woolley Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 12 hours ago, P.K. said: Mug... You're the one that's here at 5am posting about it 8 years after losing the argument, bud. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 21 hours ago, manxman1980 said: Leaving the EU has not helped of course but the industry had many, many deep seated issues before then. I would have to search for the stories but I am pretty sure that pre-Brexit the UK Government was claiming it could not put money into UK steel as that would go against EU rules. Pretty sure they have offered anything significant post Brexit either. There were some minor exceptions but the EU pretty much wanted to control this. You had to get approval for any state aid and the rules have a predisposition to refusal as it would "distort the market". This does not prevent the EU from distorting markets when it chooses to by its own rules. UK govt has just thrown half a billion at Tata or the job losses would have been closer to 8000. How long the rump lasts remains to be seen. The folly perpetrated long ago is having the industry in the hands of India and China. Can you think of a worse strategic situation than that while at the same time we have the idiot Shapps going around waving his big stick? Globalisation in action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 3 hours ago, manxman1980 said: Isn't that telling? How could the UK have blocked the all powerful EU from doing this? Any answer @The Voice of Reason @woolley Easy enough to answer. There are areas of policy where national governments still have a veto. These areas have steadily diminished as new members have joined, and are diminishing more as time goes on. This discussion came up some time ago between us when you suggested that the EU didn't pass binding legislation over the heads of member states, and I posted up links to prove that it does, and I also linked the EU proposals for expansion of QMV (Qualified Majority Voting), which will further restrict the national veto. There are 27 members, so how else will they get anything through? I don't dispute that there are some economic downsides to leaving the EU. They have proven not to be as substantial as Project Fear pre-referendum would have had us believe (total collapse of the economy within days of a Leave vote), but yes, I accept that there are some economic and other handicaps. However, we part company on the relative value of these negatives against the vital national interest of sovereignty and self-determination. The EU lovers can mock this as much as they like because I've heard it all before and it really doesn't bother me. I know that there are some who place no value whatsoever on making our own laws and rules, indeed they even suggest that Brussels will do it better, the EU being more left leaning as they see it. They are wrong on all counts, and it's an insult to all of those down the centuries who defended these islands against aggression from the continent. I believe that Brexit will be judged well by history, and very obviously so, but I don't have a crystal ball any more than the next man does (even PK!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 5 hours ago, Garteth T said: I did not have a vote but I would have voted remain simply because I understood what that meant. I would effectively have been voting for the status quo, whether or not I thought it was great or not. This was the folly of Remain right there in their arrogance and complacency. Nobody ever votes for the status quo because the world is a dynamic situation. The EEC we joined in 1973 bears little resemblance to the EU we left in 2021, which will bear little resemblance to whatever institutions are extant on the continent (and in the British Isles for that matter) in 2070. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Every trade deal on the planet has rules on subsidies. If the UK ever wants to trade freely with the US or UK again it will have to make agreements on all sorts of things, including subsidies, environmental and worker protections. Pretending that you can do away with standards and bi-lateral agreements and still trade freely because 'sovrunty' is what got the UK into this stupid mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 The problem is with the English. They haven't come to terms with losing the Empire. It seems they think they can go back to days when they could dictate trade terms to the colonies and by representing one of the largest markets on the planet, have the upper-hand in deals with the rest of the world. It's fucking delusional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 hours ago, woolley said: You're the one that's here at 5am posting about it 8 years after losing the argument, bud. Lost the vote, yes. Lost the "argument" over "sovereignty" - don't think so bud... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 33 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: The problem is with the English. They haven't come to terms with losing the Empire. It seems they think they can go back to days when they could dictate trade terms to the colonies and by representing one of the largest markets on the planet, have the upper-hand in deals with the rest of the world. It's fucking delusional. You’re the delusional one , coming out with this rubbish. I am English. Do you think I spend all my time thinking back to the “ glories” of the Empire? I don’t even consider“ coming to terms” with losing the Empire It doesn’t even enter my consciousness. And I am in my early sixties. The vast majority of those who voted in the Brexit referendum were a lot younger. Its nonsense. Just another crude attempt to besmirch the majority who exercised their democratic right to vote Leave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Freggyragh said: Every trade deal on the planet has rules on subsidies. If the UK ever wants to trade freely with the US or UK again it will have to make agreements on all sorts of things, including subsidies, environmental and worker protections. Pretending that you can do away with standards and bi-lateral agreements and still trade freely because 'sovrunty' is what got the UK into this stupid mess. Stupid mess? There is no stupid mess except perhaps the imaginary one in your head. Yes if the UK ever wants to trade freely with the US or EU again ( I imagine your UK was a typo and you meant EU) it will have to have environmental and worker protections as indeed the US and EU will need to have to trade with the UK and be subject to negotiation. The UK is not a jurisdiction which wants to “ do away” with environmental and worker protections, quite the opposite. Now it has exited the EU it has the sovereignty to make these protections stronger should it be deemed necessary. It doesn’t need a conglomeration of 27 other countries, each of which have different interests, to tell it what is right and what is wrong in those regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 hours ago, P.K. said: Lost the vote, yes. Lost the "argument" over "sovereignty" - don't think so bud... The argument over sovereignty won the vote….bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 46 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: The argument over sovereignty won the vote….bud No it didn't. "The easiest trade deals in history" "Take back control" "We hold all the cards" "Breaking Point" "Millions of Turks headed for Britain" etc etc Hollow, meaningless soundbites and getting rid of Johnny Foreigner won the vote. "Sovereignty" didn't get a look in. Because it's a lot easier to believe simple lies than a nuanced truth. I still think people like you should be held to account for diminishing our country. Because you have... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 4 hours ago, woolley said: Easy enough to answer. There are areas of policy where national governments still have a veto. These areas have steadily diminished as new members have joined, and are diminishing more as time goes on. This discussion came up some time ago between us when you suggested that the EU didn't pass binding legislation over the heads of member states, and I posted up links to prove that it does, and I also linked the EU proposals for expansion of QMV (Qualified Majority Voting), which will further restrict the national veto. There are 27 members, so how else will they get anything through? I don't dispute that there are some economic downsides to leaving the EU. They have proven not to be as substantial as Project Fear pre-referendum would have had us believe (total collapse of the economy within days of a Leave vote), but yes, I accept that there are some economic and other handicaps. However, we part company on the relative value of these negatives against the vital national interest of sovereignty and self-determination. The EU lovers can mock this as much as they like because I've heard it all before and it really doesn't bother me. I know that there are some who place no value whatsoever on making our own laws and rules, indeed they even suggest that Brussels will do it better, the EU being more left leaning as they see it. They are wrong on all counts, and it's an insult to all of those down the centuries who defended these islands against aggression from the continent. I believe that Brexit will be judged well by history, and very obviously so, but I don't have a crystal ball any more than the next man does (even PK!) You see, you don't seem to understand that treaties are laws. Laws that cover a lot more than tariff arrangements. Now the UK is out, if it wants to the influence the terms of trade set by its largest trading partner it has to negotiate as third country, and the terms of a third country are never going to be as good as the terms of a member — as the steel industry could explain to you, if you were prepared to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 11 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: The argument over sovereignty won the vote….bud Let’s just accept the premise for one minute that the UK would have been economically better off remaining in the EU. As Lady Hale said in one of her judgements ” a gilded cage is still a cage” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 12 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: Yes if the UK ever wants to trade freely with the US or EU again ( I imagine your UK was a typo and you meant EU) it will have to have environmental and worker protections as indeed the US and EU will need to have to trade with the UK and be subject to negotiation. The UK is not a jurisdiction which wants to “ do away” with environmental and worker protections, quite the opposite. Now it has exited the EU it has the sovereignty to make these protections stronger should it be deemed necessary. It doesn’t need a conglomeration of 27 other countries, each of which have different interests, to tell it what is right and what is wrong in those regards You seem to be labouring under the impression that trade deals lead to an increase in protections (environmental, workers rights or otherwise) and yet reality does not back that up. Take the UK Australia trade deal. Australia has more relaxed rules on the use of pesticides but that appears not to have been an issue for the UK negotiating team who opened up the markets to Australian farmers and in doing so upset the UK farmers who fear being able to compete. It also failed to protect any geographically specified UK foods such as Cornish Clotted Cream or Scotch Whisky effectively allowing Australia producers to use these terms freely which had previously had protection under EU Law. George Eustice, who had been involved in negotiating the deal, ended up denouncing it in Parliament and blaming Liz Truss for making far to many concessions. Far from improving standards it weakened them and is a worse deal than the UK had access to via the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said: Let’s just accept the premise for one minute that the UK would have been economically better off remaining in the EU. As Lady Hale said in one of her judgements ” a gilded cage is still a cage” Your trolling is getting worse. Of course the UK would be better off in the EU. That's a given In over forty years of membership the UK thrived and "sovereignty" was never an issue. Why is that...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.