Brexit Penny Dropping?

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

@P.K.

You know the answer to your question already...

@The Voice of Reason and @woolley see the UK gaining "sovereignty" as being worth any price.  That includes leaving the single market.

Unless something directly impacts them in a negative way you will not get either to concede that Brexit, done in the way it was, was a bad idea.

However strange but true neither of them can explain how their precious "sovrinty" was never an issue in over forty years of EU membership in which the UK thrived...

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

@P.K.

You know the answer to your question already...

@The Voice of Reason and @woolley see the UK gaining "sovereignty" as being worth any price.  That includes leaving the single market.

 

I don’t know why you two deride the concept of sovereignty why you do. 

In your personal life would you rather be able to  make your own decisions,  or have to abide by the collective decisions made with your 27 closest neighbours (with those living at No 3 and No 5 having the greatest say)?

Yes there are occasions when it may be beneficial to act in concert ( you can do that just with consent and agreement , no need for form an institution), but you normally decide what you yourself want and take the appropriate steps to achieve that.

I don’t understand why you find that concept so difficult to understand.
 

 

[manxman1980]

19 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

In your personal life would you rather be able to  make your own decisions,  or have to abide by the collective decisions made with your 27 closest neighbours (with those living at No 3 and No 5 having the greatest say)?

You realise we live in a democracy?  

I can make my own decisions but those are limited by laws and societal norms.  Those are often  made via collective decisions. 

Very poor attempt to explain your point.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

You realise we live in a democracy?  

I can make my own decisions but those are limited by laws and societal norms.  Those are often  made via collective decisions. 

Very poor attempt to explain your point.

Limited by laws and societal norms which should be made collectively by the legislation and customs of the country in which you live, not by a gathering of third parties, at least of which some take a different view of society fashioned by their culture and history, whatever ( as is their wont )

Very poor attempt to try and understand ( but maybe that’s the point, you would rather not)

[manxman1980]

32 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Limited by laws and societal norms which should be made collectively by the legislation and customs of the country in which you live, not by a gathering of third parties, at least of which some take a different view of society fashioned by their culture and history, whatever ( as is their wont )

Very poor attempt to try and understand ( but maybe that’s the point, you would rather not)

So you object to the UK Government representing the Isle of Man on the global stage?  And that the legislation passed in the Island must still receive consent from the Lord of Mann?

As much as you won't admit it but the UK does share many ties with Germany and France in particular. 

Are you going to ignore 1066?  How about the fact that French was the language in the Palace for a long time?

Even English is full of words borrowed from German and French.

I understand what you are trying to say but I think its complete nonsense.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

So you object to the UK Government representing the Isle of Man on the global stage?  And that the legislation passed in the Island must still receive consent from the Lord of Mann?

As much as you won't admit it but the UK does share many ties with Germany and France in particular. 

Are you going to ignore 1066?  How about the fact that French was the language in the Palace for a long time?

Even English is full of words borrowed from German and French.

I understand what you are trying to say but I think its complete nonsense.

Your first paragraph is a complete red herring.

Why do you say I won’t admit that the UK shares many ties with Germany and France in particular?  It would be helpful if you could at least give some examples of these “ ties” But of course we have historical and other links, all being European countries and we should use these “ ties” to work on matters of mutual benefit.

Am I going to ignore 1066? Well given it was nearly 1200 years ago it’s not that relevant now so I don’t attach that much importance to it. How far back do you want to go?

And yes there are similar words in the English, French and German, and other languages for the same meaning Not really an overwhelming argument for remaining in the European Union is it?

 

Edited March 3 by The Voice of Reason
Slight adjustment to second para. And the addition of “and other languages “ in the last para

[woolley]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Very poor attempt to try and understand ( but maybe that’s the point, you ould rather not)

So you're finally getting to the point I reached long ago at which I decided largely just to leave them to it. Either they don't want to understand, or they are incapable of doing so. You explained it fairly succinctly with a decent analogy, but they continue to extol the virtues of having our laws formed outside of these islands and then foisted upon us with no choice, apart from one voice in 28. A course that would have led us to a very dark place indeed and probable conflict.

@manxman1980 cites historical ties. That's all very well, but we can enjoy our ties and co-operation without making laws for each other. EU supporters make fun of the concept of sovereignty by misspelling it or making out that those who believe in it are stupid cunts, but this only serves to put on full display the extent of their own vacuity.

Then we have dear old @P.K. who will carry on carrying for ever. Same stuff, same nonsense. It's like throwing a stick for a dog that will never get fed up.

Earlier on he quoted an article from the inevitable Guardian (Simon Jenkins FFS, an oddball who previously gave us his wisdom that London should leave both the EU AND the UK!). The article is nearly 3 years old, written at the time of the pandemic and before war in Ukraine, supply problems and inflation derailed the entire global economy. And even at the time it really was all complete rubbish. Contrary to all of the doom, trade with Europe continues to grow as it always has. A far cry from the disaster we were promised the day after a Leave vote that nothing would move and UK aircraft wouldn't take off. Yes, the UK has a serious trade deficit with the EU, but this is hardly a new thing. EU fans please take note that the trade deficit increased TENFOLD in the final 15 years of our membership. The problem is lack of investment in UK manufacturing, and actually nothing to do with the EU.

The amount of trade we do is in our own hands, and we need to be more entrepreneurial in the whole world.

@manxman1980 is right about one thing. I do believe that national sovereignty and self-determination is more important that any single market or customs union, and so should everyone. The EU may one day be reconstructed as an acceptable genuine free trade area rather than the hybrid state it is now.

[manxman1980]

19 hours ago, woolley said:

So you're finally getting to the point I reached long ago at which I decided largely just to leave them to it. Either they don't want to understand, or they are incapable of doing so. You explained it fairly succinctly with a decent analogy, but they continue to extol the virtues of having our laws formed outside of these islands and then foisted upon us with no choice, apart from one voice in 28. A course that would have led us to a very dark place indeed and probable conflict.

It is not a case of not wanting to understand nor being incapable of doing so.  I rather suspect that part of the reason we cannot agree is firmly routed in generational differences. 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

It is not a case of not wanting to understand nor being incapable of doing so.  I rather suspect that part of the reason we cannot agree is firmly routed in generational differences. 

I rather suspect you are correct about generational differences, but this does not negate my point about understanding. For example, you didn't understand the process of EU Law being supreme in member states, yet when I pointed it out you switched to making out that this is unimportant. I continually see untruths posted about the state of the UK economy in relation to the apparently golden EU economy. People just take it all in believing that it's gospel.

Fundamentally, the young lack the perspective of experience. They are more suggestible and idealistic, so we make most of our mistakes early on in life. Decades of pro-EU conditioning have taken their toll on our population. It's sad really. The benefits of membership are trifling compared to national self-determination. We can still travel. We can still trade. We can still co-operate.

Who knows? Perhaps some day, many decades from now, you may look back and think those old bastards were right all along.

[La Colombe]

 

[manxman1980]

50 minutes ago, woolley said:

Who knows? Perhaps some day, many decades from now, you may look back and think those old bastards were right all along.

I doubt that.  The more people like you patronise the young, and I am not lacking in experience, the more I know we will never agree on this topic.

I am yet to meet anyone who has benefited directly from Brexit.  

Net migration hit an all time high in the UK post Brexit.  Makes a mockery of "taking back control of our borders".

The NHS is still on it's knees despite suggestions (strong suggestions) that Brexit would improve the service.

The UK has incorporated almost all EU legislation into its own law.  I can't think of anything that has been repealed not even the pillows for kippers (remember Johnson on stage waving around a Manx Kipper?).

The UK had a say in EU law.  The same way that a constituency MP has a say in UK law.  The UK population rarely took those elections seriously though and kept sending UKIP who turned up to enough sittings to claim their salary and expenses but did nothing else beyond being obnoxious.

You claim I am idealistic.   Maybe I am.  Maybe hoping for humanity to work peacefully together is a dream but wouldn't you like to live in a peaceful world?  Not one where ethnic cleansing, genocides, and other stupid wars are common place.  I suppose though that you enjoy watching the price of your shares in defence companies rise though?  Some good news for you whilst other poor innocents die on the receiving end of them.  

[The Voice of Reason]

36 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

You claim I am idealistic.   Maybe I am.  Maybe hoping for humanity to work peacefully together is a dream but wouldn't you like to live in a peaceful world?  Not one where ethnic cleansing, genocides, and other stupid wars are common place.  

Bloody hell. John Lennon is alive and well.

[manxman1980]

52 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Bloody hell. John Lennon is alive and well.

And perhaps you could tell me why that vision would be so awful?

Anyway, maybe not John Lennon.  I prefer the Gene Roddenbury perspective. 

[The Voice of Reason]

5 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

And perhaps you could tell me why that vision would be so awful?

It wouldn’t be awful. It would be fantastic. But as you say it’s a vision.

There’s no sign of it happening anytime soon.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

 

The UK has incorporated almost all EU legislation into its own law.  I can't think of anything that has been repealed not even the pillows for kippers (remember Johnson on stage waving around a Manx Kipper?).

This may help your understanding:-

What is retained EU law?

“Retained EU law” (REUL) is a type of UK domestic law. It was created by the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA), and came into effect at the end of the UK’s post-Brexit transition period (the end of 2020).

The primary objective of REUL was to provide legal continuity and certainty. It sought to minimise any substantive changes in UK domestic law at the point the transition period (and dynamic alignment with EU law) ended. This was achieved by preserving domestic legislation that had implemented EU obligations and by converting parts of EU law into a domestic equivalent.

Once that post-transition “starting point” had been implemented, it would then be for Parliament and the devolved legislatures to decide whether, how, and to what extent, domestic law and policy should then diverge from that of the EU. Future (mostly primary) domestic legislation would either adapt EU policy frameworks for domestic needs, or replace them entirely

 

So the UK can decide which part of the EU legislation (forced upon it ) to retain, which parts to amend, and which parts to reject. It’s called sovereignty. 

Edited March 4 by The Voice of Reason