Brexit Penny Dropping?

[HeliX]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

What is not acceptable is the old canard that those in favour of Brexit are xenophobic.  As one who was in favour of the UK leaving the EU I find that quite offensive and gutter politics.

Not all Brexiters are xenophobes, but all xenophobes are Brexiters.

[P.K.]

11 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

What is not acceptable is the old canard that those in favour of Brexit are xenophobic.  As one who was in favour of the UK leaving the EU I find that quite offensive and gutter politics.

@The Voice of Reason

Why do you find it offensive?

[quilp]

Uh-oh, 'ere we go, the beast of Ballafesson rears its ugly head...

😄

Edited November 21, 2022 by quilp

[John Wright]

13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Re the £350 million for the NHS side of a bus claim. Yes it was using figures to advance the Brexit argument.
Such claims happen all the time. All political parties include items in their manifestos, including statistics,  presented in such a way to persuade people of their argument .  It’s the rough and tumble of politics. 

The £350 million figure was challenged at the time and arguments advanced as to why it was not true. The electorate were thus able to decide whether it had any merit. So to suggest this was a defining factor in the Brexit vote is somewhat disingenuous. 
 

What is not acceptable is the old canard that those in favour of Brexit are xenophobic.  As one who was in favour of the UK leaving the EU I find that quite offensive and gutter politics.

Did I say you were a xenophobe?

You seen unduly sensitive.

No, I highlighted three of the less savoury tactics ( and lies ) used by the Brexit campaign.

The immigrant posters were clearly xenophobic and racist. Aimed at that sub set demographic  of society to which it would appeal. The racists and xenophobes. By not so subtly using using many back, Asian and mid eastern types in the advert a false narrative was created.

The whole referendum is an object lesson of the dangers of referenda as means of dealing with complex issue’s.

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Did I say you were a xenophobe?

You seen unduly sensitive.

No, I highlighted three of the less savoury tactics ( and lies ) used by the Brexit campaign.

The immigrant posters were clearly xenophobic and racist. Aimed at that sub set demographic  of society to which it would appeal. The racists and xenophobes. By not so subtly using using many back, Asian and mid eastern types in the advert a false narrative was created.

The whole referendum is an object lesson of the dangers of referenda as means of dealing with complex issue’s.

Did I say that you said I was a xenophobia? etc etc

Yes Farages’ immigrant poster was deeply unpleasant and I found it offensive.

But that doesn’t destroy or negate my belief that the UK is better off outside the EU for reasons of sovereignty.

I don’t know why there is a resistance to the UK being able to make deals, cooperate and enter into joint ventures , with the EU  to mutual benefit from outside of the confines of the bloc, nothing off the table.
Obviously any other existing conflicting international treaties and deals must be respected but as a concept seems perfectly reasonable to me

[John Wright]

And I find the balance between sovereignty and pooling sovereignty to favour pooling with our nearest neighbours, with which we do, and will continue to do, most of our trade, share cultural backgrounds, where most of us will travel.

The current frictions to trade, capital markets, service and movement of labour is simply damaging. The oven ready deal is clearly not the final one. Negotiations will continue.

And that’s where we will find the true illusory nature of sovereignty when we have to choose between deals with one country/trading bloc and another because of the restrictions.

The deals so far are not in the UK’s favour. They never will be.

And for those who suggest the EU is trying to screw the UK over out of spite, whatever, get real. There were decent deals to be had. It was the UK and the ERG hardliners that rejected them for the sake of a pure, but damaging, hard Brexit deal. That, and total British unpreparedness and naivety of approach. But mainly because we let the ideological  “lunatics” steer and run the negotiations.

[Apple]

26 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The whole referendum is an object lesson of the dangers of referenda as means of dealing with complex issue’s.

Vox populi is a dangerous weapon and can be very easily manipulated by those who know how to and are in positions to do so.. The UK electorate were duped into voting as they did. 

[P.K.]

12 hours ago, quilp said:

 Remainers attach little consideration or significance to the deliberate and calculated, protracted obstructionism and vengefulness exercised by Garçon Macron, Frau Merkel and the other hand-wringing globalists like Verhofstad, et al, every step of the way, intent on making Britain's exit as difficult as possible.

@quilp

Interesting. I'm not aware of any of the above hyperbole from Macron, Merkel and Verhofstadt.

Do you have any factual links demonstrating this?

Or is it just more nonsense from extreme right-wing blogger Paul Staines that you have a penchant for posting on here?

Have to say I am aware that one of the main problems was the total unpreparedness of the UK "negotiating" team. Barnier et al turned up at the negotiating table with piles and piles of paperwork for discussion and sitting opposite was David Davis and his lot with nothing but sickly grins. That really set the scene for what was to follow...

[code99]

Support for Brexit in the UK is now at all-time low. Even Farage’s ‘mouthpiece’ news outlet, GB News, aired a ‘shocking’ news item the other day, when they reported that their own opinion poll had revealed that majority of their viewers regret voting for Brexit.

However, not even the most avid supporters of the EU Project, including many European MEPs, would claim that any EU institution is perfect. There is a lot of infighting and political power struggles between the various factions, most notably between left leaning and far-right leaning groups within the EU Parliament, are commonplace. But as in any professional organisation, once a decision has been made the members respect it and comply with it. Otherwise, nothing will ever get settled. That said, the EU constantly comes under criticism by their (often ideologically driven) detractors who endlessly claim that there is too much procrastination, time/money wasting, etc. Quite often this perceived ‘dilly-dallying’ is due to the EU’s decision-making processes being based on debate and consensus agreement. One rarely hears about EU members being bullied or harassed. The EUs usual modus operandi is to persuade members of the costs and benefits of an issue; a process that sometimes takes time and effort.

As much as EU members may disagree on individual policies and issues, they all agree on the EU’s core policy tenets and principles – which are essentially to be ethical and to defend the human rights and freedoms of the hundreds of millions of EU citizens. Hence, it is not a surprise that there is an ongoing tension between Viktor Orban’s authoritarian regime (Putin’s puppet) with its penchant for homophobia and insatiable appetite for suppressing all (political, journalist and juristic) opposition, and the rest of the EU block.

My view is that Putin’s illegal barbaric war in Ukraine will not precipitate the demise of the EU, it will make Europeans even more convinced that their values are far superior than Russia’s strategy of bullying and brutal suppression. It seems increasingly likely that Putin’s desire to weaken Europe and undermine democracy will cause his own downfall and not theirs. The diverse nations of the EU now understand more than ever before that it is their tolerance, mutual respect and adherence to democratic principles and other similar attributes are the qualities that make them strong. I believe that the EU in its current form will not disintegrate any time soon.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

And I find the balance between sovereignty and pooling sovereignty to favour pooling with our nearest neighbours, with which we do, and will continue to do, most of our trade, share cultural backgrounds, where most of us will travel. 

But you can pool intelligence, pool research, pool technology, pool resources etc etc without pooling sovereignty .

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But you can pool intelligence, pool research, pool technology, pool resources etc etc without pooling sovereignty .

And the relevance of that is?

You can’t operate a customs Union and a single market without pooling sovereignty to ensure a level playing field, common standards, etc.

And every trade deal, or international treaty, involves limiting sovereignty in one way or another.

[P.K.]

7 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But you can pool intelligence, pool research, pool technology, pool resources etc etc without pooling sovereignty .

@The Voice of Reason

All of which cost money.

Which is why the UK dropped out of beneficial schemes like Erasmus because the brexiters voted for Third Country Status. True the vast majority were not aware of what that actually meant.

Well, they do now...

As has been pointed out ad infinitum every trade deal you make means surrendering some sovereignty. That's why they're called "trade deals" you see. Trading some sovereignty for a more advantageous trade position.

Something Liz Truss must have forgotten when she signed up the UK to non-beneficial trade deals in the Antipodes....

[woolley]

4 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But you can pool intelligence, pool research, pool technology, pool resources etc etc without pooling sovereignty .

The idea of "pooling sovereignty" is a nonsense. It's akin to having sex for the purpose of pooling virginity. Sovereignty is something precious that you either have or you don't. Our forebears have fought and died for centuries to stave off hegemony from the continent.

Nothing that involves the jurisdiction of European Courts or the European Parliament having primacy over domestic law is acceptable. The principle really is as straightforward as that, or it should be.

Even if you rather like the politics currently promoted by Brussels, it doesn't mean that it will always be of the same shade, or that it will meet with your approval in the future. By the time you realise that the flavour is no longer to your taste, nation states may well have lost the power to object. I have always considered that the whole edifice will end in tears; overblown vanity projects through history usually do. I've not seen anything in recent years that persuades me to change my view.

Have all of the co-operation you want and all of the immigration you need. Pool research, pool technology, pool anything you like BUT only by consenting agreement among equals, and never by diktat by a continental assembly passing legislation over your head.

My first comment on the matter here in over 2 years. Maybe see you in another 5 to see how it's going.

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, woolley said:

The idea of "pooling sovereignty" is a nonsense. It's akin to having sex for the purpose of pooling virginity. Sovereignty is something precious that you either have or you don't. Our forebears have fought and died for centuries to stave off hegemony from the continent.

Nothing that involves the jurisdiction of European Courts or the European Parliament having primacy over domestic law is acceptable. The principle really is as straightforward as that, or it should be.

Even if you rather like the politics currently promoted by Brussels, it doesn't mean that it will always be of the same shade, or that it will meet with your approval in the future. By the time you realise that the flavour is no longer to your taste, nation states may well have lost the power to object. I have always considered that the whole edifice will end in tears; overblown vanity projects through history usually do. I've not seen anything in recent years that persuades me to change my view.

Have all of the co-operation you want and all of the immigration you need. Pool research, pool technology, pool anything you like BUT only by consenting agreement among equals, and never by diktat by a continental assembly passing legislation over your head.

My first comment on the matter here in over 2 years. Maybe see you in another 5 to see how it's going.

That’s just nonsense. It’s neither politically, legally or pragmatically true. There is a huge amount of shared sovereignty. Between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The sharing started on different dates, and has changed, and areas ( Republic of Ireland ) have stopped sharing.

UN, and all associated bodies. International Criminal Court. WTO. Antarctic Treaty Organisation. Vienna Convention on International Circulation of Traffic. EHCR.

They all take something away, but give something much greater. And so it was for the EU.

The fundamental meaning of sovereignty, and the disproof of your argument, is that you can exit the arrangement because you have sovereignty.

The question is not about sovereignty, but whether the loss of advantages is outweighed by the resumption of isolation. That’s the Scottish question. It will be the Irish question, with substitution of sovereignty being shared with one jurisdiction to it being shared with another.

And of course the EU was about consent between equals. Things moved at glacial speed sometimes due to the need for consensus. But the democratisation of the process by creating a Parliament, having direct elections, seems to be seen as a threat by some.

The EU will still be there, long after the UK is dissolved. 

[The Voice of Reason]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

The EU will still be there, long after the UK is dissolved. 

If the UK is dissolved it will be as a result of democratic vote(s). Which people should accept.
 

Just like Brexit