Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Mr Fied]

Free trade in goods and services doesn't mean free movement of people. Except to EU fanatics.

So there is going to be a hard border in Ireland and a restriction on free movement between the two countries?

Another outcome the leave campaign forgot to mention during the referendum.

Are you still saying everyone knew what they were voting for?

 

[jeremyp]

We told the EU what we wanted right at the outset. We want a free trading agreement covering goods and services. They're not prepared to offer that, of course,

Yes they were. We have that now. We could have also have a Norway deal and there were several other options also on the table. The problem is that there is a quid pro quo and Theresa May can’t accept it without her party collapsing. Why would the EU give away the prize without requiring something in exchange.

 

[jeremyp]

Yes.

52% of the UK are xenophobic.

52% of people who actually bothered to vote two years ago. That was around 17.5 million out of 60 million people, a little over a quarter. Plus, of course, not all of them were xenophobic.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As someone tweeted

We've basically stood in a Skoda showroom for the last two years demanding a new Mercedes.
And now we're blaming the dealer for not selling us the car they don't stock

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Free trade in goods and services doesn't mean free movement of people. Except to EU fanatics.

What free trade has meant in the past:

• Currency manipulation
• Cheating using non-tariff barriers
• Questioning of legitimate non-tariff barriers

To overcome that, first there was the European ERM to set target currency values, with a +/-5% allowance for market movements ("famous snake in the tunnel"). Which, being policy and not a result of currency supply and demand, led to an unstable system that required central banks to intervene to manipulate rates, and eventually a run on the GBP that took it out of the ERM. Thus, the logic of a single currency market, which the EU largely still is. A single currency market means that interest rates cannot be used to stimulate poorer performing regions or cool down those growing too fact. This means business and employment opportunities can cluster in faster growing areas. To make that feasible and more fair to Europeans: the free movement of labor.

Not fanatic. European Econ History 101. Fanatic is refusing to face facts, as Brexiters have been doing.

tl;dr: No. Facts. Gotcha!

***
Reason for coming to the thread today:

Politico: International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said in an interview published Sunday. Speaking to the Sunday Times, Fox said the prospect of a deal is “now up to the EU,” as the U.K. has “made an offer to the EU which we believe is generous and some in the U.K. believe is over-generous.”

This sort of self-referential nonsense cannot help but convince the EU that Brexit should be as hard and punishingly definitive as possible. "Let's bring all the jobs we can onshore and strengthen the proper, sensible, well-thought way forward for Europe, leaving madmen leavers out in the cold to chill."

 

[jimbob]

As someone tweeted

We've basically stood in a Skoda showroom for the last two years demanding a new flying Mercedes.
And now we're blaming the dealer for not selling us the car they don't stock

Minor addition

 

[The Shank]

Actually, Conservative voters do get crap thrown at them. Also people who voted Remain get crap thrown at them. Don’t think you’re anything special.

In any event, General elections happen every five years, so mistakes can bear rectified. Are you willing to have another referendum on the final deal to be sure we all still want to leave the EU?

Only if we can have another referendum after if i don't like the outcome.

 

[The Shank]

52% of people who actually bothered to vote two years ago. That was around 17.5 million out of 60 million people, a little over a quarter. Plus, of course, not all of them were xenophobic.

This argument makes me smile.

The referendum had a higher turnout than any general election since 1992, do you want to dismiss all of those too?

Plus you want to include the whole population in your figures, not just those who are eligible to vote.

However, if you do want to include the entire population that were eligible to vote, you would find that just under 35% voted to remain.

And some wonder why remainers are often referred to as remoaners, whiners etc.

 

[fagin]

............
And some wonder why remainers are often referred to as remoaners, whiners etc.

... I'm still waiting for a sensible reason to leave. Do you have one?

...

Still waiting.

 

[The Shank]

So there is going to be a hard border in Ireland and a restriction on free movement between the two countries?

Another outcome the leave campaign forgot to mention during the referendum.

Are you still saying everyone knew what they were voting for?

I only speak for myself, not others.

And I'm certainly not going to be arrogant enough to claim that people didn't know what they were voting for. That would be elitist and an insult to UK voters.

But to answer your question, if a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland happens, so be it.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the kind of border we choose to have is UK business, no one else's. if other countries don't like it, tough.

Just like if Ireland wants to create a hard border with the UK, that would be their right to do so.

 

[The Shank]

Still waiting.

I dont want to be part of the EU, just like 52% of the UK.

 

[fagin]

That's a no then.

 

[The Shank]

That's a no then.

Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) care to discuss the issues for why i voted leave when all leave voters have already been dismissed as xenophobic/a bit thick?

 

[fagin]

Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) care to discuss the issues for why i voted leave when all leave voters have already been dismissed as xenophobic/a bit thick?

Because you might have a sensible, non xenophobic or non thick reason.

So far none have been forthcoming, from any leaver.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Free trade in goods and services doesn't mean free movement of people. Except to EU fanatics.

Well its hard to have free trade in services and goods if you don't allow people to move around but even so, you are agreeing with the point I made. You insist that the UK/Leavers want an FTA and by your own admission the free movement of British people into Ireland and vice versa is something that the UK/Leavers are demanding which goes beyond an FTA.

So your point that you and other leavers knew what they wanted is disproved straight away by the fact that you don't even know what you want.

 

[The Don]

So there is going to be a hard border in Ireland and a restriction on free movement between the two countries?

Another outcome the leave campaign forgot to mention during the referendum.

Are you still saying everyone knew what they were voting for?

....and as I understand it, a collapse of the Good Friday Agreement

 

[Amazer]

I only speak for myself, not others.

And I'm certainly not going to be arrogant enough to claim that people didn't know what they were voting for. That would be elitist and an insult to UK voters.

But to answer your question, if a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland happens, so be it.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the kind of border we choose to have is UK business, no one else's. if other countries don't like it, tough.

Just like if Ireland wants to create a hard border with the UK, that would be their right to do so.

So the GFA commitments can be forgotten about?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Lplus]

I'll take that as a no. You can't articulate why the country level is the most appropriate.

My original post was:-Can you explain why it shouldn't be? The UK has existed as a political entity for a fair amount of time, and has generally made decisions to the benefit of the constituents. Whilst there are always minorities who are dissatisfied with the level of control, so far they haven't been sufficiently numerous to cause a split at whatever level they feel appropriate, apart for Eire of course
So I have shown why I think it is appropriate, though it seems you are unable to make any argument as to why the EU (or say county level) should be more appropriate.

311 years to be exact.

A fair amount of time, though @ddt seems to disagree on the exact period...

This is a joke right? The current government isn't doing that now, even leaving aside Brexit. For a third of its history, the British government was effectively appointed by the land owners and run for their benefit.

It seems to be carrying out the wishes of the electorate as best it can, and frankly what happened 200 years ago is irrelevant. You may disagree, but there you go.

I already know that. I asked why you believe that to be the case. As a supplementary question I'd like to know why you think it wasn't being run at that level before Brexit.

I already told you, though you chose to omit it. As to why? if it were, do you think Brexit would even have been contemplated? What would have been the point of trying to leave an organisation that had no effect on UK governance?

Do you realise that, until Brexit, the UK had a say in EU decisions and could veto quite a lot of them if they were perceived to be detrimental to the UK?

And the number of areas where that veto is available has drastically reduced in the past and is very likely to reduce further if the EU continues towards closer union.

Do you really expect them to treat us well now? We've tried to sabotage the European dream.

I expect the countries themselves to treat us as friends, but the EU itself, probably not, though the UK leaving might just pave the way for a consolidation of power on the mainland, since we won't be there to say No. I do wonder quite how the relationship between the individual countries and the EU will alter in the light of Brexit.

Why are we ditching all of these constraints and going through all this chaos just to enact the same constraints?

Because they are included in legislation we have to drop as part of leaving the EU? Thus requiring them to be taken into UK legislation?

How would it actually affect you? Give me some concrete examples of how you personally have been negatively impacted by the EU.

Which of course is irrelevant to the question, but I haven't particularly, then who knows what the future holds. And it's the future I'm looking to, unlike those who seem to see pre June 16 as some idylic past time.

Or are you suggesting I can't have an opinion or even a vote if I can't prove direct disadvantage?

 

[Garrison]

I only speak for myself, not others.

And I'm certainly not going to be arrogant enough to claim that people didn't know what they were voting for. That would be elitist and an insult to UK voters.

And what about those who voted based on 'same or better trade deal', '£350 million pound a week'? It's not insulting to point out people voted for things the Brexiteers had no intention of delivering.

 

[Lplus]

They're all made by politicians that you voted for, whether town council, MP or MEP.

Nope. They're made by the majority of councillors, MPs or MEPs. I could have voted for the winner in all three classes and they could all have been in the minority at vote time.

No, it was clear it also meant a closer political union. Even Mrs. T was in favour of that.

and:

and


And from

There's lots of more quotes and campaign material from that time over at those links.

Thanks, I do remember being there, and the emphasis was on the trade advantages. The closer political union bit was dealt with as being long into the future, and "anyway we can always veto it or leave so don't worry". Personally, I abstained, on the basis that I would leave it to my elders to decide.

It was also 40 years ago or so, and things can change in that time. The fall of Communism for a start.

Actually, only since 1801, the union with Ireland (before that, it was GB).

A fair time then?

And India, and Canada, and Australia, and South Africa, and ...

Well yes, but not actually part of the UK or even Europe, so not really relevant....

The EU employs the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., decisions have to be taken at the appropriate government level.

Who decides on the appropriate level? The EU?....

The numbers on that point out that the UK has agreed with the great, great majority of the EU's decisions.

So what, just maybe that was because they were acceptable to the UK? Do you really think the UK wants or even needs to do everything differently to the EU?

Perhaps you do, or at least you think the leavers want that. Sorry, but that's nonsense.