Cont: Brexit: Now What? Turning it up to 11

[Vixen]

Maybe not calling Brexiteers "rabid" would be a start.
Pre-judging people is never a good thing.

Let me explain my view of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is power, that power belongs to those who live here.
Including immigrants.

It is the power to democratically decide how we are governed.
It is something that needs working on.
We are not democratic enough.

I lost the vote in 2011 to replace First Past the Post with AV.

For me, the next challenge to make this country more democratic requires a vote on European style Proportional Representation, not whingey sulks about not being in the EU anymore.

That's what I want to campaign for.

Whatever concerns you may have about Brexiteers and the TPP, this Brexiteer is cool about the TPP, I don't have any hatred of foreigners.

All my adult life I have been motivated by trying to make politics more locally connected and democratic.

The greater the gap the more abstracted the political process and the more alienated the voter becomes.

That's my personal feeling on the matter.
That's why sovereignty is important to me.

...But haven't you lost your sovereignty by joining the TPP...?

After all, it is another trading bloc...just like <ahem!> the EU.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I have never claimed that the Oxford / AZ vaccine is 100% British (whatever that means). AZ is a multinational Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company. You are creating a straw dog. You claimed the EU had funded the vaccine manufacturing capability in the UK. I asked you for evidence for this claim. You claim it, you should provide evidence to back your claim.

I provided EU documents saying that the EU supported vaccine manufacturing by 1) pre paying for vaccine and 2) providing loans (the EU term) from the EIB. Banks do not give grants.* I provided references to the fact that the UK government funded the UK manufacturing capability. Notably your highlighted section above does NOT refer to vaccine manufacturing.

The reason the EU wanted the UK factory regarded as EU was otherwise its product would be a biological product from a third country and would need to go through all the paperwork and customs restrictions we hear about blocking the travel of molluscs and bees. One would not want millions of vaccine doses going to waste because the customs paperwork was wrong or the factory had not been inspected by the EU pharma authorities etc. As a GMO the vaccine is particularly restricted.

* i would be very anxious if an insolvency practitioner thought banks gave out money as grants; a little hint, banks always want their money back - with interest.

While the documents and links you provided do say the UK funded the UK factory they do not say that the UK funded 100% of the UK factory. I've googled for it and there is nothing I can find definitive. I certainly read previously that the EU had contributed to funding UK capacity but I can't find anything definitive on that either.

I think it is worth bearing in mind that whether or not they funded the factory wouldn't automatically give anyone the right to any vaccine over and above what rights they have contractually. And if in fact AZ promised the UK priority on UK production for funding it then I think that was material and should have been disclosed to the EU as part of that contractual arrangement. We are shooting in the dark because AFAIK nobody has published the UK contract.

 

[Vixen]

The EIB certainly appears to be able to finance projects outside the EU. I would have been surprised if it hadn't.

https://www.eib.org/attachments/country/eib_rem_annual_report_2017_en.pdf

Certainly it has given grants to Cornwall and various other places needing regeneration in the UK.

A grant is not a loan.

The great thing about a grant is that it can be ring-fenced against taxes and there is no requirement to pay it back.

Sure, it comes out of EU taxpayers' money. A redistribution of wealth, if you like, for the common good.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe not calling Brexiteers "rabid" would be a start.
Pre-judging people is never a good thing.

He didn't. He called rabid brexiteers rabid.

Let me explain my view of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is power, that power belongs to those who live here.
Including immigrants.

It is the power to democratically decide how we are governed.
It is something that needs working on.
We are not democratic enough.

I lost the vote in 2011 to replace First Past the Post with AV.

For me, the next challenge to make this country more democratic requires a vote on European style Proportional Representation, not whingey sulks about not being in the EU anymore.

That's what I want to campaign for.

Whatever concerns you may have about Brexiteers and the TPP, this Brexiteer is cool about the TPP, I don't have any hatred of foreigners.

You may or may not. If you don't then you are not representative of the average Brexiteer.

All my adult life I have been motivated by trying to make politics more locally connected and democratic.

The greater the gap the more abstracted the political process and the more alienated the voter becomes.

That's my personal feeling on the matter.
That's why sovereignty is important to me.

And how does letting someone in Malaysia set our trade rules make things more locally connected and democratic?

Incidentally, you say the TPP doesn't stop us having FTAs with other countries? I haven't read the text of the agreement but partnerships like that may well and usually do at least set up limitations on how we can trade with other countries. There may well be rules that say we can't offer someone else better terms or agreements on standards or rules that might make it difficult to sign an FTA with other people.

I would be worried about the terms of the TPP if China was to join. I'm not comfortable with allowing for example Vietnam to determine the terms on which the UK trades with China.

 

[Airfix]

...But haven't you lost your sovereignty by joining the TPP...?

After all, it is another trading bloc...just like <ahem!> the EU.

I know I haven't lost my sovereignty by joining the TPP, it isn't a political customs union, it doesn't stop us negotiating FTAs with others. It doesn't decide our rail policy or postal services policies, it doesn't set standards for VAT or impose a tampon tax.

The TPP doesn't decide what our agricultural policy should be, for example whether it should be subsidised or not.

There is a bloc that many of the TPP members are also members of, it's called the Cairns group.
Were we to join that, it would decide what our agricultural policy should be, and our agricultural policy would be unsubsidised.

Because it would remove democratic choice, I oppose joining the Cairns group.

 

[Airfix]

Certainly it has given grants to Cornwall and various other places needing regeneration in the UK.

A grant is not a loan.

The great thing about a grant is that it can be ring-fenced against taxes and there is no requirement to pay it back.

Sure, it comes out of EU taxpayers' money. A redistribution of wealth, if you like, for the common good.

The UK was a net contributor to the EU, the EU taxpayers were British taxpayers.
The EU did not give us money, it gave us our own money back and told us how to spend it.

That decision abstracted democratic choice.

 

[Airfix]

I would be worried about the terms of the TPP if China was to join.

As would I.

I'm not comfortable with allowing for example Vietnam to determine the terms on which the UK trades with China.

Nor am I.

 

[Vixen]

I know I haven't lost my sovereignty by joining the TPP, it isn't a political customs union, it doesn't stop us negotiating FTAs with others. It doesn't decide our rail policy or postal services policies, it doesn't set standards for VAT or impose a tampon tax.

The TPP doesn't decide what our agricultural policy should be, for example whether it should be subsidised or not.

There is a bloc that many of the TPP members are also members of, it's called the Cairns group.
Were we to join that, it would decide what our agricultural policy should be, and our agricultural policy would be unsubsidised.

Because it would remove democratic choice, I oppose joining the Cairns group.

If the UK is now going to be flooded with cheap goods made out of cheap material produced by cheap labour in China, Vietnam, Mexico and goodness knows what other 'Emerging Economy' BRIC country, how does that return manufacturing and full employment back to the UK?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The UK was a net contributor to the EU, the EU taxpayers were British taxpayers.
The EU did not give us money, it gave us our own money back and told us how to spend it.

That decision abstracted democratic choice.

SOME of the EU taxpayers were British taxpayers. You talk as if we were the only ones making a contribution.

It abstracted democratic choice??? Unlike the Tories deciding to spend the money with their mates and in the parts of the country that vote Tory? That democratic choice? Of course those parts of the country have a democratic choice to not vote Tory and then be ignored anyway. I guess they also have a democratic choice to leave the UK? Oh no the Tories won't allow them that either.

EU funding has done a hell of a lot for the neglected parts of the UK that the Tories couldn't give a **** about. If you think allowing Boris to decide how money is spent rather than the EU has helped anyone in the UK other than Boris's mates then you are hopelessly naive at best.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As would I.


Nor am I.

You do realise that China was mooted to be joining?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If the UK is now going to be flooded with cheap goods made out of cheap material produced by cheap labour in China, Vietnam, Mexico and goodness knows what other 'Emerging Economy' BRIC country, how does that return manufacturing and full employment back to the UK?

It's worth noting why so many free marketeers like these kind of partnerships and want FTAs without all the associated 'political' overlays.

Because they can be an exploiters charter to have things made in the cheapest locations with the lowest standards and then shipped into the UK.

It's modern day colonialism and that's why they DON'T want to have freedom of movement from the countries that they exploit. They want those people trapped there in slave wage economies. They don't want people setting standards and policies that protect workers and the environment or anything else.

And people like Airfix buy into this for reasons known only to themselves.

 

[gypsyjackson]

And how does letting someone in Malaysia set our trade rules make things more locally connected and democratic?

I’ll have you know I’d probably be quite good at setting trade rules. Right now Malaysia hasn’t ratified so won’t be involved in changing any rules for a while.

Farage came out against the TPP when Trump was removing the US from it. I haven’t seen what he’s said on CPTPP as a stimulus for post-Brexit trade, though.

I know I haven't lost my sovereignty by joining the TPP, it isn't a political customs union, it doesn't stop us negotiating FTAs with others. It doesn't decide our rail policy or postal services policies, it doesn't set standards for VAT or impose a tampon tax.

That’s selective. It does set rules on certain things and if the UK signs up to those rules, determined by signatories without any UK input (say, without a referendum) then some people will feel we have lost ‘sovereignty’. Some of the rules it sets might be seen as good, such as those on labour laws. But they’re still rules.

The TPP doesn't decide what our agricultural policy should be, for example whether it should be subsidised or not.

A case in point. CPTPP does actually set rules on subsidy, specifically agricultural export subsidy.

No Party shall adopt or maintain any export subsidy on any agricultural good destined for the territory of another Party.

 

[Airfix]

You do realise that China was mooted to be joining?

I do now.

I hope that does not happen.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

SOME of the EU taxpayers were British taxpayers. You talk as if we were the only ones making a contribution.

It abstracted democratic choice??? Unlike the Tories deciding to spend the money with their mates and in the parts of the country that vote Tory? That democratic choice? Of course those parts of the country have a democratic choice to not vote Tory and then be ignored anyway. I guess they also have a democratic choice to leave the UK? Oh no the Tories won't allow them that either.

EU funding has done a hell of a lot for the neglected parts of the UK that the Tories couldn't give a **** about. If you think allowing Boris to decide how money is spent rather than the EU has helped anyone in the UK other than Boris's mates then you are hopelessly naive at best.

My point to a Brexiteer when stopped in the street during the referendum campaign. When I pointed out all the things locally that had been subsidised or paid for by the EU, his response was that after leaving we'd have all that money so it would still be used to subsidise / pay for such things. Really, a Tory Govt is going to pay for infrastructure re-generation in the South Wales valleys? Not a chance - it'll go to the leafy suburbs of England, or more likely, tax cuts for the rich.

His next argument was that in that case we needed to elect a Labour Govt so I told him history, the gullibility of the British public and the ongoing ineptitude of the Labour party itself were a bit against us there.

 

[Airfix]

It's worth noting why so many free marketeers like these kind of partnerships and want FTAs without all the associated 'political' overlays.

Those political overlays from the EU included the CAP, the CFP, regulatory fees, railway marketisation demands etc.

Because they can be an exploiters charter to have things made in the cheapest locations with the lowest standards and then shipped into the UK.

We don't require FTAs in order for disgusting exploitation to take place. That was happening anyway, look how many mobile phones are made in China for example.

It's modern day colonialism and that's why they DON'T want to have freedom of movement from the countries that they exploit.

We had freedom of movement from Eastern Europe whilst exploiting Eastern Europe.
At the same time there were factory closures all over the place.

So your argument is a bit illogical.

An underclass were created here, some of whom ran out of money, ended up homeless and living on barbequed rats.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/12/homeless-poles-rough-sleepers

Are you so myopic as to only see EU good, alternatives bad ?

Free movement, is discriminatory migration based on where someone comes from. It does not take into account economic means to cope, it does not take into account character, qualifications or communication skills.

It can set some people up to fail.

I have nothing against the foreigners coming, working, living in this country, nothing at all.
But it's not racist to advocate a system that does not set people up to fail.

And it's ridiculous to see Brexiteers being called racist or xenophobic.
Do not fall prey to prejudice.

There is more to this than you currently understand.

 

[Airfix]

SOME of the EU taxpayers were British taxpayers. You talk as if we were the only ones making a contribution.

The UK was a net contributor.

It works thus:-
If you give me £20 and I give you £11 back, you've given me £9.
I haven't given you £11 I've repaid you YOUR £11.

It's not rocket science.

I find it strange that you do not understand at all when there's so much information available, including from the EU's own website.

Your point about the Tories is a strawman argument.
I do not like the Tories and did not vote for them.
I am not advocating being governed by them, that's something I seek to address at a future election.

 

[Lothian]

The UK was a net contributor.

It works thus:-
If you give me £20 and I give you £11 back, you've given me £9.
I haven't given you £11 I've repaid you YOUR £11.

It's not rocket science.
.

It isn't rocket science but it is a bit more complicated than you make out. You will have seen many UK businesses complaining about difficulties since we left, similarly UK purchasers are paying extra.

We are looking at:-

If you give me £20 and I give you £11 back, and we both save £30 we are both quids in.

 

[Wudang]

Apologies if it’s been posted before. Interview with Philip Hammond on how he saw Brexit. I found it an interesting read. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/interview-pdf/?personid=42190

When I became Foreign Secretary in 2014 I started to see immediately how, contrary to what both political parties had been telling the British people for years – and I had swallowed, along with most of the British public, that this
Page 8/41

European Union thing was something over there in Brussels that was being done to us poor, defenceless Brits, and all these things coming down the line were actually imposed on us by perfidious foreigners – actually the truth was slightly different. The European Union had been shaped, to a very significant extent, by British influence.

 

[Airfix]

I was talking about the regional grants like those awarded to Cornwall using "EU" (our) money.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Those political overlays from the EU included the CAP, the CFP, regulatory fees, railway marketisation demands etc.

indeed they did. Because the project was about co-operation at a level above and beyond 'free trade' which is what the free marketeers didn't like.

We don't require FTAs in order for disgusting exploitation to take place. That was happening anyway, look how many mobile phones are made in China for example.

We don't require them but they certainly help. Imagine how much greater the scale would be if everything was made in China and able to be imported without limitations?

We had freedom of movement from Eastern Europe whilst exploiting Eastern Europe.
At the same time there were factory closures all over the place.

But if you look at Eastern Europe you will see the extent to which it has developed, wages risen and standard of life risen. And the free movement of people allowed those in Eastern Europe access to the well paid jobs in the rich Western European countries rather than being tied into low paid work at home.

Free movement, is discriminatory migration based on where someone comes from. It does not take into account economic means to cope, it does not take into account character, qualifications or communication skills.

It can set some people up to fail.

I have nothing against the foreigners coming, working, living in this country, nothing at all.
But it's not racist to advocate a system that does not set people up to fail.

No it's quite the opposite. It puts someone in Poland on the same footing as someone from Portsmouth and allows the employer to judge character, qualifications and communication skills for the role.

And it's ridiculous to see Brexiteers being called racist or xenophobic.
Do not fall prey to prejudice.

There is more to this than you currently understand.

It's not ridiculous to say that a large chunk of Brexiteers are exactly racist and xenophobic when that is what they are.

As for there being more than I currently understand I await eagerly for you to tell me something I am not aware of.