Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Ecstatic]

@Steerpike

You understand the whole picture.

The EU is a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries and moves towards a fully integrated EU so the next step is to have a European President.


https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/220193/factsheet/en

The ultimate objectives of TRIGGER are to provide EU institutions with knowledge and tools to enhance their actorness, effectiveness and influence in global governance; and to develop new ways to harness the potential of public engagement and participatory foresight in complex governance decisions, thereby also tackling emerging trends such as nationalism, regionalism and protectionism

About immigration, Germany shows the way

https://codastory.com/migration-cri...efugees-pays-one-euro-an-hour-sometimes-less/

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Worked for many years under zero hours contracts. Had a few situations where a manager had a strop with me and my hours were halved for a number of weeks. Horrible way to work.

 

[Flying high]

I'll take your last question first. The concept of the nation state isn't perfect, but I think it has served us fairly well for several centuries. It also supports a reasonable level of accountability of the government to the governed (in democracies at least). The notion of replacing nation states with larger agglomerations seems to me to be an experiment in which there are no obvious upsides. There is evidence already of tensions between the interests of the EU as a bloc, and the interests of the populations of individual states. It is going to be interesting to see how these play out as I don't see them going away any time soon.

To your first question, I accept that, as non-participants in the Euro or Schengen, we already avoid some of the 'rules' (though I doubt the long term viability of our form of EU membership). I would nevertheless like us to be able to set aside the free movement of people within the EU, and to craft policies which can be adapted to suit our specific needs (see below). I would also like to take us out of the jurisdiction of any EU legislature - as a mature democracy, we're perfectly capable of crafting and maintaining our own laws. In addition, I'd like us to be the masters of our own marine environment.

I understand that the first reaction of many people to suggestions about taking away 'free movement' is that this is based on some kind of xenophobia, or ignorance about the contribution made by immigrants to our economy and culture. To be clear, I'm not an opponent of immigration, but I do believe a country has a responsibility to manage it. By 'manage', I don't mean the setting of crude numerical targets - it seems to me that these fail to account for the fact that immigration generally benefits our economy and helps to compensate for our worsening demographic. Management of immigration would entail favouring people with particular skills, ensuring the impacts of immigration are spread, having policies to minimise 'ghettoisation', and procedures in place to quickly integrate new arrivals into our culture and way of life. Free movement as defined by the EU makes such management virtually impossible.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to delve far into the nation state issue, except to point out a potential for less war and tribalism in general. Maybe less competition for resources etc. But I was really just wanting to know your objections because I haven't really given the subject much thought.

We are fully capable of making our own rules, potentially at least. It is our governments which have failed in this task. I don't see how the EU have stopped us from dealing with the migraton related issues you mention. We have had higher immigration from south asia than from the EU in most years, until very recently. Our governments simply aren't interested in long term planning, unless their shares portfolio is involved. Or, to be more accurate. Labour kind of tried to help integration, but never went nearly far enough because the press love stories of money going to immigrants. Then the consevatives came along in 2010 and ripped it all up under the guise of austerity.

 

[Cloud7]

Democracy is only as good as your candidate.

That’s quite good. Stealing this and going to pass it off as my own quote in real life

 

[Steerpike]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to delve far into the nation state issue, except to point out a potential for less war and tribalism in general. Maybe less competition for resources etc. But I was really just wanting to know your objections because I haven't really given the subject much thought.

We are fully capable of making our own rules, potentially at least. It is our governments which have failed in this task. I don't see how the EU have stopped us from dealing with the migraton related issues you mention. We have had higher immigration from south asia than from the EU in most years, until very recently. Our governments simply aren't interested in long term planning, unless their shares portfolio is involved. Or, to be more accurate. Labour kind of tried to help integration, but never went nearly far enough because the press love stories of money going to immigrants. Then the consevatives came along in 2010 and ripped it all up under the guise of austerity.

I think your comment on our governments not being interested in long term planning is very apt. Our democracy, and maybe democracy in general, has a weakness in that the full effect of policies may take decades to unfold, but we hold our governments to account (hold elections) much more frequently. A change in government all too often means a change of direction (though thankfully the convention is that new governments don't simply repeal the legislation introduced by their predecessors). I've tended to the view that our first past the post system leads to stable and durable government, but I'm starting to think that a PR based system may give us more sensible government.

 

[Steerpike]

Governability.

What is the question going to be and who decides it because we know the result will be determined by those as much as by the issue itself?

Deal or Cancel. No deal or deal. Leave or stay.

How often are we going to have these votes and who decides that ?

Are we just voting on Europe or do we broaden to other staggeringly important issues like taxation, foreign policy, bringing back hanging? If its just for EU membership on what basis in principle do you cut out the other issues?

Lets say we vote and take the deal what next, do we get another vote on each part of the trade negotiations with the EU that will follow or are we voting every bit as blind about the eventual outcome of the deal as we were on voting leave?

What if the public vote for contradicting premises or switch every other vote?



So quite a bit to fear other than democracy and when you think about it, wasn't it the fascists who liked peoples votes on issues they could frame and manipulate as a tool for autocracy hidden as direct democracy?

I'm not in favour of another vote, but I suspect it's going to happen. In order for the vote to be fair, I think there would have to be 2 questions: -

1. Should the UK stay in the EU or leave (i.e. a repeat of the 2016 referendum).

2. In the event of a vote to leave, should this be on the basis of the deal presented by the government, or should it be on a different premise which would have to be negotiated after we have left (i.e. leaving without a deal in place).

The second question would only become relevant if the answer to the first question was 'leave'.

I would also make it absolutely clear that the referendum result was binding.

 

[sullydnl]

 

[horsechoker]

 

[Fingeredmouse]

"It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus"
R.I.P. satire 2019.

 

[MadMike]

This would make for great comedy if only people saw it as such instead of buying into BoJo's shit. He can go feck himself

 

[CA_vampire]

 

[Wibble]

"It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus"
R.I.P. satire 2019.

Surprised it wasn't a Churchill quote.

 

[Reiver]

I honestly don't know how the parallels between the enslavement of ancient Hebrews in Egypt and Brexit have escaped me up until this point. How could I have missed Boris as Moses? His first act as PM? Ten plagues on Europe until they set the UK free.

 

[Silva]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Boris predicts the future.
40 years of wandering in the wilderness and refused entry to the promised land aka sunlit uplands.

 

[RORY65]

I know the average Brexit voter is slightly older but I'm not sure that 3000+ year old references are going to work that well. It was suggested that it was discussed today that some of her MP's might get on board with her deal in exchange for her setting out her departure, in line with the Sun's front page, but Johnson's comments (when you ignore his usual bullshit nonsense) indicate that isn't the case.

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

How likely is it that this actually happens?

Boris as PM and a no deal Brexit?

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

this was the first thing I thought when I saw that headline

 

[Silva]

 

[dwd]

Whatever happens May has sealed her place in history as an idiot.

 

[stevoc]

I think the Irish already believe this from history, don't you?
There will not be any return to a hard border between North and South on the island of Ireland. The Irish (North and South) don't want it, the UK doesn't want it and the EU says it doesn't want it... so who is going to implement it?

No one bar maybe the DUP wants a hard border, but the reality of it is its now a very real possibility.

The European Commission and the Secretary of State for NI have said there will need to be border controls put in place in Ireland in a scenario where the UK leave the EU with no deal.

Without a deal if the UK trades under WTO rules then eventually infrastructure will have to be put in place at the border to comply with the WTO MFN clause. And when that happens then the situation in Ireland could very easily and very quickly deteriorate again.

 

[Hephaestus]

I know the average Brexit voter is slightly older but I'm not sure that 3000+ year old references are going to work that well. It was suggested that it was discussed today that some of her MP's might get on board with her deal in exchange for her setting out her departure, in line with the Sun's front page, but Johnson's comments (when you ignore his usual bullshit nonsense) indicate that isn't the case.

Depressingly, it will play pretty well with a lot of the older people I know including my Dad.

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

Whatever happens May has sealed her place in history as an idiot.

I wouldn't exactly say that.

It was a poison chalis of a job from the beginning. She took on the impossible, in fact, whoever took over from Cameron to negotiate Brexit was always going to be under fire from all sides, there are too many factions in parliament, forces pulling in different directions. No one deal from the EU would get through the house right now - it's too fragmented, too many different ideas and far too much party politics.

But the same would be said for whoever had done the negotiating.

...and under the circumstances, I feel sorry for her. On the one hand, she's got the EU telling her it's the only deal in town, and on the other, a parliament with a dozen factions, a divided party and very little public support - and it's literally because everybody has a different idea about what should happen next. It's not just that she can't please everybody, it's literally that she has to piss off everyone just to offer something up to the house.

I think she's done, and I think that's best for her. She's exhausted and despite her fortitude and tenacity, even she knows it's over for her deal. It's time somebody else took up the same poison challis, and probably they'll take us out with no deal.

 

[Red Star One]

@Steerpike

You understand the whole picture.

The EU is a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries and moves towards a fully integrated EU so the next step is to have a European President.


https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/220193/factsheet/en




About immigration, Germany shows the way

https://codastory.com/migration-cri...efugees-pays-one-euro-an-hour-sometimes-less/

Ugh, what you quoted is a 3-year EUR 2,5m (so nothing) research project aimed at tackling "emerging trends such as nationalism, regionalism and protectionism", if you believe that this serves you as a proof that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" then I have little words.

You'll find similar research projects funded by various governments all around the world, not only among EU member states, also aimed at tackling nationalism, regionalism, protectionism or so. And I'm not sure you'd say they want to destroy sovereign countries

 

[Ian Reus]

No one bar maybe the DUP wants a hard border, but the reality of it is its now a very real possibility.

The European Commission and the Secretary of State for NI have said there will need to be border controls put in place in Ireland in a scenario where the UK leave the EU with no deal.

Without a deal if the UK trades under WTO rules then eventually infrastructure will have to be put in place at the border to comply with the WTO MFN clause. And when that happens then the situation in Ireland could very easily and very quickly deteriorate again.

It would quickly lead to a border poll and will only escalate the one thing the DUP are completely opposed to. Unitedness

 

[MoskvaRed]

I wouldn't exactly say that.

It was a poison chalis of a job from the beginning. She took on the impossible, in fact, whoever took over from Cameron to negotiate Brexit was always going to be under fire from all sides, there are too many factions in parliament, forces pulling in different directions. No one deal from the EU would get through the house right now - it's too fragmented, too many different ideas and far too much party politics.

But the same would be said for whoever had done the negotiating.

...and under the circumstances, I feel sorry for her. On the one hand, she's got the EU telling her it's the only deal in town, and on the other, a parliament with a dozen factions, a divided party and very little public support - and it's literally because everybody has a different idea about what should happen next. It's not just that she can't please everybody, it's literally that she has to piss off everyone just to offer something up to the house.

I think she's done, and I think that's best for her. She's exhausted and despite her fortitude and tenacity, even she knows it's over for her deal. It's time somebody else took up the same poison challis, and probably they'll take us out with no deal.

I think you are being far too generous with May. Inheriting a country split 50/50 down the middle, the sensible course would have been to start a consultation as to how to respond to the extremely vague mandate of the June 16 referendum. The result of that process would not (could not) have pleased everyone but, on the basis their concerns had at least been registered, most people would have agreed to live with it in the interests of moving on. Instead, trusting only her small circle of advisers like Nick Timothy, she set a course for hard Brexit with her arbitrary redlines and went out of her way to aggravate the half of the country who voted remain (“citizens of nowhere”, commemorative 50p coins etc).

When the hard Brexit plan encountered reality (the Irish Border problem and the firmness of the EU27 in resisting divide and rule tactics), she lost the Brexiteers as well, not helped by her inability to cajole and persuade and her appalling communication skills.

So three years later, she finds herself isolated and having built up a huge deficit in trust and goodwill.

I would agree that taking over from Cameron was not an easy job but it is hard to imagine anyone more unsuited to the job in terms of temperament, outlook and experience in dealing with the EU.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I think you are being far too generous with May. Inheriting a country split 50/50 down the middle, the sensible course would have been to start a consultation as to how to respond to the extremely vague mandate of the June 16 referendum. The result of that process would not (could not) have pleased everyone but, on the basis their concerns had at least been registered, most people would have agreed to live with it in the interests of moving on. Instead, trusting only her small circle of advisers like Nick Timothy, she set a course for hard Brexit with her arbitrary redlines and went out of her way to aggravate the half of the country who voted remain (“citizens of nowhere”, commemorative 50p coins etc).

When the hard Brexit plan encountered reality (the Irish Border problem and the firmness of the EU27 in resisting divide and rule tactics), she lost the Brexiteers as well, not helped by her inability to cajole and persuade and her appalling communication skills.

So three years later, she finds herself isolated and having built up a huge deficit in trust and goodwill.

I would agree that taking over from Cameron was not an easy job but it is hard to imagine anyone more unsuited to the job in terms of temperament, outlook and experience in dealing with the EU.

May is a feck up. She was a feck up at the Home Office and she only got the PM job by default because everyone else managed to shit the bed during their own campaigns. She thought this was her time to shine.

 

[Sky1981]

Does this Online petition ever works? In the past?

 

[Raees]

I wouldn't exactly say that.

It was a poison chalis of a job from the beginning. She took on the impossible, in fact, whoever took over from Cameron to negotiate Brexit was always going to be under fire from all sides, there are too many factions in parliament, forces pulling in different directions. No one deal from the EU would get through the house right now - it's too fragmented, too many different ideas and far too much party politics.

But the same would be said for whoever had done the negotiating.

...and under the circumstances, I feel sorry for her. On the one hand, she's got the EU telling her it's the only deal in town, and on the other, a parliament with a dozen factions, a divided party and very little public support - and it's literally because everybody has a different idea about what should happen next. It's not just that she can't please everybody, it's literally that she has to piss off everyone just to offer something up to the house.

I think she's done, and I think that's best for her. She's exhausted and despite her fortitude and tenacity, even she knows it's over for her deal. It's time somebody else took up the same poison challis, and probably they'll take us out with no deal.

She made what was a bad situation incredibly toxic and fuelled the fires of division IMO due to her own inherent xenophobic and questionable traits which made her susceptible to wanting to satisfy the lunatic fringe elements of her party.

That has made her utterly incapable of looking for a practical way out of this issue and ignore party politics and just focus on what is best for the country (forget the fact referendum was won by leave - she needed to focus on whether or not it was feasible and if not just be honest instead of lying to the public it was still doable).

Her general responses to grenfall, knife crime, police numbers, the NHS, Islamophobia and that is just a highlights package has been nothing short of disgraceful. Quite frankly the most incompetent prime minister there has ever been which is saying something and utterly unfit for the situation she was handed. Even if she had walked into a more better political situation she’d have found a way to cock it up due to her limited mind and stubbornness.

Brexit could have been something which whilst it was a poisoned chalice, made a more competent politician a hero... someone who quelled the fires of division and brought some semblance of unity whilst keeping the xenophobic right wing elements of the U.K. at bay. Kept us in the EU but worked diligently with the EU to seek a solution to immigration and finding ways to practically understand people’s problems without destroying the entire economy and people’s livelihoods.

Imagine having a prime minister as indecisive and clueless in charge when say World War II was upon us, we’d all be doing Nazi salutes... well guess what we have someone in charge who has given those who are racist and brainless a much greater say in how this country is run and will be run in the foreseeable future. Yes Cameron was to blame for letting Brexit in but she’s been complicit in letting the stink continue for 3 years after the referendum.

 

[Penna]

It's interesting when you realise that this whole exercise has been about appeasing small minorities - first in the Conservatives by Cameron and now with the pressure groups in Parliament (and the DUP, who are also a small minority).

Mrs May should realise that there are better ways to spend your time when you're in your 60s and well-off.

 

[Siorac]

I'll take your last question first. The concept of the nation state isn't perfect, but I think it has served us fairly well for several centuries. It also supports a reasonable level of accountability of the government to the governed (in democracies at least). The notion of replacing nation states with larger agglomerations seems to me to be an experiment in which there are no obvious upsides. There is evidence already of tensions between the interests of the EU as a bloc, and the interests of the populations of individual states. It is going to be interesting to see how these play out as I don't see them going away any time soon.

To your first question, I accept that, as non-participants in the Euro or Schengen, we already avoid some of the 'rules' (though I doubt the long term viability of our form of EU membership). I would nevertheless like us to be able to set aside the free movement of people within the EU, and to craft policies which can be adapted to suit our specific needs (see below). I would also like to take us out of the jurisdiction of any EU legislature - as a mature democracy, we're perfectly capable of crafting and maintaining our own laws. In addition, I'd like us to be the masters of our own marine environment.

I understand that the first reaction of many people to suggestions about taking away 'free movement' is that this is based on some kind of xenophobia, or ignorance about the contribution made by immigrants to our economy and culture. To be clear, I'm not an opponent of immigration, but I do believe a country has a responsibility to manage it. By 'manage', I don't mean the setting of crude numerical targets - it seems to me that these fail to account for the fact that immigration generally benefits our economy and helps to compensate for our worsening demographic. Management of immigration would entail favouring people with particular skills, ensuring the impacts of immigration are spread, having policies to minimise 'ghettoisation', and procedures in place to quickly integrate new arrivals into our culture and way of life. Free movement as defined by the EU makes such management virtually impossible.

The nation state as a concept is barely even 200 years old. And during its existence we had two devastating world wars. You might say those had nothing to do with nation states but let's just say those wars did little to help the argument that nation states are the best way to manage politics.

The UK has never been a nation state. Ever. It was an empire. During the brief period after it had stopped being the empire but before joining the EEC it experienced an awful economic crisis. Because, well, being alone is a lot harder than being a global colonial power.

Freedom of movement allows for a lot of things. Governments can subsidise certain sectors, they can aim for creating certain types of jobs to make sure that most EU workers have the 'desired skills', whatever those might be. The only thing FoM prevents is turning away someone who is offered a job in the country.

 

[GloryHunter07]

Does this Online petition ever works? In the past?

We havent tried to leave the EU before.

 

[Stanley Road]

An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.

Ok watch the documentary Dijsselbloem made in Greece, listen to his regret and how he believes the eu were too harsh with their austerity measures. And he was the finance minister. Look up the record of Wolfgang Schauble, first with east germany and then with eu. Both total wankers that got it wrong but hey, they followed the model you prefer.

 

[11101]

Ok watch the documentary Dijsselbloem made in Greece, listen to his regret and how he believes the eu were too harsh with their austerity measures. And he was the finance minister. Look up the record of Wolfgang Schauble, first with east germany and then with eu. Both total wankers that got it wrong but hey, they followed the model you prefer.

He believes they were too harsh but that austerity was the right approach. He's said this countless times.

I don't know what Schauble said about regretting austerity and Google gives no answers, but i do know he implemented austerity and stuck with it and has been pretty stubborn in agreeing with it.

Anyway, this is the Brexit thread so we should end this line of conversation.

 

[Maticmaker]

The myth that the 1975 referendum was purely about joining /staying in an economic market is long dead. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Having a FTA with the EU is not going to solve the problems the UK will experience being outside the Customs Union or the Single Market.

It was true then, that's exactly how it was sold to the public, the first of many lies, which were still being perpetuated up until now. Very few people (in the general population) then knew anything about the Treaty of Rome and what it entailed about closer unity, or indeed what we had signed up to. The primary advocate for not joining was Tony Benn, who warned "that once in we would never get out". Benn's left-wing views however were used by the press to discredit his views on the 'Common market'.

It is the basic premise that underlines all the current woes, we missed being able to shape the Treaty of Rome and hence for the majority of the UK population, we were like someone who jumps on a bus just as its pulling out, assuming its the right one, but without look at where the bus was going. Consistently from then onwards our politicians have failed to tell us the truth and in all honesty very few people took any notice of the change to the EU, until Maastricht. Then things started to come to light, which began to worry some people, and the furore over joining the Euro gave greater clarity, but even then the mass of the populace didn't really understand.

Cameron of course let the genie out of the lamp and there is no going back, even if A50 is revoked, the damage has been done.

 

[Mb194dc]

May's deal is still the worst option, it hasn't really changed since December and the subsequent record defeat. May needs to go as well and it doesn't make the deal any better.

It looks like there isn't going to be anything better on offer, just even worse versions of the deal or things including the single market and / or the customs union. In which case, what is the point we're in a better situation than that already. Even if we did "leave" to one of these options, you can bet a big movement to fully rejoin would immediately kick off and would succeed pretty quickly.

Voting for an obviously inferior situation just to deliver "Brexit" would be moronic and unsustainable anyway.

The best option is to revoke, leavers should see what they wanted and what won the vote for leave in the 2016 vote isn't on offer, (no one was arguing for no deal in 2016 due to the economic risks) remainers should accept if we revoke it doesn't change the referendum result. Then we start again with a general election and the political parties have to figure out what to do next.

 

[P-Nut]

May's deal is still the worst option, it hasn't really changed since December and the subsequent record defeat. May needs to go as well and it doesn't make the deal any better.

It looks like there isn't going to be anything better on offer, just even worse versions of the deal or things including the single market and / or the customs union. In which case, what is the point we're in a better situation than that already. Even if we did "leave" to one of these options, you can bet a big movement to fully rejoin would immediately kick off and would succeed pretty quickly.

Voting for an obviously inferior situation just to deliver "Brexit" would be moronic and unsustainable anyway.

The best option is to revoke, leavers should see what they wanted and what won the vote for leave in the 2016 vote isn't on offer, (no one was arguing for no deal in 2016 due to the economic risks) remainers should accept if we revoke it doesn't change the referendum result. Then we start again with a general election and the political parties have to figure out what to do next.

I doubt that simply due to the fact we'd have to take euro on which would be a massive no from pretty much everyone in the country.

 

[Paxi]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It was true then, that's exactly how it was sold to the public, the first of many lies, which were still being perpetuated up until now. Very few people (in the general population) then knew anything about the Treaty of Rome and what it entailed about closer unity, or indeed what we had signed up to. The primary advocate for not joining was Tony Benn, who warned "that once in we would never get out". Benn's left-wing views however were used by the press to discredit his views on the 'Common market'.

It is the basic premise that underlines all the current woes, we missed being able to shape the Treaty of Rome and hence for the majority of the UK population, we were like someone who jumps on a bus just as its pulling out, assuming its the right one, but without look at where the bus was going. Consistently from then onwards our politicians have failed to tell us the truth and in all honesty very few people took any notice of the change to the EU, until Maastricht. Then things started to come to light, which began to worry some people, and the furore over joining the Euro gave greater clarity, but even then the mass of the populace didn't really understand.

Cameron of course let the genie out of the lamp and there is no going back, even if A50 is revoked, the damage has been done.

As I've said before , when I voted in 1975 I didn't vote to stay so that British Leyland could sell its cars more easily to France. Freedom of movement, working and living in Europe and closer cultural unity and peace were the main reasons.
The same debates were on TV then with as you say Benn plus Barbara Castle, Michael Foot and others against the EEC/EU. But people are no more informed now than they were then , that is patently obvious.

The UK have not or never would have joined the Euro, they've opted out of all sorts of things, they get rebates.
Furthermore they can leave when they like - but they don't seem to like the consequences of leaving.
The benefits far outweigh any negativity.

Unfortunately they will only realise the benefits when it is too late.

 

[Maticmaker]

But i would be interested in your answer to the question at the end of my last post?

I already have, a good deal' its a mixture of trade /political changes that suit our needs, but it won't happen, because the EU cannot respond on the political bit without shredding its four freedoms.