nlogax
Established Member
Excellent, so all going to plan then. Piece of cake and all that..Except that ratification is being withheld by the EU while the Northern Ireland situation remains at an impasse.
Excellent, so all going to plan then. Piece of cake and all that..Except that ratification is being withheld by the EU while the Northern Ireland situation remains at an impasse.
Those sneaky EU bureaucrats. Imagine the nerve of refusing to ratify an international agreement, just because we're threatening to break the previous international agreement.Except that ratification is being withheld by the EU while the Northern Ireland situation remains at an impasse.
The oven ready deal that Boris got done and then told the Daily Express yesterday that the new PM will need to, erm, get Brexit finished.
So, it wasn't done. Who knew!
As someone who voted Remain and would more likely than not vote to re-join in a future plebiscite, I wouldn't say that I'd be happy with the 'soft Brexit' that was offered, but I would certainly prefer it to the current situation.Secondly, Remainer-bashers forget one thing. I suspect many Remainers would be happy with a Brexit which preserved freedom of movement and the customs/trade union, certainly I would.
I make no bones about being a Remainer and consider Brexit to be a disaster, but I accept that it has happened and feel that the government should try make it work to the best interests of the country. Despite Ukraine, the cost of living crisis, global warming, etc., our relationship with our main trading partners and nearest neighbours is of vital importance to the future of this country. Instead of sitting down and negotiating in sensible, if possibly hard-headed, fashion, the current lot seems to be hell-bent on a policy of stunts, finger-pointing, and deliberately uncooperative and provocative behaviour, presumably to divert attention from their domestic problems and errors, and to rally the faithful.
There are many more councillors than MEPs.I think Brexiteers wanted a tier of government removed and the civil service that went with it. Do we need four and five levels of government all needing taxation to pay for them.
Firstly, apparently we enjoyed freedom of movement since 1973, according to a post on another thread, so the current setup is not just the least freedom since 1992 (as I had thought), but actually since 1972. 50 years. Not good. Think about that: freedom of movement was introduced when the Mid Hants line was still open to regular passengers; a long time ago.
Secondly, Remainer-bashers forget one thing. I suspect many Remainers would be happy with a Brexit which preserved freedom of movement and the customs/trade union, certainly I would.
I do agree that at the moment, while the Brexit cult still has adherents, politicians need to be a bit quiet and non-committal on the matter though.
I'd say Mordaunt, Truss and Badenoch actually want to inflict more damage on the country in the cause of Brexit, Tugenhat and probably Sunak don't but know it would be fatal to their chances if they said so.
China, Russia…….crackingThe Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon. The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc.
I think my reaction to that is, so what? Just because a particular freedom existed for a long time doesn't by itself mean it's an intrinsically good freedom or that it has to exist forever more. A more pertinent question is, are there sufficiently good reasons why you should preserve that particular freedom? You seem to regard EU freedom of movement as an absolute good, but in reality, it was something that had both advantages and disadvantages.
Probably many remainers would have been happy with it, but I doubt many people who voted Brexit would've been. As I recall, the issue of Freedom of Movement was widely cited as one of the big drivers behind the Brexit vote in the referendum. Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.
The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?
Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?' Rather, they disagree with you about what things are likely to help the country. Clearly, you disagree with them about whether Brexit is, on balance helpful or harmful, and that's a reasonable point to debate. But it's not at all the same thing as them wanting to harm the country
Several people I one who have held anti EU views for a number of years put the argument as "we voted to join the EEC not the EU" and that was the most common thing I heard.
As such I suspect that many would have been happy to have gone back to that of that were possible.
Even if that wasn't the mainly held view of those who voted leave, you would need many who did gold that view to get to 50%+1 who are now in a position where they've not for what they voted for.
The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango.
Whilst you may well be right in freedom of movement (although you'd only need about 4% of those who voted leave to have still wanted it for the result to have been a reverse, i.e. 48:52, in favour of retaining freedom of movement), however what about the point I made about remaining in the EEC, as it's likely that would have had a larger level of support within those who voted leave:
It was fair to describe people as Remainers until the UK had actually left the EU, but many individuals who wished to remain (e.g @nw1) persist in moaning about a decision that was implemented over 2 years ago, instead of accepting it and moving on.Can we not debate the issue without hurling insults at the other side? You may well have had a good point to make, but as soon as I saw your first two words, I lost interest in reading the rest of your post. You disagree with remainers - fine. But why not just refer to them as what they are - Remainers? And then argue against them based on the issues?
It was fair to describe people as Remainers until the UK had actually left the EU, but many individuals who wished to remain (e.g @nw1) persist in moaning about a decision that was implemented over 2 years ago, instead of accepting it and moving on.
Not deliberately, but due to some combination of ignorance, stupidity, and venality. As far as I'm concerned politicians ought to inform themselves about the facts that support (or not) their views and policy proposals. I just don't see how anyone in possession of those facts and a reasonable intellect could support the harder and harder Brexit position being pushed by the louder voices in the Tory party. In all its years of running I haven't seen a single convincing argument that Brexit will help the prosperity of the UK. Therefore, I consider any politician that supports it is either badly informed about the facts, too stupid to interpret them, or supports the policy for reasons of personal advancement instead of the benefit to the country. And because there is no rational reason to support Brexit, I consider the use of the word "cult" to be entirely appropriate. Remaining or rejoining isn't a cult because there are plenty of good arguments to support it.The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?
Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?' Rather, they disagree with you about what things are likely to help the country. Clearly, you disagree with them about whether Brexit is, on balance helpful or harmful, and that's a reasonable point to debate. But it's not at all the same thing as them wanting to harm the country
Leaving aside the gratuitous insult, I actually agree with the first part of this. The Brexit faction is busy burning bridges with our logical allies and trading partners, and the longer that goes on the longer it will take to re-build them. But the lesson of Ukraine is that we must stand with the Western democracies, not to have our only "friends" being authoritarian leaders who are driven by self-interest if they are rational at all.The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile; there is no longer an Entente Cordiale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon. The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc., however unpalatable they may be.
Is this actually the case? Do France and Germany actually hate us?The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile; there is no longer an Entente Cordiale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon.
The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc., however unpalatable they may be.
It's because, to me, it seems Brexit, or hard Brexit at least, just causes difficulties. The suspension of rights we have had for 47 years is a pretty big deal, IMO. The strained relations between UK and EU governments is a big deal. Trade bureaucracy, which meant I was without my main computer for two months last summer while waiting for parts from Germany, is causing many people difficulties. I referred to it that way because, rather like an actual cult, it seems to me that Hard Brexit is something that many people believe in almost just because they believe in it, rather than for any really good reasons. I will admit I have been particularly irked in recent days (and therefore more likely to use provocative language) by the discovery that freedom of movement existed from 1973, not 1993 as I had thought - which makes the whole situation so much worse.The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?
Not deliberately, but due to some combination of ignorance, stupidity, and venality. As far as I'm concerned politicians ought to inform themselves about the facts that support (or not) their views and policy proposals. I just don't see how anyone in possession of those facts and a reasonable intellect could support the harder and harder Brexit position being pushed by the louder voices in the Tory party.
Therefore, I consider any politician that supports it is either badly informed about the facts, too stupid to interpret them, or supports the policy for reasons of personal advancement instead of the benefit to the country. And because there is no rational reason to support Brexit,
Because it's the norm for modern times and because most of us, alive now, are used to this freedom as a norm. Many of us, probably most of us alive now, were either too young, or not even born, to remember the era before 1973. Even someone who turns 60 this year would have been a pre-teenager in 1973 and thus likely not old enough to care either way about the EEC.I think my reaction to that is, so what? Just because a particular freedom existed for a long time doesn't by itself mean it's an intrinsically good freedom or that it has to exist forever more. A more pertinent question is, are there sufficiently good reasons why you should preserve that particular freedom? You seem to regard EU freedom of movement as an absolute good, but in reality, it was something that had both advantages and disadvantages.
That is just presumption. The main moral argument Brexiters make is that their percentage in the referendum was higher than that of Remainers. But the referendum only asked "should we leave the EU?".Probably many remainers would have been happy with it, but I doubt many people who voted Brexit would've been. As I recall, the issue of Freedom of Movement was widely cited as one of the big drivers behind the Brexit vote in the referendum. Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.
That's the point. As I've said several times, I would have been quite happy to revert to the 1973-92 norm. That would be a good compromise.Several people I one who have held anti EU views for a number of years put the argument as "we voted to join the EEC not the EU" and that was the most common thing I heard.
As such I suspect that many would have been happy to have gone back to that of that were possible.
Even if that wasn't the mainly held view of those who voted leave, you would need many who did gold that view to get to 50%+1 who are now in a position where they've not for what they voted for.
Because it's the norm for modern times and because most of us, alive now, are used to this freedom as a norm. Many of us, probably most of us alive now, were either too young, or not even born, to remember the era before 1973. Even someone who turns 60 this year would have been a pre-teenager in 1973 and thus likely not old enough to care either way about the EEC.
I will admit I have a strong philosophical belief in freedom and progress as ideas (in other areas too, outside politics), and dislike (often intensely) anything which reduces or suspends freedom which has become normalised. 47 years is a long time, and enough for that freedom to become normalised in this way.
Really? I find that surprising because I can think of many rational reasons why people might support Brexit. Off the top of my head, rational arguments include...
There does seem some irony that i the same post you criticise other people for 'ignorance, stupidity, and venality', before a few sentences further on, admitting your own ignorance about the existence of rational arguments for Brexit!
- Freedom of movement was (allegedly) dragging down wages, putting too much pressure on our infrastructure, and making it impossible for the Government to predict population numbers and so plan apporpriate infrastructure for the future.
- EU regulations were (allegedly) harming business and competitiveness by putting too much regulatory burden on companies.
- EU farming/food production regulations and subsidies were (allegedly) harming the environment.
- It was discriminatory that people from EU countries could freely come to the UK but people from non-EU countries couldn't - and the immigration pressures caused by EU freedom of movement were making it politically impossible to ease visa rules for non-EU countries.
- The EU had (allegedly) made too much Government too remote from the population - more local Government can be more responsive and more alert to the needs of its people.
- The particular bureaucratic / political structure of the EU was making essential reform too difficult.
- Restoring rules to Westminster could (allegedly) make it easier to reform/change regulation so we could be more responsive to changing circumstances.
- A stable, cohesive, society requires Government to be at a level/cover an area that most people feel a strong attachment and sense of loyalty to. Most people feel that sense of loyalty to the UK in a way that people don't feel to the same extent towards the EU (speaking generally of course, obviously there are exceptions). That suggests we should be keeping Government within the UK.
(NB: Before you reply to disagree with some of those arguments: Remember, I'm not claiming that there aren't counter-arguments. Of course there were many rational arguments for Remain as well. And it's in the nature of politics that there are usually good arguments on both sides, and that it's pretty much always possible to pick holes in any argument. The point is that what I've cited are rational arguments for Brexit, which many people found/still find strongly persuasive).
Of the people I know who voted Leave, only about half listed Freedom of Movement as a main reason for their vote.Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.
Of the people I know who voted Leave, only about half listed Freedom of Movement as a main reason for their vote.
Most of these are purely based on a claim that is only "allegedly" true, so can be discounted unless those claims are actually supported by evidence.
Badenoch and Truss specifically, probably not, but the likes of JRM have made a lot of money due to the poor performance of the pound since Brexit. It would be naïve at best to believe that their actions and choices would have been 100% motivated by what is best for the country, given that they stood to personally gain from the country doing badly.Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?'