Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henri McPhee said:
I voted in the first referendum in the 1970s for a competitive common market. At the time Ken Clarke, and others, said there would never be any possibility of a United States of Europe in the future, or a loss of sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Even if true, we regularly have the UK government implementing policies that were not in their manifestos. I don't see people, freemen nutters excluded, arguing that means they should leave the UK. All extra EU powers were voted for and accepted as part of the democratic process, same as any EU powers.

Peter Hargreaves of the investment management company Hargreaves Lansdown is supposed to have written a letter to a newspaper saying that people with business nous should be negotiating with the EU. That makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
They would negotiate for single market and customs union membership.
 
There is a bit about this matter on news items on the internet today. I don't agree with the opinions that it would be a good thing if Airbus moved to continental Europe. That's Bristol's biggest employer. It's like the banks are not interested in small and medium enterprises, and have forced many of them into bankruptcy with the dutiful propaganda of bad judges:

Pettigrew is perturbed over May’s difficulties in making Brexit happen. “Omnishambles, isn’t it? It does make me wonder if there’s some strategy behind it to be make it so disastrous-looking that we end up with an acceptable fudge.”

Brexit supporter John Elliott, whose Ebac Ltd. manufactures water coolers, dehumidifiers and washing machines in the northeast of England, also thinks the process is being handled badly, especially when it comes to May’s goal of preserving the current trade relationship with the EU.
“The way they’re negotiating is stupid; it’s a joke,” Elliott said. “The politicians are useless and the civil servants are worse. If we stop trading with Europe, it wouldn’t be a big problem.” Not even for him, he says, even though about 80 percent of his water coolers are sold to EU countries.

Related: The billionaire who helped bankroll Brexit lashes out: 'Not one person on our Brexit team has a clue'
Click to expand...
 
I can't find the letter Peter Hargreaves wrote to a newspaper on the internet, but his attitude to Brexit is explained in various articles. This is one of them:

http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model...s-itself-from-founders-leave-campaign/a894418

In the leaflet Hargreaves said he felt let down by the 1975 referendum, which led the UK to sign up for the EU free trade area.

’I voted to stay in because I thought a free trade area was a good idea. Wiser heads warned it meant something more and have been proved correct,' he said.

‘I am opposed to political union and it will only get worse if we stay. If the campaign is united then I believe we will vote to leave the EU.’

In the week before Hargreaves had said a Brexit would be an ‘absolute fillip’ for the UK in an interview on the Today programme.

In a statement issued over the Easter weekend, Hargreaves Lansdown moved to put some distance between itself and its founder’s stance.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
This particular pensioner's opinion is important why?
Click to expand...

Because it was something he found on some blog that seemed to agree with Henri? Of course there's about a 90% chance it will turn out not support Henri's viewpoint.

Whatever was or wasn't said in 1975 governments ever since have had ample opportunities to address the issues of greater integration and have by and large opted out of those things they didn't want, with parliament having scrutiny over the decision making process, something the Brexiteers are desperate to avoid.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Awesome. That assertion right after another leaver posts that Tony Benn letter. Just comedy gold.

But seriously:
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,
Verbatim from the treaty of Rome.
Click to expand...
You asked me what I thought it meant, not Tony Benn
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe." -Winston Churchill
Click to expand...
A link to the whole speech https://rm.coe.int/16806981f3
Note that he was refering in the main to France and Germany - and note the last three sentences -
In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!"
Interestingly he groups the UK and commonwealth with the USA and even the USSR as "friends" of Europe, not part of Europe.
It's a reference to this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ore-Europes-top-court-on-prisoner-voting.html

Get how funny this is? :D
Click to expand...
Ah, so you aren't complaning about the definition, but that Cameron intended to prevent prisoners from voting. The funniest thing is how irrelevant that is to the question of Brexit....
Lothian said:
Even if true, we regularly have the UK government implementing policies that were not in their manifestos. I don't see people, freemen nutters excluded, arguing that means they should leave the UK. All extra EU powers were voted for and accepted as part of the democratic process, same as any EU powers.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the relevance of this? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to change direction if the present direction seems to be heading for the rocks?
Garrison said:
Because it was something he found on some blog that seemed to agree with Henri? Of course there's about a 90% chance it will turn out not support Henri's viewpoint.

Whatever was or wasn't said in 1975 governments ever since have had ample opportunities to address the issues of greater integration and have by and large opted out of those things they didn't want, with parliament having scrutiny over the decision making process, something the Brexiteers are desperate to avoid.
Click to expand...
Governments have had plenty of opportunities, but the people haven't actually been asked directly untill now. And don't bother with the "but you voted for the governments so they must be doing what you want" rubbish. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Lplus said:
You asked me what I thought it meant, not Tony Benn
Click to expand...
Good for you, then. You were more foresighted than Tony Benn. Benn's fears/Churchill's hopes have not materialized.
On paper, the UK voted to be part of an ever-close political union. In practice, economic union was all it got.

Ah, so you aren't complaning about the definition, but that Cameron intended to prevent prisoners from voting. The funniest thing is how irrelevant that is to the question of Brexit....
Click to expand...
Oh man... I'm beginning to wonder how much of that famous english humor is intentional. I'm not complaining at all. I'm just enjoying the irony.
 
ceptimus said:
Again, just the assertion without any explanation.
Click to expand...
You're the one who claimed, without providing an iota of supporting evidence, that "The EU is still saying it will have to install a hard border there".
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed as summarily.
 
I won't pander to requests to supply supporting evidence for things that are generally accepted. Next you will be asking for supporting evidence that water is wet. If you don't know about some aspects of a topic then just enter a few words into your favourite search engine.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Good for you, then. You were more foresighted than Tony Benn. Benn's fears/Churchill's hopes have not materialized.
On paper, the UK voted to be part of an ever-close political union. In practice, economic union was all it got.
......
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true, GnaGnaMan. In pursuit of "economic" outcomes, the EU has increasingly imposed itself on UK domestic law. And if you make the laws of a country, then you effectively control it politically.

As a trivial example, but one that is fresh in my mind, all EU countries must stop producing Halogen bulbs, and their citizens can ONLY have LED bulbs in future.

By Law !

Now, as it happens, I think the switch to LED bulbs is a good thing. But I question why it should be imposed BY LAW, rather than allowing market forces to gradually persuade people to make the switch.

But the EU has decided that it must happen, and so soon it will be a criminal offense to manufacture and sell Filament or Halogen bulbs. You could be fined - or even imprisoned - for doing so.

Economics, or politics ? Ultimately, you can excuse ANY draconian laws by claiming an "economic" rationale to them. Hey.... referendums to leave the EU are economically disruptive.... therefore.. they are to be made illegal !
 
ceptimus said:
I already explained that the Good Friday Agreement means that this particular border should remain open. What don't you understand? Do you think the Good Friday Agreement should be broken?
Click to expand...

Well, that opens a real can of worms, doesn't it ?
You see, in principle , the UK can create an "open border".. at least on the UK side of things. Hence the Good Friday agreement can remain in force. SO FAR AS THE UK IS CONCERNED.

However, from the Eire side of things, their borders are controlled by the EU in Brussels, not the Eire government in the Dail.

So it would be the EU that orders Eire to abandon the Good Friday agreement. Along with many other Eire/UK agreements. It would also be the EU that puts Eire in an economic straight-jacket by demanding border controls on all trade between Eire and the UK. Including vehicles exporting goods to the EU via the UK.

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, one wonders how long it would be before there is a clamor among Irish businessmen - and citizens - to leave the EU, and join in a trade agreement with the UK ?
 
Last edited:
The LED bulbs thing is only relevant if you think the UK government would have done differently if we hadn't been part of the EU. That's the same UK government which has legislated about plastic bags, high emission cars, etc etc, and which AFAIK supported the EU LED legislation.

Put it this way: once we leave the EU, do you think parliament will be changing that law so we can make and buy halogen bulbs again?
 
ceptimus said:
I won't pander to requests to supply supporting evidence for things that are generally accepted. Next you will be asking for supporting evidence that water is wet. If you don't know about some aspects of a topic then just enter a few words into your favourite search engine.
Click to expand...
So you will continue to make unsupported and untrue claims them? And whine when called on it?
:rolleyes:
 
Pixel42 said:
The LED bulbs thing is only relevant if you think the UK government would have done differently if we hadn't been part of the EU. That's the same UK government which has legislated about plastic bags, high emission cars, etc etc, and which AFAIK supported the EU LED legislation.

Put it this way: once we leave the EU, do you think parliament will be changing that law so we can make and buy halogen bulbs again?
Click to expand...
The LED bulbs "thing" is relevant as an example of the EU mandating actions within the UK.

Whether the UK would have done the same thing is irrelevant to the point being made. The same goes for plastic bags, car emissions etc, and for whether the UK would reverse the legislation.

As I'm sure you well realise.
 
Lplus said:
The LED bulbs "thing" is relevant as an example of the EU mandating actions within the UK.

Whether the UK would have done the same thing is irrelevant to the point being made.
Click to expand...

Actually its precisely the point, the EU agreeing to legislation that the UK supported means that this so called example of the EU imposing its will on the the UK is, as with pretty much all the others, nothing of the sort.
 
Henri McPhee said:
"Brexit supporter John Elliott, whose Ebac Ltd. manufactures water coolers, dehumidifiers and washing machines in the northeast of England, also thinks the process is being handled badly, especially when it comes to May’s goal of preserving the current trade relationship with the EU.

“The way they’re negotiating is stupid; it’s a joke,” Elliott said. “The politicians are useless and the civil servants are worse. If we stop trading with Europe, it wouldn’t be a big problem.” Not even for him, he says, even though about 80 percent of his water coolers are sold to EU countries."
Click to expand...

LOL! What a prick.
 
Lplus said:
The LED bulbs "thing" is relevant as an example of the EU mandating actions within the UK.

Whether the UK would have done the same thing is irrelevant to the point being made. The same goes for plastic bags, car emissions etc, and for whether the UK would reverse the legislation.

As I'm sure you well realise.
Click to expand...

What I well realise is that at no point during our EU membership has the process by which the EU produces legislation - a process in which the UK fully participates - has anything been made law which I regard as detrimental to my, or my country's, interests. So even if there was no downside to leaving the EU I would question the sense of leaving it because of something it might do but has never done in over 40 years. Given the considerable downside of leaving, it makes no sense whatsoever.

But maybe you know better. So go on, give me an example of EU legislation which is so pernicious that reversing it would be worth, to give an example of just one of the downsides, giving up my current freedom to live and work anywhere in 28 countries.
 
Pixel42 said:
The LED bulbs thing is only relevant if you think the UK government would have done differently if we hadn't been part of the EU. That's the same UK government which has legislated about plastic bags, high emission cars, etc etc, and which AFAIK supported the EU LED legislation.

Put it this way: once we leave the EU, do you think parliament will be changing that law so we can make and buy halogen bulbs again?
Click to expand...

The ban on halogen bulbs is a bit of a no-brainer. When filament bulbs were banned, halogens made a better replacement than CFTs for performance, but only represent a 23% power saving. It was fairly obvious that they'd only be a transitional option.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom