EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

trash80 · 14 Jan 2019

Muttley said:
It's better to wait with the smugness till after you are thanked.
Other than that, thank you, everyday something new.

You are right i am sorry. I've spent too much on the general discussion forum lately, it tends to poison the mind a bit by nature of the topics.

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit · 14 Jan 2019

Muttley said:
Yes they were. The transportation was tampered with ensuring they arrived months late.
Why were MI6[sic] involved if the French govt said non, what sanctions were put on Dassault for ignoring their govt ?
i 'm not sure we did have the Exocet beforehand, our lot never liked a subsonic missile till the Falklands proved it worked.

Isn't this all a bit irrelevent to the EU debate? This is stuff that happened 36 years ago. A time when global politics was dominated by America vs the USSR, South Africa was an apartheid country, the Eastern part of what is now Germany was a Soviet satellite, China was a desperately poor largely agricultural country, etc. etc. A very different World from today. Does anyone seriously think that we should be basing our decisions about which countries we form close relationships with today on events of nearly 40 years ago?

And in case anyone does think that today's friendships should be based on events 30+ years ago .... who remembers certain comments about fighting a limited nuclear war in Europe? Someone remind me which country's president was saying that, because clearly that country must be a great friend of ours...

Cowley · 14 Jan 2019

trash80 said:
You are right i am sorry. I've spent too much on the general discussion forum lately, it tends to poison the mind a bit by nature of the topics.

nidave · 14 Jan 2019

Jonny said:
If it means people outside the British Isles having a say in how I live my life then it's not such a good idea.

How much say do you have. Can you choose the tax you pay, the day the bins are emptied, if a library is closed - if roads are upgraded or moves, what busses run, the amount of council tax you pay, how many police are on the streets, the number of fire stations, how many GP's are in your area etc - you have no say at all. Its all done by un-enelected people in the council, DfT etc etc with a single minister in charge of the department- you don’t choose who that is - its done by the PM

All you have a say in is your MP, local counselors (you don’t really elect any of the house of lords) - and your MEP. You have very little say in anything the UK decides to do. Leaving the EU will make very little difference to the control you have - I think you will have less control as the UK will be so desperate for trade deals that they will bend over backwards to places like the USA and destroy environmental, food, working standards.

Senex · 14 Jan 2019

nidave said:
All you have a say in is your MP, local counselors (you don’t really elect any of the house of lords) - and your MEP. You have very little say in anything the UK decides to do. Leaving the EU will make very little difference to the control you have - I think you will have less control as the UK will be so desperate for trade deals that they will bend over backwards to places like the USA and destroy environmental, food, working standards.

And if you are a supporter of the "wrong" party in a safe seat (whichever way round), you have no say in your local MP either—and even if you did, under normal circumstances most backbench MPs are no more than vote-fodder for the party machines. I can't see any way at all in which leaving the EU will offer any "taking back control" to any British (wo)man-in-the-street.

AM9 · 14 Jan 2019

Senex said:
... I can't see any way at all in which leaving the EU will offer any "taking back control" to any British (wo)man-in-the-street.

It was a simple slogan for simple voters to believe. Lambs to the slaughter by the right-wing speculators.

nidave · 14 Jan 2019

Senex said:
And if you are a supporter of the "wrong" party in a safe seat (whichever way round), you have no say in your local MP either—and even if you did, under normal circumstances most backbench MPs are no more than vote-fodder for the party machines. I can't see any way at all in which leaving the EU will offer any "taking back control" to any British (wo)man-in-the-street.

Thats a very good point.

HH · 14 Jan 2019

Are the ones who are not vote fodder better? I'd say that was debateable.

Senex · 14 Jan 2019

HH said:
Are the ones who are not vote fodder better? I'd say that was debateable.

This is one of those occasions where I'd really like a "Like" button (with a Facebook-like range of options) here!

DarloRich · 14 Jan 2019

This is a very odd story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46814527

BBC said:
So-called Brexit survival kits costing almost £300 are being sold ahead of the UK leaving the EU.

The packs include enough freeze-dried food to last 30 days, a water filter and fire starting gel.

Surely if you are that worried you would just go to Tesco and stock up on tinned food and UHT milk! No nee dot be rinsed for £300! I might get a few extra tins of soup in but i am fairly confident i can start a fire in the post brexit wilderness without any fancy gel!

Muttley · 14 Jan 2019

trash80 said:
You are right i am sorry. I've spent too much on the general discussion forum lately, it tends to poison the mind a bit by nature of the topics.

No problem.
The Milky Bars are on me.

Geezertronic · 14 Jan 2019

DarloRich said:
This is a very odd story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46814527

Surely if you are that worried you would just go to Tesco and stock up on tinned food and UHT milk! No nee dot be rinsed for £300! I might get a few extra tins of soup in but i am fairly confident i can start a fire in the post brexit wilderness without any fancy gel!

It's probably a £50 box of stuff being sold at a premium to those who are naive enough to buy it

DynamicSpirit · 14 Jan 2019

DarloRich said:
This is a very odd story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46814527

Surely if you are that worried you would just go to Tesco and stock up on tinned food and UHT milk! No nee dot be rinsed for £300! I might get a few extra tins of soup in but i am fairly confident i can start a fire in the post brexit wilderness without any fancy gel!

Hahaha! I'm not surprised that someone would do that. £300??? Wow! I have to admit that if no-deal continues to look at all likely, I'll probably start buying more tins than usual over the next few months just in case, but as you say that will cost a tiny fraction of £300 to get the same amount of food. Extra tins in the cupboard aren't exactly a huge problem and I'd eat them eventually anyway (the contents, not the actual tins

)

Even if no-deal doesn't cause shortages, it's a virtual certainty that it'll cause price rises in the following months because of likely falls in the £, so stocking up would at least save some money if no-deal happens. (On the other hand, if we end up staying in the EU, the £ will go up and food prices are more likely to fall so then anyone stocking up will be a bit out of pocket. Oh what a delight all this uncertainty is

).

Revilo · 14 Jan 2019

HH said:
"Ever closer union" is something I would vote for. Why is working more closely with other, like-minded countries seen as a bad thing? Why would anyone want to not work together?

Id like us to work closely with countries across the world. Being in the EU prevents us from signing deals with most of them on our own terms.

DynamicSpirit · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
Id like us to work closely with countries across the world. Being in the EU prevents us from signing deals with most of them on our own terms.

How do you propose to get other countries to sign deals on 'our own terms'? Send troops in to occupy those countries until they submit to our terms?

Revilo · 14 Jan 2019

?? On our own terms meaning we (the UK) negotiate with the third country rather than having our hands tied by the EU

Basher · 14 Jan 2019

How can we trust them see.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zHdrJEh_Ng

Esker-pades · 14 Jan 2019

Basher said:
How can we trust them see.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zHdrJEh_Ng

I agree. We can't trust UKIP MEPs.

Ianno87 · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
Id like us to work closely with countries across the world. Being in the EU prevents us from signing deals with most of them on our own terms.

Can you spectify what's wrong exactly with the terms we get via the EU? Or in fact do you not know at all and just spouting typical meaningless Brexiteer wibble?

DynamicSpirit · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
?? On our own terms meaning we (the UK) negotiate with the third country rather than having our hands tied by the EU

Umm, that's not actually what you said: You specifically said sign deals... on our own terms

Revilo said:
Id like us to work closely with countries across the world. Being in the EU prevents us from signing deals with most of them on our own terms.

Obviously, that's not going to happen (short of occupying other countries). To my mind, that's just another example of Brexit politicians making fantasy predictions of life outside the EU. As I'm guessing you realise, we can walk into negotiations with other countries with what we want in mind. But what we want and what we actually get in any negotiations are very different things. That is just as true outside the EU as it is inside the EU.

HH · 14 Jan 2019

We would obviously get better deals than the EU, because our negotiators are s**t hot. I mean look how well they did in the Brexit negotiations...

ROFLMAO

Revilo · 14 Jan 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
Umm, that's not actually what you said: You specifically said sign deals... on our own terms

Obviously, that's not going to happen (short of occupying other countries). To my mind, that's just another example of Brexit politicians making fantasy predictions of life outside the EU. As I'm guessing you realise, we can walk into negotiations with other countries with what we want in mind. But what we want and what we actually get in any negotiations are very different things. That is just as true outside the EU as it is inside the EU.

Yes I agree. The deals would be a negotiation and, as with any negotiation, it requires compromise and both sides doesn't get everything they want. The point being that the UK can conduct its side of the negotiations in the interests of the U.K. alone, while the EU has to satify all of its members first. It means it takes much longer and can't include things that might conflict with one member's interests. In short the UK can be more nimble alone.

Revilo · 14 Jan 2019

HH said:
We would obviously get better deals than the EU, because our negotiators are s**t hot. I mean look how well they did in the Brexit negotiations...

ROFLMAO

That's because we had Remainers in charge, who wrongly assumed that the only thing Leave voters cared about was immigration.

Esker-pades · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
Yes I agree. The deals would be a negotiation and, as with any negotiation, it requires compromise and both sides doesn't get everything they want. The point being that the UK can conduct its side of the negotiations in the interests of the U.K. alone, while the EU has to satify all of its members first. It means it takes much longer and can't include things that might conflict with one member's interests. In short the UK can be more nimble alone.

Firstly, any negotiation takes years to sign and ratify, so the idea that the UK would be more nimble would make little (if no) difference.

Secondly, assuming that the UK would be able to be more nimble in a negotiation, would this be a good thing? The EU offers protection to its members, and the plurality and combined power means that the EU will get more favourable deals than a single EU (or ex-EU) state would be able to get. Thus, the UK would have to make more concessions to get these deals, especially with more powerful states (US, Japan, China, Brazil etc.) which would have to make up for the additional cost that would be incurred with being able to trade less easily with the EU.

Also, nimble to do what? To me, that suggests making more trade-offs. These trade-offs that may not well be in the interests of most people. A possible trade deal with the US would have to include some form of relaxing our food standards in order to allow their agricultural products in. This is before we have made significant trade-offs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus ensuring the NHS is in a worse position than it already is. The US loves to insert some very nasty little clauses into trade agreements which effectively mean that UK sovereignty is challenged by large US multinational corporations. Clauses such as "any legislation that may harm the profitability of..." are particularly vicious. The US doesn't just sting smaller states with this kind of thing, it also does it to large states (Australia springs to mind).

Revilo said:
That's because we had Remainers in charge, who wrongly assumed that the only thing Leave voters cared about was immigration.

Famed Remainers David Davis and Dominic Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab as Brexit Secretaries. Then there's pro-immigration Nigel Farage who famously stayed very quiet throughout thie process. To pretend that ending freedom of movement was not one of the biggest things that the majority of leave voters wanted is incorrect.

Revilo · 14 Jan 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Firstly, any negotiation takes years to sign and ratify, so the idea that the UK would be more nimble would make little (if no) difference.

Nimble not just in time but also in coverage, eg not having to satisfy protectionist French farmers for example.

Secondly, assuming that the UK would be able to be more nimble in a negotiation, would this be a good thing? The EU offers protection to its members, and the plurality and combined power means that the EU will get more favourable deals than a single EU (or ex-EU) state would be able to get. Thus, the UK would have to make more concessions to get these deals, especially with more powerful states (US, Japan, China, Brazil etc.) which would have to make up for the additional cost that would be incurred with being able to trade less easily with the EU.

That assumes the UK is in a worse position to negotiate with a third country than the EU, but that's not always going to be the case. Plurality is a bar to getting the deal in the first place.

Also, nimble to do what? To me, that suggests making more trade-offs. These trade-offs that may not well be in the interests of most people. A possible trade deal with the US would have to include some form of relaxing our food standards in order to allow their agricultural products in. This is before we have made significant trade-offs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus ensuring the NHS is in a worse position than it already is. The US loves to insert some very nasty little clauses into trade agreements which effectively mean that UK sovereignty is challenged by large US multinational corporations. Clauses such as "any legislation that may harm the profitability of..." are particularly vicious. The US doesn't just sting smaller states with this kind of thing, it also does it to large states (Australia springs to mind).

Whether the trade offs make the deal acceptable will depend on the merits of each case, but it will be British politicians who decide whether we agree, based the UK's interests, rather than EU politicians, who will have all sorts of competing and conflicting interests to balance, because of the large number of states (and getting larger. Who knows who will join in the next 40 years, it the EU survives that long)

Famed Remainers David Davis and Dominic Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab as Brexit Secretaries. Then there's pro-immigration Nigel Farage who famously stayed very quiet throughout thie process. To pretend that ending freedom of movement was not one of the biggest things that the majority of leave voters wanted is incorrect.

It was Olly Ribbins in charge. Raaaaab was only in the job a few weeks. Freedom of Movement was undoubtedly a factor, but not the only reason for the Leave vote.

Esker-pades · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
It was Olly Ribbins in charge. Raaaaab was only in the job a few weeks. Freedom of Movement was undoubtedly a factor, but not the only reason for the Leave vote.

But portrayed to be one of the biggest factors by the Leave campaign's main people. It is not unreasonable to assume that ending freedom of movement was one of the non-negotiable factors that the UK would have to stick to.

Revilo · 14 Jan 2019

(Responded to other points but in quote by mistake, apologies)

I'm not disputing that Freedom of movement wasn't a big factor, but it all comes back to the question of who has sovereignty and control ie who decides what level and type of immigration we have, the UK or the EU. Surely we are best placed to decide the best mix, based on our own needs.

thejuggler · 14 Jan 2019

Its freedom of movement of labour and the UK has all the tools it needs to restrict such movement. If UK Governments decide not to use those tools now don't expect them to use them once we leave.

HH · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
(Responded to other points but in quote by mistake, apologies)

I'm not disputing that Freedom of movement wasn't a big factor, but it all comes back to the question of who has sovereignty and control ie who decides what level and type of immigration we have, the UK or the EU. Surely we are best placed to decide the best mix, based on our own needs.

Are we? Well then it seems like we decide to have open borders. So, what was the big fuss about?

HH · 14 Jan 2019

Revilo said:
It was Olly Ribbins in charge. Raaaaab was only in the job a few weeks. Freedom of Movement was undoubtedly a factor, but not the only reason for the Leave vote.

I believe that a certain fat Blond Man was Foreign Secretary for a while, a job he handled with subtlety and panache...

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member