU is aware of the internal politics of the UK. The best way to defeat the Brexiteers isn't to take the bait to their insults and burned bridges.
Let them back in, no matter what they say or threaten to do.
And why would the 27, every single one of them, do so? Why wouldn't at least one of them set red lines that everyone knows the UK can't meet? A small part of Belgium held up a trade agreement with Canada for over a decade, that everyone else had agreed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
There are much bigger stakes here. If you set the precedent that one rogue state will be allowed to prevent re-entry, than all the right-wing movements just bide their time until they have enough power to trigger Article 50(?) and then they are free forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Support for the EU has risen in the 27 since Brexit and its evident effects on the UK. We haven't even left yet, and the UK government's prognosis is that things will get far worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Edit: at least one of our historical allies has called for us to be made to suffer as an example.
You get to know a sect when you walk out the doorQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And speaking of treason, Stephen Glover (Daily Mail) wants the death penalty to be brought back for high treason. Should there be a referendum on that?
Only if we can have another if some are unhappy... :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
People tend to be pro-death penalty (as am I - in theory). But in practice, given the errors in the Justice System this is impracticable at this point.
~:smoking:
The death penalty can stop individual recidivism, but its usefulness as a deterrent is doubtful.
Given that the same author also describes opposition to Brexit as treachery against the People, the question is, does the death penalty deter opposition to Brexit, or does it only physically stop individuals from said opposition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Some of the official Leave campaign's Facebook adverts. Nearly every one involves lying or deception of some kind, with one phishing effort promoting a supposed football prediction contest (fronted by a celeb sportsman), that was in reality a data gathering effort targeted at football fans. Brexiteers have since disowned the promises and claims made in these adverts, whilst owning the result of the vote.