EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

They could vote to deprive EU citizens of those rights. EU citizens couldn't vote to preserve those rights. You and rory are big on political rights, aren't you?

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? His testimony, and reports citing his testimony, is making the government reconsider their insouciance towards no deal. Are you still for no deal after listening to him? Have you even listened to him? FWIW, the BBC took one Brexiteer through the process that Mr Trucker referred to. After going through a relatively trouble-free instance of that, said Brexiteer said he'd been lied to, and hadn't understood until then what trade involved. And that was just the standard process that Mr Trucker goes through on a good day, with virtually no unusual friction encountered (the Brexiteer noted that in his experience, 50% of documents contain errors, with the customs official telling him how long each error would delay matters; there weren't any on this occasion, but the very checking of the documents demonstrated to the Brexiteer the processes involved).

---

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

---

SMCU would have been outside political union. But like you said, you prefer no deal to that. So the stuff about only not consenting to political union is guff.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, or read reports extrapolating from that to the economy as a whole? You may dismiss him as insignificant, but the UK government disagrees with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

SMCU would have been outside political union. But like you said, you prefer no deal to that. So the stuff about only not consenting to political union is guff.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, or read reports extrapolating from that to the economy as a whole? You may dismiss him as insignificant, but the UK government disagrees with you.

---

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053780824

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

---

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

---

If giving someone more freedom of movement discriminates against someone else's freedom of movement, then someone earning more money than I do discriminates against my ability to consume. Have you finally turned socialist? :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053780824

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

---

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar-posted article

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

---

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

---

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053780824

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

---

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar-posted article

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

---

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

---

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

If giving someone more freedom of movement discriminates against someone else's freedom of movement, then someone earning more money than I do discriminates against my ability to consume. Have you finally turned socialist? :creep:

---

i'm afraid your analogy doesn't really capture the situation.

there has NEVER been any public consensus on accepting open borders and unlimited immigration.
which is why RoR immigration has been steadily clamped down upon as EU regulation has opened up.
which is how we have a situation here where 7% of the worlds population occupies over 50% of immigration into the uk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by husar

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

---

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

---

Husar offered a false choice in taking the EU's opening position as the end game.

They offered not the soft-brexit choice of EFTA/EEA, but rather EEA+CU (that latter of which would not even be compatible with EFTA membership).
I support a halfway house which brings a full regulatory model for goods but leaves services out. Not dissimilar to that already achieved by the Swiss and Ukraine.
That is not a 'hard' brexit deal, it is in fact very moderate, Husar's option by contrast would leave britain so closely aligned in regulatory / social / employment / trade policy, that it would be difficult to argue that we had left.

And I have pointed out geopolitical realities to you, where the threat of unilateral guillotine on the agreement is unacceptable, and no one should ever attempt to negotiate without the ability to walk away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i'm afraid your analogy doesn't really capture the situation.

---

I'm shocked that you say that, I fully expected you to agree. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

there has NEVER been any public consensus on accepting open borders and unlimited immigration.
which is why RoR immigration has been steadily clamped down upon as EU regulation has opened up.
which is how we have a situation here where 7% of the worlds population occupies over 50% of immigration into the uk.

---

Well, maybe you should have opened the border to those refugees in the huge camp in Calais to diversify your immigration.
I also doubt that it is shocking that most migration does not happen across half the planet. Your argument thus does not prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I also doubt that it is shocking that most migration does not happen across half the planet. Your argument thus does not prove anything.

---

if i were germany, no, in being a regionally insular nation whith little historic cultural or linguistic reach.
it would perhaps be of little surprise that the enormous majority of immigration was from immediate neighbours.
that is not the position that britain finds itself in, and it is beyond dispute that the regime that operates against non-EU nationals is punitive in a way that EU nationals would shudder to experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

if i were germany, no, in being a regionally insular nation whith little historic cultural or linguistic reach.

---

Funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that is not the position that britain finds itself in, and it is beyond dispute that the regime that operates against non-EU nationals is punitive in a way that EU nationals would shudder to experience.

---

You could just as well have corrected me when I took your argument for granted, because it's not even true that most migrants come from the EU: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

Quote:

---

Estimated non-EU net migration, meanwhile, is 227,000 a year—the highest level recorded since 2011. It has been almost consistently higher than EU migration for decades.

---

So what exactly is your problem here? It appears that non-EU migrants have no real problems coming to the UK, there are even more of them than EU migrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You could just as well have corrected me when I took your argument for granted, because it's not even true that most migrants come from the EU: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/



So what exactly is your problem here? It appears that non-EU migrants have no real problems coming to the UK, there are even more of them than EU migrants.

---

you are correct, there is more RoW immigration than EU immigration, but in the years leading up to the brexit vote it was nearly 50:50:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
i remain perfectly comfortable in my original assertion that there was an injustice in 7% of the worlds population occupying over/nearly/slightly-less-than half the net migration, as contrasted to the other 90% of the worlds population.

lol, "no real problem"? the regime for RoR immigration [is] punative compared for that of EU citizens under freedom of movement, and it has become more punitive as a response to increased pressure from eu immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you are correct, there is more RoW immigration than EU immigration, but in the years leading up to the brexit vote it was nearly 50:50:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
i remain perfectly comfortable in my original assertion that there was an injustice in 7% of the worlds population occupying over/nearly/slightly-less-than half the net migration, as contrasted to the other 90% of the worlds population.

lol, "no real problem"? the regime for RoR immigration [is] punative compared for that of EU citizens under freedom of movement, and it has become more punitive as a response to increased pressure from eu immigration.

---

Do you have anything to back that up? You can assert a lot and so can I, but that doesn't prove your point in any way.
It may well be that the UK government is moving against immigration, but I cannot find anything about how this is tied to EU membership. Some people claim it is, without citing any specific EU rules that would mandate this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Do you have anything to back that up? You can assert a lot and so can I, but that doesn't prove your point in any way.
It may well be that the UK government is moving against immigration, but I cannot find anything about how this is tied to EU membership. Some people claim it is, without citing any specific EU rules that would mandate this.

---

Even the EU immigration can be acted on, with various measures taken by other member countries that aren't done by the UK, eg. registering when they enter and having to leave if they don't have employment within 6 months. The four freedoms mandates freedom of movement of labour, not freedom of movement of individuals. Instead, you have the Brexit loons arguing that EU immigrants are freeloading on the welfare state and the NHS, when it's Westminster, not Brussels, that allows this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Do you have anything to back that up? You can assert a lot and so can I, but that doesn't prove your point in any way.
It may well be that the UK government is moving against immigration, but I cannot find anything about how this is tied to EU membership. Some people claim it is, without citing any specific EU rules that would mandate this.

---

i did find an authoritative source a few months back that discussed how uk public policy had responded to rising immigration in noughties, might have been here, but can't find it now. i did look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Even the EU immigration can be acted on, with various measures taken by other member countries that aren't done by the UK, eg. registering when they enter and having to leave if they don't have employment within 6 months. The four freedoms mandates freedom of movement of labour, not freedom of movement of individuals. Instead, you have the Brexit loons arguing that EU immigrants are freeloading on the welfare state and the NHS, when it's Westminster, not Brussels, that allows this.

---

q) and how much of this depends on a conformist social democracy that requires national id cards, to be presented throughout private life in accessing services?
a) lots

we could achieve this, certainly, but it would need finnish collectivism not british individualism.

May says the choices are clear. It is either this deal, no deal, or no brexit.

We've finally got a manifesto for Brexit. Do the Brexiteers here support it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We've finally got a manifesto for Brexit. Do the Brexiteers here support it?

---

I guess, I support it as people should be able to rethink it, it will probably turn out to be much harsher though, will you accept it if it does

Just for reference, because I needed that myself: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...we-know-so-far

I for one welcome our new island colony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We've finally got a manifesto for Brexit. Do the Brexiteers here support it?

---

Too soon to say, but my uninformed inclination is: yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Too soon to say, but my uninformed inclination is: yes.

---

Have you read the bits about joint decisions yet? Or the stuff about equivalence. That's rory's most cited red line well and truly crossed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you read the bits about joint decisions yet? Or the stuff about equivalence. That's rory's most cited red line well and truly crossed.

---

Actually, yes, and this is one of the motivations I mentioned to you some months back.

In short:
The peril of the Swiss governance method is that it all hangs as one agreement, subject to a unilateral guillotine if the ECJ judges that it has breached any one element of the agreement. The whole lot chopped!

I argued that this would be unacceptable.
It was threatened during the course of the negotiation, but what has been achieved is better than that:

https://twitter.com/sylviademars/sta...00734152019970

Lots of external arbitration by separate committees overseeing their discreet element of the treaty.

People have been too focussed on the single axis of sovereignty vs integration, whereas I have always been inetersted in brexit from a geopolitics perspective, and I'd argue that "power fragility" is just as important.

There will always be disputes, disputes that [could] be resolved amicably, but become fulcrums in entirely separate public policy battles.
Constantly having to look over your shoulder when contemplating public policy divergence is not 'useful' sovereignty, even if you in theory have absolute legal freedom to do as you please.

May's deal appears to have managed to unite most of the country - almost everyone dislikes the deal - the remainers want to be leading Europe, not the gimp at the end of the choke collar; the brexiteers want to be properly out and equally not the gimp at the end end of a choke collar. A true master stroke.

I've always stated that there is close to no realistic chance of a deal since one would require something that the UK and entire EU agrees with - and even getting Ireland on side is proving to be extremely difficult.

Rather than spending 2 1/2 years in getting things sorted for what would be an undoubtedly be a difficult situation of leaving with no deal, they're pretending they can get one - even saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Enter a drawn-out pretending-to-leave and then at a point in the future we then end up rejoining more under the banner of having control over the money we continue to have to give.

~:smoking:

If you end up rejoining or paying for access, you may actually pay more if the special rebate is gone. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

If you end up rejoining or paying for access, you may actually pay more if the special rebate is gone. :clown:

---

60 procent of Brittish trade is outside the EU the remaining trade becommin more expensive is not going to hurt all that much, I hope the Netherlands follow suit, not realistic currentlly, but good luck with tarrifs on the biggest harbour and second biggest food producers in the world. It will happen eventually that we leave as well, everything you eat, everything you make, will cost you a lot more. The Netherlands has good carts but nobody plays them, for now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

If you end up rejoining or paying for access, you may actually pay more if the special rebate is gone. :clown:

---

Absolutely. What limited trust / power / gravitas the UK might have had is pretty much gone. Any "special deals" are also probably on the line. Turncoats are occasionally useful but rarely trusted.

But then the entire process was screwed from the start - a poorly thought out referendum that was supposed to kill the issue it kicked off with simplistic questions and no real clear process of what exactly this meant leading to a lot of chaos given the vote was so close. The Brexit side did lie - frankly those that believed the lies should loose the right to vote since they are not functioning as sentient beings.

Out of this whole sad situation the only possibility of any sort of upside for the UK is if Italy goes down the pan and drags the Euro down with it.

~:smoking:

I know people for voted leave simply because of the NHS Money Bus, because they wanted to support the NHS and though since it was on the side of a bus, it was legit. :no:

When you tried to tell them otherwise, they were all "nooo it is on the side of a bus!"

That bus is also still in the news...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I know people for voted leave simply because of the NHS Money Bus, because they wanted to support the NHS and though since it was on the side of a bus, it was legit. :no:

When you tried to tell them otherwise, they were all "nooo it is on the side of a bus!"

That bus is also still in the news...

---

do you hang out with a lot of left wing people?

asking, as that never entered my mind as a motivation, or, many of the brexit supporting people I know.*

*which isn't many, as I work in the public sector, in a university town.

Funny line:

Quote:

---

These resignations confirm a fundamental structural problem with the whole leave prospectus: it was a fantasy, and as such incompatible with the mundane fulfilment of ministerial responsibility. Raab has come to the same conclusion that David Davis and Boris Johnson reached earlier in the year: it is easier to be on the team that accuses the prime minister of failing to deliver majestic herds of unicorns than it is to be stuck with a portfolio that requires expertise in unicorn-breeding.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

do you hang out with a lot of left wing people?
asking, as that never entered my mind as a motivation, or, many of the brexit supporting people I know.*
*which isn't many, as I work in the public sector, in a university town.

---

More I am from a poor working class area. Those same people are more likely to be UKIP voters too, as some feel Nigel Farage would represent their interests as he is more down with the people and that migration is the source of woes in British society by overstretching already overstretched hospital, education, etc services. Few people I know even vote conservative, because they see it as a pride thing, in a manner of "I am above my peers, I am a conservative" type of manner even though they shoot themselves in the foot due to the policies. Then there are people who vote conservative as they are rich, so they actually would benefit from it.

Whilst the actual left-wingers I know voted for remaining within the EU. The Remainers included pretty much anyone educated and under of the age of 40.

So I am guessing the demographic I am referring to are working class people over the age of 50.

People who loved the bus include my own mother who works within the NHS, using it part of her justification as she was heavily influenced by my euro-sceptic uncle who embarked on a Brexit campaign of saving young people from themselves because we don't know what is good for us (so ignore us), for the pride of Britain type stance. Myself and all my cousins all voted remain.

personally - and i say this because have very little anecdotal evidence to share - i don't think we can ignore the fact the the vast majority have never had an emotional attachment to EUrope as a political idea.
the EU - apart from a small minority - has never stirred any passion in us, or seemed the answer to any great question. as is the case on the continent.

so, yes, you may pick up on working class labour (non) voters who liked the bus, and you my also note other demographic slices like scotland, the young, the educated, etc, but in all those case they too voted en-mass to leave as well as remain.
a third of scots
forty percent of the young
a third of people with degrees

great chunks of even those demographic slices seen as fertile ground for remain.
... and then around all those specific groups the great avalanche of middle england - who also will have voted to remain in substantial part.

but not enough. not enough passion to make up for the grit it constantly sprinkled in the gears of society.

i do think getting worked up over the bus is not helpful to disappointed remainers; it is a slogan to shout not a reason leading to understanding.

-----------------------------------

And by way of return:

My own immediate family was split. parents and sons voting to leave.
Daughters voting to remain (i think - never really asked).

My parents being the most committed, and who am I to argue: educated professionals (teacher/nurse) who HAD ACTUALLY MOVED THEIR FAMILY ABROAD TO LIVE.
Myself with a polish wife, my brother living in istanbul with his turkish girlfriend. Both of us soft leavers.
My sisters living solidly english middle-class urban lives. Both of them soft remainers, neither with any love, just seemed practical.
Oh, and as a consequence of our parents choices, all of us have in fact lived abroad, growing up in central africa.

I can find no reason why I should besmirch any of the choices made in my family. All made for good and honest reasons, whichever choice was arrived at.

When you call yourself a "soft" Brexiter, do you mean in 2016, or now? My impression is that you've always been adamant on the ideological importance of holding Europe at arm's length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

When you call yourself a "soft" Brexiter, do you mean in 2016, or now? My impression is that you've always been adamant on the ideological importance of holding Europe at arm's length.

---

I have always been a Eurosceptic, never a ukipper.
only became a leaver after Camerons renegotiation, when Belgium demanded the exemption from ever closer union must apply only to the UK.
both obnoxious in its own right, but also the end to any hope of Britain building blocking minorities in a time of QMV, reduced vote weight, and eurozone caucusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I have always been a Eurosceptic, never a ukipper.
only became a leaver after Camerons renegotiation, when Belgium demanded the exemption from ever closer union must apply only to the UK.
both obnoxious in its own right, but also the end to any hope of Britain building blocking minorities in a time of QMV, reduced vote weight, and eurozone caucusing.

---

What do you think of the role played by the backers of Putin and Trump? Are they less obnoxious in your eyes? Do you think the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon are good for British democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What do you think of the role played by the backers of Putin and Trump? Are they less obnoxious in your eyes?

Do you think the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon are good for British democracy?

---

you'll have to explain that one. In the context of brexit...?

if they broke the law, prosecute them. if they exposed weaknesses in the law, amend the law. not of any material consequence either way.

Game over it seems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

... Do you think the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon are good for British democracy?

---

Setting aside your more particular political question about interference, this general question is worthy of its own thread and of concern, I believe, everywhere where elections are even vaguely fair.

The mediated world in which we live is manipulatable in ways the make the Goldwater Daisy ad seem like a child's machinations. I don't think there are many in government -- and fewer than I would like in general -- thinking about the problem potential here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Setting aside your more particular political question about interference, this general question is worthy of its own thread and of concern, I believe, everywhere where elections are even vaguely fair.

The mediated world in which we live is manipulatable in ways the make the Goldwater Daisy ad seem like a child's machinations. I don't think there are many in government -- and fewer than I would like in general -- thinking about the problem potential here.

---

This is why I absolutely loathe the soundbite by Michael Gove, one of the leading Leave campaigners: "I think this country has had enough of experts". The success and viability of liberal democracy is absolutely dependent on being able to assess the evidence at hand, going back to the C19 when the franchise was expanded at the same time as compulsory education at younger ages was introduced across the population. The average voter has never been able to understand in detail the issues at hand. It's a matter of educating them to assess which experts are offering realistic choices, and only then can they make an informed choice. Brexit, and in particular Leave, explicitly diminished the political importance of experts. But politics does not automatically equal reality. Just because you vote for something does not necessarily make it so.

Experts aren't always experts, the academic world is full of frauds and essays for hire. I also got university degrees (multiple), I do not take them serious at all I just read books

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Experts aren't always experts, the academic world is full of frauds and essays for hire. I also got university degrees (multiple), I do not take them serious at all I just read books

---

Have you listened to Mr Trucker? Or the reps of the UK logistics industry? They are indeed for hire. They're hired to move the UK's trade around. Are they worth listening to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you listened to Mr Trucker? Or the reps of the UK logistics industry? They are indeed for hire. They're hired to move the UK's trade around. Are they worth listening to?

---

Can't say I have. As it looks you have won the argument the brexit seems to be dead, fold it up with a special kiss from me to seal it

Brexit is gone, sadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Can't say I have. As it looks you have won the argument the brexit seems to be dead, fold it up with a special kiss from me to seal it

Brexit is gone, sadly

---

Why nor read up on what Mr Trucker had to say, or the extrapolations that the logistics reps make over the UK? These are the people who are the lifeblood of British trade, so they're not academic theorists, unlike the economists that Furunculus is fond of citing. They deal with everyday reality. Are they experts worth listening to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why nor read up on what Mr Trucker had to say, or the extrapolations that the logistics reps make over the UK? These are the people who are the lifeblood of British trade, so they're not academic theorists, unlike the economists that Furunculus is fond of citing. They deal with everyday reality. Are they experts worth listening to?

---

It's always good to listen, without having looking it up I wonder where their market is, I bet it is not in the global market that is much more important for the UK. Again, I haven't actually looked it up. Brexiteers have lost and should just take it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's always good to listen, without having looking it up I wonder where their market is, I bet it is not in the global market that is much more important for the UK. Again, I haven't actually looked it up. Brexiteers have lost and should just take it

---

As the resigned Brexit minister admitted, he was surprised at how important the Calais-Dover route is in British trade, even in the context of the whole UK. The EU-UK logistical trail is critical to the UK, and the sources I cite are the experts on the subject. To dismiss them in favour of looking at the macro economy, as Furunculus does, is to wilfully miss the point. No logistics, no trade, no matter how much you fiddle the numbers and talk about global market and other buzz terms. Just because you win a vote to have unicorns does not mean unicorns will exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

As the resigned Brexit minister admitted, he was surprised at how important the Calais-Dover route is in British trade, even in the context of the whole UK. The EU-UK logistical trail is critical to the UK, and the sources I cite are the experts on the subject. To dismiss them in favour of looking at the macro economy, as Furunculus does, is to wilfully miss the point. No logistics, no trade, no matter how much you fiddle the numbers and talk about global market and other buzz terms. Just because you win a vote to have unicorns does not mean unicorns will exist.

---

But that traderoute wouldn't have been closed, just made more expensive. I think it a missed oppertunity to get rid of Brussels which I see as an increasingly scary overhead, my fever dreams of a possible Nexit are shattered as a Dutch-UK trade alliance could have been much more influential than the French-German dominance there is now. There is hardly any growth in the EU-zone, only the UK and the Netherlands excel, we could be so much better. The Netherlands especially has a knive on the throat of Germany's industry, and everybody else because we produce their food, we shouldn't have to listen to these idiots we can do it all ourself, when backed. Such a shame, with Denmark and Norway and maybe even the ever neutral Switzerland we could have got out of this mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

But that traderoute wouldn't have been closed, just made more expensive.

---

I think Pannonian said several times that it would effectively be almost closed for a while because of the border checks for which the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough border agents since they didn't train any in advance.

And concerning overhead, having several thousand more border agents and taking over other EU functions that require personnel is not free either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I think Pannonian said several times that it would effectively be almost closed for a while because of the border checks for which the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough border agents since they didn't train any in advance.

And concerning overhead, having several thousand more border agents and taking over other EU functions that require personnel is not free either.

---

Has nothing to do with traderoutes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Has nothing to do with traderoutes

---

traderoutes don't cross borders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

traderoutes don't cross borders?

---

Of course they do but it are seperate manners

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Of course they do but it are seperate manners

---

In terms of specific function yes, Frags, but they are all part of the larger process of trade and by extension of the economies involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Has nothing to do with traderoutes

---

Seriously, listen to Mr Trucker and read the parliamentary report that cites his account. We're not talking about computer games and sliding scales where you can allocate resources. Also, you mentioned earlier about your dream Nexit. The Netherlands announced they were prepared for no deal Brexit months ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

In terms of specific function yes, Frags, but they are all part of the larger process of trade and by extension of the economies involved.

---

More relevantly, there are specific details that my cited sources highlight, that absolutely no Brexiteer has attempted to engage with. Because they are unavoidable and unarguable, and the scale cannot be judged. The UK, as a third country, will receive permits for 5% of the trade journeys currently made. Whatever else happens, there will be that bottleneck. That was why the government announced that, in the event of no deal, it would take control of these logistics so as to prioritise the critically important over everything else. The last time a UK government did that was on the outbreak of WW2 when we expected to be blockaded. I'm not sure if May's agreement opens up that bottleneck, but I suppose the relevant institutions will comment once they've digested the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

In terms of specific function yes, Frags, but they are all part of the larger process of trade and by extension of the economies involved.

---

Holding back other trade. The UK and the Netherlands combined would have been formitable, we wouldn't have had to listen to anyone. The French-German EU marches on

And Spain moves on Gibraltar. Hardly surprising - will any other countries have last minute gripes that the leverage of a veto vote on Brexit is just too good a chance to pass up?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And Spain moves on Gibraltar. Hardly surprising - will any other countries have last minute gripes that the leverage of a veto vote on Brexit is just too good a chance to pass up?

~:smoking:

---

Not that surprising. The re-acquisition of Gibraltar has been a Spanish goal since the early 18th, pursued with differing levels of vigor depending on the era and the government. You could make an argument that this is one of the few policy goals shared by all the divers Spanish governments ever since the Brits took it -- the most consistent element of their national policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Holding back other trade. The UK and the Netherlands combined would have been formitable, we wouldn't have had to listen to anyone. The French-German EU marches on

---

While I agree that EU policy skews Franco-German in orientation, Frags, I don't think either country's take on things is that divergent from the bulk of European sensibilities -- including a sizeable slice of those of your fellow Nederlanders. At least on this side of the pond, we do not hear too much about France or Germany dictating terms to the rest of Europe under threat of economic sanctions or what not (excepting pushing Greece on the specifics of the bailout -- which could be argued as reasonable given the economic basket-case they'd made of themselves). They have the largest populations and economies in the collective, so it is pretty natural that they have a significant say. Florida and Texas have a lot more leverage in our Congress than does Idaho.


You are also, with respect, undercutting your own previous penchant for national rugged individualism and a Nexit with that "combined would have been formidable, we wouldn't have to listen to anyone." Such a power combination was, I believe, a primary reason for the European Union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

While I agree that EU policy skews Franco-German in orientation, Frags, I don't think either country's take on things is that divergent from the bulk of European sensibilities -- including a sizeable slice of those of your fellow Nederlanders. At least on this side of the pond, we do not hear too much about France or Germany dictating terms to the rest of Europe under threat of economic sanctions or what not (excepting pushing Greece on the specifics of the bailout -- which could be argued as reasonable given the economic basket-case they'd made of themselves). They have the largest populations and economies in the collective, so it is pretty natural that they have a significant say. Florida and Texas have a lot more leverage in our Congress than does Idaho.


You are also, with respect, undercutting your own previous penchant for national rugged individualism and a Nexit with that "combined would have been formidable, we wouldn't have to listen to anyone." Such a power combination was, I believe, a primary reason for the European Union.

---

And economically, the UK has been the biggest shaper of the current EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And economically, the UK has been the biggest shaper of the current EU.

---

Was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

While I agree that EU policy skews Franco-German in orientation, Frags, I don't think either country's take on things is that divergent from the bulk of European sensibilities -- including a sizeable slice of those of your fellow Nederlanders. At least on this side of the pond, we do not hear too much about France or Germany dictating terms to the rest of Europe under threat of economic sanctions or what not (excepting pushing Greece on the specifics of the bailout -- which could be argued as reasonable given the economic basket-case they'd made of themselves). They have the largest populations and economies in the collective, so it is pretty natural that they have a significant say. Florida and Texas have a lot more leverage in our Congress than does Idaho.


You are also, with respect, undercutting your own previous penchant for national rugged individualism and a Nexit with that "combined would have been formidable, we wouldn't have to listen to anyone." Such a power combination was, I believe, a primary reason for the European Union.

---

I think Seamus makes a rather good point here. Frags. Why are you so willing to group with Britain, while no doubt Netherlands would be the junior partner in such partnership, while you detest grouping with Germany and France within EU? Is it the current conservative Government? If so would the end of such partnership come immediately the next time Labour wins the British elections?

In my opinion, it is rather sad that Britain is leaving EU as it had a big role within EU as her influence had a stabilizing effect and could at times deter the power block of Germany and France within EU.Now with GB leaving there wont be such possibility and EU is going the develop the way Germany and France will see fit. Only opportunities for other EU countries to make a real difference will be when those two will be off different opinion concerning certain policies.

The good thing is of course that novadays Germans are not gassing people anymore and the French are not chopping heads off like no tomorrow, at least for now.:2thumbsup: Still without Britain,the smaller EU countries will see their influence diminished further. Which most of the time will be off no consequence, but still may create more anti EU sentiment in many of the EU countries.

I agree, kaga. It is a shame, and even now I would happily retract art50 with one minor change to Camerons renegotiation: make Britain's exemption from ever closer union applicable to all.
but that failure made it clear the EU was a project in which we had no future, in not sharing the driving ambition of the project.
yes, the smaller nations will suffer as a result, and suffer from increased populism.

Richard North (who coined the Brexit model that Furunculus is fond of) on Peter Lilley and the ERG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard North

That is the measure of the man, and the ERG (to say nothing of Global Britain). But it also illustrates the problem we have when authoritative figures decide to lie. His 75 words takes nearly 1,700 of mine to knock them down. The lies spread faster than they can be challenged and corrected.

And, although I am calling Lord Lilley out as a liar, on a well-read blog, he will do nothing. He dare not. Instead, he will go into denial – in common with his political acolytes. That is the way these people work: they ignore criticism, pretending it does not exist and just go on repeating their lies.

However, Lilley has done us a service, illustrating once again how the ERG works. These people are not to be trusted and the case they make, founded on lies, is terminally flawed. The way they behave is disgusting. They add immeasurably to the debasement of politics, and the erosion of trust.

---

Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies.

for reference - the gruaniad populist quiz places me alongside angela merkel on the populist index:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng...t-are-you-quiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Richard North (who coined the Brexit model that Furunculus is fond of) on Peter Lilley and the ERG


Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies.

---

flexcit was coined by richard north, but it's fairer to see i'm very fond of the authoritative research that went into building his model. have you read it? ;) but i don't think that flexcit is a bad model, quite the opposite.

equally, i don't think chequers (mk2?) is a bad model.

but you are being disingenuous in inferring the conclusion: "Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies." as if they sprang from richard north's mouth, when he is having a go at the ERG for their quite separate and distinct proposal.

saying that Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies is a statement exactly as fatuous as is this: "The Remain campaign is almost entirely founded on lies."
it has some cross-cutting truths, but does not speak to the 'truth' of the matter. on either side!

[bleh]...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

p.s. you're terribly fond of name checking me in your great revelations of misdoing, but you never address the detailed and thoughtful posts i attempt to craft to further the discussion.

why?

---

Because you dismissed the primary sources I linked to? You keep linking to IEA studies, when the IEA is pretty much discredited by its offering to shape its research to whichever right wing interests fund it (such as the chairman of IEA offering to put on a good show for US agribusiness). But have you listened to Mr Trucker or read the parliamentary report on logistics yet? These guys don't deal with theory that can be wrangled to suit whoever offers to pay them. They carry the UK's trade, at micro and at macro level. Mr Trucker describes what happens at micro level. The report describes what happens at macro level. If you dismiss them, you have nothing useful to say about British trade.

Example: Kate Hoey, one of the foremost Brexiteer politicians, says something that contradicts Mr Trucker. Does this mean there are two sides to every story? The BBC takes a Brexiteer (voter), a business owner, through a typical trucking journey, letting him see the process for himself. He doesn't encounter any of the problems Mr Trucker alludes to; just a normal, hassle free journey. But at the end of it, he concludes that he'd been lied to by the Leave politicians. There aren't two sides to the story of Brexit. There is the side of objective, corroborable truth; then there is the Leave side, lying all the way. See the claim that Turkey will join the EU, or that Leave will divert 350m/wk to the NHS.

we're both equally guilty on that score, as i don't think you've read 400 pages of flexcit. i confess, i dodged 15 minutes of video.

iea is no more and no less discredited on that count than any other think tank.

"There aren't two sides to the story of Brexit. There is the side of objective, corroborable truth; then there is the Leave side, lying all the way." utter dribbling cobblers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

"There aren't two sides to the story of Brexit. There is the side of objective, corroborable truth; then there is the Leave side, lying all the way." [/I]utter dribbling cobblers.

---

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

---

See the phishing campaign by Leave, presenting a facade of a football predictions competition fronted by celebs, whose real purpose was to gain contact details for targeted campaigning. Is that democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

---

What is wrong with being independant, it is a lost oppertunity. Theresa May deserves much respect for respecting the outcome of something she didn't believe in herself. What you have now (could still change itś not over yet) is an EU that can overrule your laws, congratutations with that.Congratulations with paying much more money to drunks like Juncker, NGO'ś and lobbyists. Such a waste. You could have been out of this Orwellian nightmare, we Dutch could have been following you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What is wrong with being independant, it is a lost oppertunity. Theresa May deserves much respect for respecting the outcome of something she didn't believe in herself. What you have now (could still change itś not over yet) is an EU that can overrule your laws, congratutations with that.Congratulations with paying much more money to drunks like Juncker, NGO'ś and lobbyists. Such a waste. You could have been out of this Orwellian nightmare, we Dutch could have been following you

---

Are you suggesting walking away from all talks without compromising for any deals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you suggesting walking away from all talks without compromising for any deals?

---

UK is powerful enough to just do that. The rationality behind it is that it would really hurt the EU if the UK leaves, the EU, not Europe. It is already falling apart you see, Merkel being reason #1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

UK is powerful enough to just do that. The rationality behind it is that it would really hurt the EU if the UK leaves, the EU, not Europe. It is already falling apart you see, Merkel being reason #1

---

Have you read about the government studies of the ramifications of no deal? I've mentioned them plenty of times. Start with the Dover-London roads being gridlocked on day 1. A few days on from that, you start having shortages of food and other essential supplies. Your talking about the EU being hurt is theoretical. The government studies pinpoint exactly where the UK will suffer and at what point. If you're so confident about the UK doing well in no deal, come over and live here and share the consequences of your bullcrap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

---

i disagree. prime evidence by anecdote being clegg in saying that he thought the eu would be much the same in ten years time as it is today.

but a good example of the ease with which remain lied in being able to trot of bland statements about the status quo, when this is not true.
the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration.
the consequence of:
1. increased use of QMV over national veto
2. reduced vote-weight as the post Lisbon changes came in
3. eurozone caucusing of decision making - increasingly taken under QMV
4. cameron's renegotiation making it clear to all the peripheral nations that they had no future outside of ever-closer-union

building blocking coalitions was not a sustainable option.

that was not a place we could stay (if you reject that future), but so easy for remain to get an easy ride saying: "aw shucks, you drama queen, things ain't so bad. and nothing will change!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you read about the government studies of the ramifications of no deal? I've mentioned them plenty of times. Start with the Dover-London roads being gridlocked on day 1. A few days on from that, you start having shortages of food and other essential supplies. Your talking about the EU being hurt is theoretical. The government studies pinpoint exactly where the UK will suffer and at what point. If you're so confident about the UK doing well in no deal, come over and live here and share the consequences of your bullcrap.

---

Of course there consequens but also benefits. No I am not coming there is something depressing about the UK to me, I don't like the place, why would I ever leave the Netherlands to go to the UK. Netherlands is leeched though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i disagree. prime evidence by anecdote being clegg in saying that he thought the eu would be much the same in ten years time as it is today.

but a good example of the ease with which remain lied in being able to trot of bland statements about the status quo, when this is not true.
the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration.
the consequence of:
1. increased use of QMV over national veto
2. reduced vote-weight as the post Lisbon changes came in
3. eurozone caucusing of decision making - increasingly taken under QMV
4. cameron's renegotiation making it clear to all the peripheral nations that they had no future outside of ever-closer-union

building blocking coalitions was not a sustainable option.

that was not a place we could stay (if you reject that future), but so easy for remain to get an easy ride saying: "aw shucks, you drama queen, things ain't so bad. and nothing will change!"

---

What has that to do with the UK? We were never in the eurozone. Why do Brexiteers keep citing the euro as a reason for Brexit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What has that to do with the UK? We were never in the eurozone. Why do Brexiteers keep citing the euro as a reason for Brexit?

---

You have been told.

Several times now:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

Quote:

---

De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:

• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.

• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.

• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.

Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

You have been told.

Several times now:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

---

Quote:

---

The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

---

So you're miffed because the outs have a numerical inferiority of one in attempting to win any argument in that organisation. So how are things going in winning over the EU27? Each of them has a veto over any agreement the UK may want to make. Ireland have made themselves felt already. Spain have now piped up. And goodness knows who else may want a say before April 2019. Then of course there's the WTO, where there are even more countries who can veto the UK's membership. The US, Russia and your beloved Commonwealth kin have already spoken up. What do you think of the inexorable logic that the UK will be alone with the world looking to screw us over?

BTW, the above isn't a theoretical argument, as yours is. The above countries have already signalled their unwillingness to accommodate us. We've already had to accommodate Ireland, spending the better part of two years trying to satisfy them.

the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration, that is not a place we can go to.
cameron's renegotiation demonstrated this.

the four points above speak to power, and how it is wielded. we can have no expectation of being able to successfully build blocking coalitions in future, as we might have hoped in the early noughties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration, that is not a place we can go to.
cameron's renegotiation demonstrated this.

the four points above speak to power, and how it is wielded. we can have no expectation of being able to successfully build blocking coalitions in future, as we might have hoped in the early noughties.

---

So how are our prospects for successfully building blocking coalitions in your post-Brexit Brave New World? We've spent the best part of two years trying to satisfy Ireland. Now Spain have piped up with the threat of vetoing, and we've yielded within a couple of days. This ain't your theoretical political landscape that has never been seen in action. This is genuine, demonstrated, post-Brexit political landscape that Remainers said would be so before the referendum.