Brexit View

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> The fact that you would repost all of that from

> 2016 despite the last 3 years doesn?t really show

> you in a good light tho. At least actual racists

> have their racism for voting leave

>

> The thing about leave voters is they continue to

> project this air of ?noble cause? that just

> doesn?t exist anywhere else really. Sovereignty.

> Immigration. Blah blah blah

>

> Why don?t the Irish, the French, the Portuguese

> (etc etc) care about these mighty principles in

> the same way? Why don?t they come up with the same

> ?solution??

I posted that becuase Alan medic asked about the original reasons why someone might have voted leave. Of course things have evolved in 3 years since.

I've said on here multiple times that the govt has totally f'd up the negotiations and leave process. And we're I n a bad situation. That doesn't change the fact that there were fair reasons at the time of the vote as I've outlined.

As for the rest of Europe. I don't think theEU love is a strong as you thinks it is...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/26/eurosceptic-parties-reshape-eu-politics-strongest-showing-european/amp/

But anyway, I'm sure you'll find a way to belittle and dismiss anything I've said. Because that's much easier than actually having an original thought isn't it?

[Sephiroth]

The government have proven to be useless its true

But equally they simply came up against the hard reality. That?s the bit I don?t understand. You can not negotiate a deal when there are so many competing versions of Brexit. Stick too closely to a Norway option and you have people saying it?s not brexit. Go too hard brexit and you crash the economy, the union and risk return of the troubles. And many more variations

So if we had a competent government, what would their version of a deal look like. And how do you get that past all the other leave voters who don?t think the same way as you?

I submit it?s a circle that can?t be squared. And even if you did the cost would be too high and the gains too low

Many former leave voters have realised this. There is no majority for Brexit now in my view.

[JohnL]

I still think a competent government would have put us into a Norway option (there are problems as Norway doesn't particularly want us so we may have needed our own Norway area) for a number of years (I'd say 5) with agreement to negotiate further (remain or move to FTA) down the line.

Then promise to leave is done and we'd be on course for a second referendum in 5 years.

Too late for that now I think.

[JohnL]

The EU offered "five years on ice"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-delay-article-50-extension-eu-panorama-bbc-documentary-a9009981.html

Just had to sell that as technically out and then negotiate a referendum with a cooler head.

[exdulwicher]

I've edited some of your comments (just by removing some lines, not actually changed any of the words as you wrote them!) because otherwise it would have turned into something you'd be scrolling down for a week but here goes:

TheCat Wrote:

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

> What started out as jotting down some quick

> thoughts, has turned into an essay, this will take

> you 5 mins if you get started, sorry!

>

> 8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE

>

> 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can

> I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we

> would be worse off under a Brexit scenario?

All the economic forecasts (even if they are short term) state we'll be worse off but "you think" that longer term (ie after we've been through another recession, had stagnant / zero growth, lost huge amounts of tax revenue and investment...) we'll be better off? Righto.

> 2. Immigration: Finally, a controlled

> immigration system is not just about attracting

> doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we

> need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for

> example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure

> visas are issued to the people the UK requires to

> do this.

Have you seen the Home Office systems? Some of the most badly designed, badly implemented "systems" ever, courtesy of one Theresa May (and various other Home Secretaries before her) all of who played the "immigrants are bad, we'll cut down on immigration" becasue they knew it played well to the Daily Wail brigade.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/theresa-mays-immigration-legacy/

Couple that with various scandals like Windrush and the overall tone of the campaign (especially the Farage poster of all the dirty foreigners queuing to get in) and you can't deny that the whole campaign was overtly rascist. Immigration rules are set by the country although there are overarching protocols from the EU around Freedom of Movement. You can read a simple guide of it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088

Free movement is a reciprocal arrangement that allows people to decide for themselves where they want to live, that enriches our communities with different culture, perspectives and food ? and that supports our economy and public services. But free movement is supposed to come with conditions. According to EU law, after three months of living in another member state, citizens must be in work, looking for work with a genuine chance of employment or have their own health insurance and be able to prove they won?t be dependent on public funds. No UK Government has ever implemented these rules ? yet ministers have blamed EU immigration for decades of failures to build enough houses, fund our health service and support our schools.

The policy was there all along but never implemented by the British Government.

> 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling

> bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the

> European Council, the Council of the European

> Union, the European Parliament, the European

> Commission, the Court of Justice of the European

> Union, the European Central Bank, and the European

> Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are

> elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The

> European Council and the European Commission make

> most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not

> elected bodies. So for example, if you think the

> British government should support British steel

> works or that the railways should be nationalised

> again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally

> bans countries from nationalising certain

> industries.

How many bodies, committees, commissions of UK Parliament / Government are there? How many civil servants running things behind the scenes? None of them are elected. Frankly the British public have shown themselves to be incapable of choosing a name for a boat, never mind electing officials to run every little detail. You don't elect the manager of your local supermarket or bank or GP, you assume that the people in charge know the general processes and skillset and you leave them to employ the best people to do that particular job.

The European Council sets EU Policy Agenda and it's comprised of all the Heads of State - the British Prime Minister literally sits on this council. You voted for a governing party (historically either Conservative or Labour); the governing party selects the Prime Minister and the PM sits on the European Council! That's hardly "unelected". And you can read about the European Commission here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en because there's way too much info for me to type out. Again, the UK sits on this Commission and has a defining role in how those rules and regulations are defined and implemented (and can veto or opt out like the UK has opted out of Schengen).

And EU Law does NOT ban nationalisation: https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/ and

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html

> 4. One size does not fit all:

No but by working together, everyone benefits. It's not one-sided, you can negotiate trade deals in exchange for debt relief for example. It's like having 27 neighbours, some very rich, some very poor but the poor ones will do all the work the rich ones don't want (like coming round and picking your fruit and veg, doing the DIY and washing the car) and the rich ones will give a few handouts in exchange for having a nice place to go on holiday rather than a third world shithole! (basic analogy but it kind of works)

> 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and

> Spain all voted-in governments in the last few

> years who?s plans/election promises have been

> over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a

> government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but the

> EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed

> onerous austerity.

As mentioned, the public don't have a clue. And if someone said to you, do you vote to live on ?50 or a week or just keep spending willy-nilly, you'll go with option 2 - except that Mastercard won't let you do that. The politicians can promise tax cuts and end to austerity but they can't actually make it happen, they've just promised whatever random bollocks sounds good to the voters.

We are a sovereign nation, recognised by all other nations, with our own flag and currency and monarchy. AND, we have a pooled sovereignty with the European Union (Scotland and England have a pooled sovereignty as well). There are numerous different types of sovereignty but take your pick, we were sovereign before any Brexit vote came long. Just that people had no idea what it meant and many still don't.

> 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the

> comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us

> that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from

> the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are

> they seriously saying that if we are not in the

> EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will still

> trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on

> things like security (do we not share intelligence

> with the USA because they?re not in the EU?),

> we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world

> to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how

> is it that other developed economies like

> Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all

> manage to play their part on the world stage

> without being part of the club?

By taking YEARS (decades sometimes) to come to trade deals, visa requirements, tariffs and by having it simplified for them by the existence of the EU, negotiating on behalf of 28 countries using common standards and imports. It costs the same to bring your produce into Germany as it does to Greece as it does to the UK in terms of tariffs and standards. If you as an individual try and negotaite a deal on something, you've got a lot less clout than if you're negotiating on behalf of 28 people. Try buying one car and getting a deal vs saying "right I own a business and we want 28 cars, what sort of deal can we agree on?"

> 7. Losing workers? rights:

That's Government. Free from all those pesky things about maternity leave, sick leave, parental rights, overtime, etc

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/working-hours-holiday-leave/working-hours/index_en.htm

They can basically just overturn it and we'll be back to a low-wage economy with no safeguards or checks. Or do you think the Tories will just be like "oh yes, we'll be nice to you little minions..."?

> 8. Its not about the individuals:

Fair point, at least you're not hanging on Farage's every word so credit for that!

> Either way I just hope the majority

> of people are considering all the issues and not

> getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults

> of this terrible campaign.

Well the problem is that (as shown above by the rebuttal of pretty much all your points) they're considering the issues as written in the Daily Mail and The Sun. Both owned by billionaire Brexit-backers who are desperate not to get caught up in EU Anti Tax Avoidance law. Brexit will make a tiny minority of very rich people even richer and it'll make everyone else worse off.

[JohnL]

Intelligent posts are above so I'm just saying

Boris you great big chicken #chickenjohnson

[diable rouge]

At least we now know the Hulk's Kryptonite weak spot...booing expats

[Alan Medic]

Shouldn't that be booing immigrants?

[TheCat]

exdulwicher Wrote:

First off, I'm like to say thanks for actually trying to address the points I raised in that essay. I've shown that to various people over the last 3 years, and for most its just too long to be bothered with (or too well argued I think:)..jokes....anyway...here goes on my responses to your responses.....

>

> >

>

> > 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How

> can

> > I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say

> we

> > would be worse off under a Brexit scenario?

>

> All the economic forecasts (even if they are short

> term) state we'll be worse off but "you think"

> that longer term (ie after we've been through

> another recession, had stagnant / zero growth,

> lost huge amounts of tax revenue and

> investment...) we'll be better off? Righto.

I think that response is more than a little disingenuous, and misrepresenting what I originally wrote, particularly given my comments in the lines you deleted for the sake of brevity..?where I specifically talk about the long term forecasts within those reports. But in anycase, yes, at some point we all have to ?think??.there?s no expert, document, or Guardian article which has all the answers on either outcome?.

>

> > 2. Immigration: Finally, a controlled

> > immigration system is not just about attracting

> > doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if

> we

> > need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for

> > example, then a sensible Home Office will

> ensure

> > visas are issued to the people the UK requires

> to

> > do this.

>

> Have you seen the Home Office systems? Some of the

> most badly designed, badly implemented "systems"

> ever, courtesy of one Theresa May (and various

> other Home Secretaries before her) all of who

> played the "immigrants are bad, we'll cut down on

> immigration" becasue they knew it played well to

> the Daily Wail brigade.

> https://www.freemovement.org.uk/theresa-mays-immig

> ration-legacy/

> Couple that with various scandals like Windrush

> and the overall tone of the campaign (especially

> the Farage poster of all the dirty foreigners

> queuing to get in) and you can't deny that the

> whole campaign was overtly rascist. Immigration

> rules are set by the country although there are

> overarching protocols from the EU around Freedom

> of Movement. You can read a simple guide of it

> here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088

>

> Free movement is a reciprocal arrangement that

> allows people to decide for themselves where they

> want to live, that enriches our communities with

> different culture, perspectives and food ? and

> that supports our economy and public services. But

> free movement is supposed to come with conditions.

> According to EU law, after three months of living

> in another member state, citizens must be in work,

> looking for work with a genuine chance of

> employment or have their own health insurance and

> be able to prove they won?t be dependent on public

> funds. No UK Government has ever implemented these

> rules ? yet ministers have blamed EU immigration

> for decades of failures to build enough houses,

> fund our health service and support our schools.

> The policy was there all along but never

> implemented by the British Government.

Did you actually read the lines that you deleted? I dont deny for a second that parts of the campaign were rascist. Again, i think I made that pretty clear in the lines that you deleted. I state at the start that farage?s distasteful banner and poor campaigning were pretty much the entire reason I wrote the whole bloody thing 3 years ago - to show that there non-racist reasons to vote Leave, because it was hard to see them given the campaigns (both of them) were so poor?.. again?..I basically said exactly that. So again, a little diengenous on your behalf.

However, your point on the lack of home office government co-ordination is fair. But if your starting point is always an unknown/state of flux; its just going to make it harder to ever see any improvement in the area right? Furthermore, if you?re saying that ministers have blamed EU immigration ?for decades?, then its high time we forced them to face up to the improvements the system needs. If ministers can no longer blame EU immigration for their lack of organisation and action with regards to housing, schools, health etc, then its pretty obvious where the problems are and the voting public (over time) will act accordingly until improvements are made.

>

> > 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling

> > bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the

> > European Council, the Council of the European

> > Union, the European Parliament, the European

> > Commission, the Court of Justice of the

> European

> > Union, the European Central Bank, and the

> European

> > Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies

> are

> > elected by the people. The rest are appointed.

> The

> > European Council and the European Commission

> make

> > most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are

> not

> > elected bodies. So for example, if you think

> the

> > British government should support British steel

> > works or that the railways should be

> nationalised

> > again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally

> > bans countries from nationalising certain

> > industries.

>

> How many bodies, committees, commissions of UK

> Parliament / Government are there? How many civil

> servants running things behind the scenes? None of

> them are elected. Frankly the British public have

> shown themselves to be incapable of choosing a

> name for a boat, never mind electing officials to

> run every little detail. You don't elect the

> manager of your local supermarket or bank or GP,

> you assume that the people in charge know the

> general processes and skillset and you leave them

> to employ the best people to do that particular

> job.

> The European Council sets EU Policy Agenda and

> it's comprised of all the Heads of State - the

> British Prime Minister literally sits on this

> council. You voted for a governing party

> (historically either Conservative or Labour); the

> governing party selects the Prime Minister and the

> PM sits on the European Council! That's hardly

> "unelected". And you can read about the European

> Commission here:

> https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en because there's

> way too much info for me to type out. Again, the

> UK sits on this Commission and has a defining role

> in how those rules and regulations are defined and

> implemented (and can veto or opt out like the UK

> has opted out of Schengen).

> And EU Law does NOT ban nationalisation:

> https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nation

> alisation-is-not-against-eu-law/ and

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre

> xit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market

> -restrictions-labour-a8968691.html

Yes, there?s lots of beureacrcay in the UK too. Overall I?d prefer less than more though (sorry, there?s me ?thinking? again). Thanks for the first two results of your google search about ?EU law banning nationalisation? (I checked, your two links are literally the first two results of that search ? but ?copy and paste? instead of ?thinking? is your preference, right?). In anycase, now im just being mean ? the fact is that certain industries CANNOT be nationalised under EU law, just as I said. There are of course ways around the laws in how certain industries (and parts of industries) are treated ? your links do not invalidate what I said. But I?ll concede that?s it?s a much more nuanced discussion that what has been laid out by either of us here?..

>

> > 4. One size does not fit all:

>

> No but by working together, everyone benefits.

> It's not one-sided, you can negotiate trade deals

> in exchange for debt relief for example. It's like

> having 27 neighbours, some very rich, some very

> poor but the poor ones will do all the work the

> rich ones don't want (like coming round and

> picking your fruit and veg, doing the DIY and

> washing the car) and the rich ones will give a few

> handouts in exchange for having a nice place to go

> on holiday rather than a third world shithole!

> (basic analogy but it kind of works)

So you agree with the premise that one size doesn?t fit all. Tehn you make a point about pooled resources which I argued in moe lines that you deleted would normally involve the UK being the giver rather than receiver of those pooled resources. But to be fair, I did forget in exchange for ?a few handouts? we get a nice place to go on holiday apparently?!!!! Because no one from outside the EU ever holidays in, Europe right??

>

> > 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal

> and

> > Spain all voted-in governments in the last few

> > years who?s plans/election promises have been

> > over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a

> > government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but

> the

> > EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and

> imposed

> > onerous austerity.

>

> As mentioned, the public don't have a clue. And if

> someone said to you, do you vote to live on ?50 or

> a week or just keep spending willy-nilly, you'll

> go with option 2 - except that Mastercard won't

> let you do that. The politicians can promise tax

> cuts and end to austerity but they can't actually

> make it happen, they've just promised whatever

> random bollocks sounds good to the voters.

> We are a sovereign nation, recognised by all other

> nations, with our own flag and currency and

> monarchy. AND, we have a pooled sovereignty with

> the European Union (Scotland and England have a

> pooled sovereignty as well). There are numerous

> different types of sovereignty but take your pick,

> we were sovereign before any Brexit vote came

> long. Just that people had no idea what it meant

> and many still don't.

?There are numerous different types of sovereignty but take your pick? ? Ummmmm?.I did....thanks. It is different to yours, no one has all the answers as I said above. You made your choice based on what you think (see?..its not just ,me who ?thinks?)

> > 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of

> the

> > comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us

> > that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off

> from

> > the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are

> > they seriously saying that if we are not in the

> > EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will

> still

> > trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate

> on

> > things like security (do we not share

> intelligence

> > with the USA because they?re not in the EU?),

> > we?ll still welcome folk from all over the

> world

> > to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself

> how

> > is it that other developed economies like

> > Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all

> > manage to play their part on the world stage

> > without being part of the club?

>

> By taking YEARS (decades sometimes) to come to

> trade deals, visa requirements, tariffs and by

> having it simplified for them by the existence of

> the EU, negotiating on behalf of 28 countries

> using common standards and imports. It costs the

> same to bring your produce into Germany as it does

> to Greece as it does to the UK in terms of tariffs

> and standards. If you as an individual try and

> negotaite a deal on something, you've got a lot

> less clout than if you're negotiating on behalf of

> 28 people. Try buying one car and getting a deal

> vs saying "right I own a business and we want 28

> cars, what sort of deal can we agree on?"

Change takes time. As I said, the transition will have its challenges. I believe in the longer term case of some of things I?ve have listed above. I?ve cleary said the short term friction is a price I judged to be worth paying. Your opinion no doubt differs. But again?its still your opinion?..

> > 7. Losing workers? rights:

>

> That's Government. Free from all those pesky

> things about maternity leave, sick leave, parental

> rights, overtime, etc

> https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resour

> ces/working-hours-holiday-leave/working-hours/inde

> x_en.htm

> They can basically just overturn it and we'll be

> back to a low-wage economy with no safeguards or

> checks. Or do you think the Tories will just be

> like "oh yes, we'll be nice to you little

> minions..."?

Because only the EU has those pesky things right??? No other developed country in the world has them do they? IM sorry, I hate to use the phrase, but this line or argument is ?project fear? at its worst?..

>

> > 8. Its not about the individuals:

>

> Fair point, at least you're not hanging on

> Farage's every word so credit for that!

We AGREE?HURRAH!

> > Either way I just hope the majority

> > of people are considering all the issues and

> not

> > getting caught up in the mud-slinging and

> insults

> > of this terrible campaign.

>

> Well the problem is that (as shown above by the

> rebuttal of pretty much all your points)

Serioulsy?????..you use the word ?rebuttal? as if you think you?ve ?refuted? all my points. Far from it my friend, as my counter-rebuttal will attest...neither of us are going to 'win' this debate, because there is no 'answer'...... This remains a complicated issue, and believing that you can wrap everything up in a nice little unambiguous package, with 100% clarity is the height of non-thinking dogma. My reasons are my reasons, they are not perfect, and they are not certain. Just the same as your reasons are neither perfect or certain. We discuss and debate and maybe we all learn something new. Unfort it seems that people?s willingness to learn something new on either side is about 3.5 years in the rearview mirror?..

[diable rouge]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Shouldn't that be booing immigrants?

That's British exceptionalism for you, one of the reasons why we're in this mess...

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

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

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Shouldn't that be booing immigrants?

>

> That's British exceptionalism for you, one of the

> reasons why we're in this mess...

Ask Steve Smith if the English like booing foreigners:).....

[dulwichbloke]

Anyone care to predict whether the SC will find the prorogation to be lawful, or unlawful? In particular is it justiciable, and if it is, was it unlawful?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's all a bit of a sideshow. We're going to end up with an election, Johnson as PM (in a minority government) and the withdrawal agreement passing (with some small cosmetic changes). Possibly, thought not necessarily, in that order.

[dulwichbloke]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

[JohnL]

Johnson is beginning to look a bit ill in some photos and he's getting that haunted look Theresa May had.

He'll be another PM chewed up by Brexit soon.

[Alan Medic]

I read somewhere that Cummings is departing his role on October 31st. I wonder will it be a case of his job there being done, or not being able to do it.

The DUP are making shifting positions noises. If they move enough to agree to allow NI to have 'special status', then it's May's deal which may make it through parliament.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It will never end........

[diable rouge]

Scoreflash coming in...

Incredible Silks 11

Incredible Hulk 0

[Alan Medic]

But but, it had nothing to do with Brexit....

[pk]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> But but, it had nothing to do with Brexit....

>

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?

> 20,file=337812

shameless ignorance and/or misinformation!

[JohnL]

I liked Lady Hale's spider brooch

[diable rouge]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> I liked Lady Hale's spider brooch

[nxjen]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> I liked Lady Hale's spider brooch

Yes, it?s fab. This is just one of her collection

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49812379

[Seabag]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> I liked Lady Hale's spider brooch

I like Lady Hale

[Seabag]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I liked Lady Hale's spider brooch

>

> Yes, it?s fab. This is just one of her collection

>

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49812379

She?s actually Brenda Hale in regular civvy street

Good ol? Brenda