• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
Wow , this thread is boring now.
Whether you voted leave or remain we are leaving , time to get on with things.
However I have always thought , instead of blaming people who voted leave and calling them racist, thick , stuck in the past and much , much more! Why not look and blame at how weak the remain campaign was, how weak labour and Corbyn were during the referendum to convince those who voted for leave to vote to stay.
How bad and weak all the remain MP’s and parties have been since the referendum, instead of being positive and trying to convince people that leave is not a good idea and this is why we should stay they went down the route of “ telling “ leavers they are thick , racist , stuck in the glory days and even worse threatening just to outright over turn their say by reversing the result.
On top of that you have an unelectable labour leader and indeed an unelectable Labour Party what else did you expect to happen , apart from voters getting the royal hump and vote / protest vote for Boris in the last election

The answer to all your questions is 'because they are an obfuscation', I think that all dissent against glorious Brexit would disappear if a single, valid way in which it is beneficial to Britain were highlighted. Three years ... just people saying 'well we can have curved bananas again' or something equally inane, untrue or misinformed.

Leavers may have won the vote but they have not won the argument by a long chalk. So I will continue to voice dissent because I believe that it is best to learn from the mistakes of history and fight for what is best for this country.

Sorry if that bores you or offends your delicate sensibilities (although perhaps you should consider not reading this thread in future if it bores or offends you).

[PS : You don't half remind me of Tony Blair saying 'Can't we just move on' after the Iraq War debacle]
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Gooner18

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
539
The answer to all your questions is 'because they are an obfuscation', I think that all dissent against glorious Brexit would disappear if a single, valid way in which it is beneficial to Britain were highlighted. Three years ... just people saying 'well we can have curved bananas again' or something equally inane, untrue or misinformed.

Leavers may have won the vote but they have not won the argument by a long chalk. So I will continue to voice dissent because I believe that it is best to learn from the mistakes of history and fight for what is best for this country.

Sorry if that bores you or offends your delicate sensibilities (although perhaps you should consider not reading this thread in future if it bores or offends you).

[PS : You don't half remind me of Tony Blair saying 'Can't we just move on' after the Iraq War debacle]


Wow you not half sound like a momentum lover , especially with the part I have highlighted, your reply to me perfectly sums it all up , thank you :)
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Wow , this thread is boring now.
Whether you voted leave or remain we are leaving , time to get on with things.
However I have always thought , instead of blaming people who voted leave and calling them racist, thick , stuck in the past and much , much more! Why not look and blame at how weak the remain campaign was, how weak labour and Corbyn were during the referendum to convince those who voted for leave to vote to stay.
How bad and weak all the remain MP’s and parties have been since the referendum, instead of being positive and trying to convince people that leave is not a good idea and this is why we should stay they went down the route of “ telling “ leavers they are thick , racist , stuck in the glory days and even worse threatening just to outright over turn their say by reversing the result.
On top of that you have an unelectable labour leader and indeed an unelectable Labour Party what else did you expect to happen , apart from voters getting the royal hump and vote / protest vote for Boris in the last election

I have never called out Brexiteers as racist, thick or stupid. I am genuinely interested in a positive reason to leave. No-one on this thread has been able to provide one. Sovereignty, unelected eurocrats, fishing rights and free trade frequently come up, though nothing better than we have now. Nor has anyone been able to point out anything that we have at the moment that they don't want

It would be great to have a benchmark that we can look at in 5 years time and see how the promises and expectations stack up. Unfortunately, not one Brexiteer seems able or willing to provide their concrete reasons. In fact, they seem to go to the ends of the earth to list reasons why they won't divulge that super sensitive information. Surely it's easy just to say what they want? I think that speaks volumes and other people on this thread have drawn their own conclusions, as have I.

I didn't run the remain campaign; I left the Labour Party when it was evident the direction Corbyn and Momentum was taking it in. I personally underestimated the strength of the right wing propaganda machine and the lengths that they would go to in order to achieve their goal. I also had some faith in our politicians who knew that this was a bad idea for the country, many preferred instead to remain in power and push through Brexit. They should have done the honourable thing and resigned.

I will continue to campaign to return to Europe. On the 31st January, the Remainers will become the Rejoiners. Boris's lies will start to unravel and we'll see how the country feels after 5 years in a shrinking economy with more public service cuts.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Wow you not half sound like a momentum lover , especially with the part I have highlighted, your reply to me perfectly sums it all up , thank you :)

Personal insults do not win arguments. You're entitled to your incorrect opinion.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
I will continue to campaign to return to Europe. On the 31st January, the Remainers will become the Rejoiners.
While I share your sentiment, I don't consider myself a Remainer, nor will I consider myself a Rejoiner. Those labels - "Leaver" and "Remainer" -should really have been put aside by now as they are tools used to divide.

Whatever happens now will affect us all.

I am a patriot who believes that the UK is best served by being in the EU rather than out and will fight for what I see as best for my fellow citizens and residents.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
The answer to all your questions is 'because they are an obfuscation', I think that all dissent against glorious Brexit would disappear if a single, valid way in which it is beneficial to Britain were highlighted. Three years ... just people saying 'well we can have curved bananas again' or something equally inane, untrue or misinformed.

Leavers may have won the vote but they have not won the argument by a long chalk. So I will continue to voice dissent because I believe that it is best to learn from the mistakes of history and fight for what is best for this country.

Sorry if that bores you or offends your delicate sensibilities (although perhaps you should consider not reading this thread in future if it bores or offends you).

[PS : You don't half remind me of Tony Blair saying 'Can't we just move on' after the Iraq War debacle]

Wow you not half sound like a momentum lover , especially with the part I have highlighted, your reply to me perfectly sums it all up , thank you :)

More obfuscation ... still not articulating a Brexit benefit for Britain. You might think about the irony of your protestations about Remainers.
 

Gooner18

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
539
More obfuscation ... still not articulating a Brexit benefit for Britain. You might think about the irony of your protestations about Remainers.

sorry , where have I made protestations against remain or leave voters ? Indeed why do you think I am a leave voter ?
As for the benefit of leaving , we may end up making a massive success of it , who knows.
I certainly don’t have the background knowledge to make a formal view on that.

But your attitude perfectly backs up my post
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
sorry , where have I made protestations against remain or leave voters ? Indeed why do you think I am a leave voter ?
As for the benefit of leaving , we may end up making a massive success of it , who knows.

Define "success", please.

Right now, that appears to be limited to avoiding an economic crash or avoiding the country replicating 1930s Germany.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
sorry , where have I made protestations against remain or leave voters ? Indeed why do you think I am a leave voter ?
As for the benefit of leaving , we may end up making a massive success of it , who knows.
I certainly don’t have the background knowledge to make a formal view on that.

But your attitude perfectly backs up my post

You protested that, presumably Remainers were ... "blaming people who voted leave and calling them racist, thick , stuck in the past and much , much more!". I'm guessing (but may be way off the mark) that you are not saying that Leave voters say this.

So the argument for Brexit is that we 'may end up making a success of it'. Laughable. Do you not see why some people don't regard the argument for Brexit as not having been won.

I don't know what your problem with my 'attitude' is or how it backs up any point you are attempting to make or not.
 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
398
Do you not see why some people don't regard the argument for Brexit as not having been won.

I think the problem lies with Brexiteers expecting Remainers to embrace Brexit as they see it as a victory and can't comprehend why others don't see it such.

In reality it is fast becoming obvious that rather than everyone winning, everyone is losing.

Now if someone wants to define a tangible benefit, then I'm all ears, untill then this is whole decable is just that.

We're going round in circles, so please someone convince me why Brexit is good.

It needs to be something that can be quantified as I like to deal with material reality and not in pipe dreams...
 
Last edited:

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
398
Not being in the EU any more.

People don't necessarily value things the same way you do, and thanks to democracy they are entitled to vote they way they deem best.

So nothing concrete then.

"Why do you want to go outside?"

"Because it isn't inside."

Vs

"Why do you want to go outside?"

"I much prefer the fresh air, natural light and open space."
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
385
I think the problem lies with Brexiteers expecting Remainers to embrace Brexit as they see it as a victory and can't comprehend why others don't see it such.

In reality it is fast becoming obvious that rather than everyone winning, everyone is losing.

Now if someone wants to define a tangible benefit, then I'm all ears, untill then this is whole decable is just that.

We're going round in circles, so please someone convince me why Brexit is good.

It needs to be something that can be quantified as I like to deal with material reality and not in pipe dreams...

Exactly, its not my job as a remainer to jump aboard the Brexit ship as it sails towards the iceberg in my opinion. Its brexiters job to convince me that there is no iceberg and start showing there are tangible benefits to be had. Most brexiters are too busy telling the remainers they lost to heal the divide.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Not being in the EU any more.

People don't necessarily value things the same way you do, and thanks to democracy they are entitled to vote they way they deem best.

Did I ever deny your right to vote or think as you please?

What's the value of being out of the EU? How's it going to make life better?
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,043
Sovereignty, unelected eurocrats, fishing rights and free trade frequently come up, though nothing better than we have now.
Sovereignty - we don't currently have sovereignty. We are subject to laws originating elsewhere than in the UK Parliament by people we didn't elect. Transgressions are handled in a foreign court.
Unelected Eurocrats - there are plenty.
Fishing Rights - are not ours to use or negotiate. They are "common resources".
Free Trade - we cannot trade freely at present without permission.

All of those you mention should be better than we have now after we've left (unless you believe the current situation is better that we will have).

Nor has anyone been able to point out anything that we have at the moment that they don't want
How about foreign officials framing laws to which we are subject and disputes about which are adjudicated in a foreign court?

How about a duly elected government not being able to spend taxpayers' money as it sees fit?

How about tariffs (16%) on oranges?

How about tariffs (€65 per tonne) on brown rice?

How about tariffs (11.5%) on processed coffee?

How about tariffs (4.7%) on umbrellas with a telescopic shaft (and no, I'm not making it up)?

How about tariffs (15%) on unicycles (Ditto)?

How about 37% of all import tariffs levied by the UK (on behalf of the EU) being applied to clothing at footwear?

A large proportion of EU tariffs are levied on food products. But the UK is scarcely 60% self-sufficient in foodstuffs and it makes no sense to produce stuff which can be bought more cheaply elsewhere. So how does it make sense to apply tariffs (80% of which is submitted directly to Brussels, the remainder being kept to cover the cost of collecting it) to such imports? Why on Earth should the UK pay these tariffs to protect European businesses, many of which (e.g. rice, oranges and probably unicycles) the UK has no sector of its own? The entire EU tariff system is a protection racket designed to protect EU businesses from competition from abroad.

So there's a few things we have at the moment (which will no doubt be dismissed as irrelevant or de minimis) which I don't want (there's lots more). And hopefully we'll be rid of those the UK government chooses to abandon once we're properly rid of that wretched organisation called the EU.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,630
Did I ever deny your right to vote or think as you please?
You are the one ranting about rights being "stolen" and saying that this is unacceptable.

What's the value of being out of the EU? How's it going to make life better?
Well I very much doubt you will accept any of my arguments.

But personally a postiive of being out of the EU would be escaping the clutches of the Railway and Electricity Directives. Which tend to entrench operating models in those industries that I fundamentally disagree with.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Sovereignty - we don't currently have sovereignty. We are subject to laws originating elsewhere than in the UK Parliament by people we didn't elect. Transgressions are handled in a foreign court.

These laws (please tell me specifically which ones you object to) were made with the agreement of our MEPs. We could veto the ones our elected representatives do not agree with. We were not bound by anything that we did not want to be bound by.

We were a part of the EU Justice system, much as we are also a part of the UN justice system. I could accept the foreign tag if it were, say, the USA that was ruling. It is not.

I'm wondering which EU law has affected you?

Unelected Eurocrats - there are plenty.

And your quantifiable issue is, exactly?

Fishing Rights - are not ours to use or negotiate. They are "common resources".

They have been negotiated, though. There is a fisheries committee, where we had a say. A certain Mr Farage was our representative. Shame he only showed up for a couple of meetings. The quotas we had could be, and were, traded. Other governments prevented this, ours let them be sold to other nations.

Free Trade - we cannot trade freely at present without permission.

What better deals do you think you could make than we have now? What deal do you think we should have cut that we have not? I would also say that it's not "permission", it's a group endeavour.

All of those you mention should be better than we have now after we've left (unless you believe the current situation is better that we will have).
How about foreign officials framing laws to which we are subject and disputes about which are adjudicated in a foreign court?
How about a duly elected government not being able to spend taxpayers' money as it sees fit?

You seem to be back to "should", not will. Are you not sure what you voted for? Perhaps you can give me an example of where our government was prevented from spending money as it sees fit?

How about tariffs (16%) on oranges?
How about tariffs (€65 per tonne) on brown rice?
How about tariffs (11.5%) on processed coffee?
How about tariffs (4.7%) on umbrellas with a telescopic shaft (and no, I'm not making it up)?
How about tariffs (15%) on unicycles (Ditto)?
How about 37% of all import tariffs levied by the UK (on behalf of the EU) being applied to clothing at footwear?

Trade agreements have tariffs. WTO rules have tariffs. Are you proposing that we open our doors to free trade with everyone? Or are you unhappy with the tariff on the items that you've identified? How are those specific tariffs affecting you?


A large proportion of EU tariffs are levied on food products. But the UK is scarcely 60% self-sufficient in foodstuffs and it makes no sense to produce stuff which can be bought more cheaply elsewhere. So how does it make sense to apply tariffs (80% of which is submitted directly to Brussels, the remainder being kept to cover the cost of collecting it) to such imports? Why on Earth should the UK pay these tariffs to protect European businesses, many of which (e.g. rice, oranges and probably unicycles) the UK has no sector of its own? The entire EU tariff system is a protection racket designed to protect EU businesses from competition from abroad.

Any trade agreement is, in some way, protectionist. We were trading as a bloc, securing the benefits for all those in the bloc. Now we'll be going it alone, trying to protect our own businesses from competition from abroad. What price do you think the USA will be extracting for access to their markets? Drugs pricing, food standards? We'll no longer have access to a large market on our side.

I will agree that the major beneficiary of the EU import duties is the EU budget. The alternative would be to retain the duties and increase our funding of the EU. The EU is not "stealing" the duties.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
You are the one ranting about rights being "stolen" and saying that this is unacceptable.

I did indeed say that my children's rights had been stolen from them. I couldn't see much of a rant in there, or how that in any way impacted your right to vote. Perhaps you can explain how you came to that conclusion?

Well I very much doubt you will accept any of my arguments.
But personally a postiive of being out of the EU would be escaping the clutches of the Railway and Electricity Directives. Which tend to entrench operating models in those industries that I fundamentally disagree with.

Great - a concrete position. Which element of those directives do you disagree with and how has it affected you personally?
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
@Enthusiast

Which 'unelected' Eurocrats are you referring to? There are parts of the EU that are not directly elected, but most of those are appointed either unilaterally by governments (IE: we appoint who we want to represent us, and every other member state does the same), or by collective vote from officials/MEPs already elected.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,630
Great - a concrete position. Which element of those directives do you disagree with and how has it affected you personally?
The railway directives fundamentally entrench an operating model similar to that which we now have in the UK, which I want to tear down. (Fundamentally they require contracting out of all subsidised public rail services, which I disagree with as I wish to return to a unitary vertically integrated operator)

The electricity directive mandates an operating model extremely similar to that found in the UK at the moment, which again I fundamentally disagree with.

I want a return to a public monopoly operator with vertical integration along the lines of the traditional model. I believe public financing can fundamnetally deliver cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy to the public.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
The railway directives fundamentally entrench an operating model similar to that which we now have in the UK, which I want to tear down. (Fundamentally they require contracting out of all subsidised public rail services, which I disagree with as I wish to return to a unitary vertically integrated operator)

The electricity directive mandates an operating model extremely similar to that found in the UK at the moment, which again I fundamentally disagree with.

I want a return to a public monopoly operator with vertical integration along the lines of the traditional model. I believe public financing can fundamnetally deliver cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy to the public.

My understanding is that the railways directive requires the separation of infrastructure and service, primarily to ensure that there is open access to the permanent way. There is a requirement that the system is run on a commercial basis, there is no requirement for it not to be a state operation. SNCF remains a state company; there is no reason why the UK should not return to a single, state-owned, operator. This was a Labour policy at the last election.

You may believe that a publicly financed energy system would be cheaper, cleaner and more reliable is a worthy view. Ironically, this was a policy of the Labour Party at the last election. There was nothing in EU directive preventing the renationalisation of the distribution infrastructure.

It appears that you have voted for Brexit based on two issues, both of which could have been resolved whilst in remaining in the EU and supporting a Labour government.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,630
My understanding is that the railways directive requires the separation of infrastructure and service, primarily to ensure that there is open access to the permanent way.
Once you permit open access the way the EU has decided to implement it, you require a collosal bureaucratic infrastructure like the one we have now.
Complete with huge numbers of high powered lawyers arguing over the size of birds at the Delay Attributation Board.

Open access is a wedge that exists to force privatisation and fragmentation.
There is a requirement that the system is run on a commercial basis, there is no requirement for it not to be a state operation. SNCF remains a state company;
From last december, we are not permitted to have a rail monopoly in the EU.
And from 2023 all rail public service contracts will be required to be distributed by competitive tender.

Indeed in France, TER contracts are now to be competitively tendered - SNCF will inevitably die a death of a thousand cuts.

At best full privatisation would be required from 2033, and nationalising the railways for a decade before having to break them up again is an idiotic thing to do.

there is no reason why the UK should not return to a single, state-owned, operator. This was a Labour policy at the last election.
And without Brexit itw ould have ended up in an expensive battle with the EU that would have inevitably ended one way... with us losing.

Ironically, this was a policy of the Labour Party at the last election. There was nothing in EU directive preventing the renationalisation of the distribution infrastructure.
But the distribution infrastructure is a tiny part of the electricity system and one that makes virtually no difference?

There can be no monopoly at the retail end and we have to have an energy "market" which exists to line the pockets of the financiers.
I invite you to go and read the Electricity Directive and tell me otherwise.

Public ownership only makes any difference if we can have public ownership of the generating plant without restrictions placed on borrowing by state aid rules.
Which we emphatically cannot have in the current system.

It appears that you have voted for Brexit based on two issues, both of which could have been resolved whilst in remaining in the EU and supporting a Labour government.

When did I say I voted for Brexit?
I cast a blank ballot.
 
Last edited:

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Once you permit open access the way the EU has decided to implement it, you require a collosal bureaucratic infrastructure like the one we have now.
Complete with huge numbers of high powered lawyers arguing over the size of birds at the Delay Attributation Board.
From last december, we are not permitted to have a rail monopoly in the EU.
And from 2023 all rail public service contracts will be required to be distributed by competitive tender.
Indeed in France, TER contracts are now to be competitively tendered - SNCF will inevitably die a death of a thousand cuts.
And without Brexit itw ould have ended up in an expensive battle with the EU tha would inevitably ended one way... with us losing.
But the distribution infrastructure is a tiny part of the electricity system and one that makes virtually no difference?
There can be no monopoly at the retail end and we have to have an energy "market" which exists to line the pockets of the financiers.
I invite you to go and read the Electricity Directive and tell me otherwise.
Public ownership only makes any difference if we can have public ownership of the generating plant without restrictions placed on borrowing by state aid rules.
Which we emphatically cannot have in the current system.
When did I say I voted for Brexit?
I cast a blank ballot.

For someone who cast a blank ballot, you seem to be very keen on supporting Brexit.

To quote your source:

The market pillar therefore allows retention of infrastructure and operational functions within a single vertically-integrated holding company (variants of which exist in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Luxembourg) but with safeguards to ensure independence of the infrastructure manager, particularly in relation to capacity allocation and track access charges. There is no provision for mandatory unbundling.​

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Regarding the dissolution of the UK energy market, I can certainly concede that this would be a factor in deciding to support Brexit if this is something you felt passionate about. However, Brexit is very much the nuclear option in this regard. If the UK had decided to move to a nationalised model and the EU had objected to that model, I could see this being a valid concern. As it stands, no such move has been made by the UK to be denied by the EU. To my mind you're supporting Brexit to permit a hypothetical re-engineering of the UK energy market that has not been politically accepted in this country, nor has the EU even had a chance to comment on that proposal. If we had taken the proposal to the EU and had exhausted all avenues, you would have a solid reason. As it stands, you do not.

Neither of the examples above appears to have affected you personally. I agree, that it is potentially possible that the EU may prevent a future reorganisation of the UK energy market. However, as that re-organisation has not even been attempted, it certainly cannot be said that EU membership is preventing your market ideology from being implemented. The first stage in that would be to have a government democratically elected that supported your view and would seek to implement it. Until that occurs, there is no impact on you.

It looks like were back to the original question - What's the value of being out of the EU? How's it going to make life better? Do you have something real and tangible that does not require some future act of parliament in order to become an issue?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,630
For someone who cast a blank ballot, you seem to be very keen on supporting Brexit.
Well I'm not entirely devestated by Brexit occurring, although to be honest I think the Government has botched it catastrophically.

To quote your source:

The market pillar therefore allows retention of infrastructure and operational functions within a single vertically-integrated holding company (variants of which exist in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Luxembourg) but with safeguards to ensure independence of the infrastructure manager, particularly in relation to capacity allocation and track access charges. There is no provision for mandatory unbundling.​

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
So it allows the avoidance of unbundling, as long as it exacts exactly as an unbundled system would.
but with safeguards to ensure independence of the infrastructure manager, particularly in relation to capacity allocation and track access charges.

Means that this previous statement means absolutely nothing in reality.


This is a red herring that allows people to insist that vertical integration exists in principle whilst destroying it in practice.

Regarding the dissolution of the UK energy market, I can certainly concede that this would be a factor in deciding to support Brexit if this is something you felt passionate about. However, Brexit is very much the nuclear option in this regard. If the UK had decided to move to a nationalised model and the EU had objected to that model, I could see this being a valid concern. As it stands, no such move has been made by the UK to be denied by the EU. To my mind you're supporting Brexit to permit a hypothetical re-engineering of the UK energy market that has not been politically accepted in this country, nor has the EU even had a chance to comment on that proposal. If we had taken the proposal to the EU and had exhausted all avenues, you would have a solid reason. As it stands, you do not.
But the EU is specifically designed to make it almost impossible to change things.

We would have to have the support of enough governments to overwhelm the Blocking Minority.
And every other state that was not entirely on board with energy nationalisation would oppose it, because when our electricity rates collapsed thanks to the construction of huge amounts of low-operating cost generating plant made possible by our ludicrously cheap borrowing, there would be a huge movement of energy intensive industries to Britain.

The only way to counteract that would be for those governments to follow suit.

If the Thatcherite-leaning governments of the EU concede the UK running things this way, they would probably all have to run things this way.

Neither of the examples above appears to have affected you personally. I agree, that it is potentially possible that the EU may prevent a future reorganisation of the UK energy market. However, as that re-organisation has not even been attempted, it certainly cannot be said that EU membership is preventing your market ideology from being implemented. The first stage in that would be to have a government democratically elected that supported your view and would seek to implement it. Until that occurs, there is no impact on you.

But Brexit is now or never isn't it?
If the UK cancels Brexit now, the establishment will use it to kick Brexit into the lnog grass for 30 years or more, just like they did with electoral reform.
Just like they are trying to do with Scottish Independence (which I oppose).

There is no time to win a general election, get into a fight with the EU and Brexit over that.

It looks like were back to the original question - What's the value of being out of the EU? How's it going to make life better? Do you have something real and tangible that does not require some future act of parliament in order to become an issue?

We now get a chance to escape the overhang of Thatcherism, which we did not have before?
But like I said, I cast a blank ballot.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Sovereignty - we don't currently have sovereignty. We are subject to laws originating elsewhere than in the UK Parliament by people we didn't elect. Transgressions are handled in a foreign court.
Unelected Eurocrats - there are plenty.
Fishing Rights - are not ours to use or negotiate. They are "common resources".
Free Trade - we cannot trade freely at present without permission.

All of those you mention should be better than we have now after we've left (unless you believe the current situation is better that we will have).


How about foreign officials framing laws to which we are subject and disputes about which are adjudicated in a foreign court?

How about a duly elected government not being able to spend taxpayers' money as it sees fit?

How about tariffs (16%) on oranges?

How about tariffs (€65 per tonne) on brown rice?

How about tariffs (11.5%) on processed coffee?

How about tariffs (4.7%) on umbrellas with a telescopic shaft (and no, I'm not making it up)?

How about tariffs (15%) on unicycles (Ditto)?

How about 37% of all import tariffs levied by the UK (on behalf of the EU) being applied to clothing at footwear?

A large proportion of EU tariffs are levied on food products. But the UK is scarcely 60% self-sufficient in foodstuffs and it makes no sense to produce stuff which can be bought more cheaply elsewhere. So how does it make sense to apply tariffs (80% of which is submitted directly to Brussels, the remainder being kept to cover the cost of collecting it) to such imports? Why on Earth should the UK pay these tariffs to protect European businesses, many of which (e.g. rice, oranges and probably unicycles) the UK has no sector of its own? The entire EU tariff system is a protection racket designed to protect EU businesses from competition from abroad.

This list really piqued my curiosity, it's not every day that the subject of import duty on unicycles crops up. It appears that most of this original thought is culled from a number of pro-Brexit sources, including this piece in The Express

Britons could save £3BILLION a year after Brexit after explosion in EU tariffs revealed

[...]Unelected eurocrats in Brussels[...]some of the tariffs are daft - such as those covering unicycles[...]
This includes the fabulously jingoistic:

The EPC report highlights the issue of tomato ketchup - a staple British favourite - which is taxed at an import rate of 10.2 per cent compared to mayonnaise which attracts no tariff at all. Questioning the discrepancy, Mr Lewis writes: "It's a bit suspicious that there is no tariff at all on mayonnaise - the preferred accompanying chip sauce of choice on much of the continent."​

Which manages to weaponise mayonnaise whilst side stepping the fact that the vast majority of ketchup is made either in the UK or the EU and is not subject to any import duty.

There's more, unsurprisingly, in Brexit Central, claiming that developing countries are penalised by import duties. This is not the case in the EU where there are zero import tariffs for developing nations on "anything but arms".
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Well I'm not entirely devestated by Brexit occurring, although to be honest I think the Government has botched it catastrophically.
So it allows the avoidance of unbundling, as long as it exacts exactly as an unbundled system would.
Means that this previous statement means absolutely nothing in reality.
This is a red herring that allows people to insist that vertical integration exists in principle whilst destroying it in practice.
But the EU is specifically designed to make it almost impossible to change things.
We would have to have the support of enough governments to overwhelm the Blocking Minority.
And every other state that was not entirely on board with energy nationalisation would oppose it, because when our electricity rates collapsed thanks to the construction of huge amounts of low-operating cost generating plant made possible by our ludicrously cheap borrowing, there would be a huge movement of energy intensive industries to Britain.
The only way to counteract that would be for those governments to follow suit.
If the Thatcherite-leaning governments of the EU concede the UK running things this way, they would probably all have to run things this way.
But Brexit is now or never isn't it?
If the UK cancels Brexit now, the establishment will use it to kick Brexit into the lnog grass for 30 years or more, just like they did with electoral reform.
Just like they are trying to do with Scottish Independence (which I oppose).
There is no time to win a general election, get into a fight with the EU and Brexit over that.
We now get a chance to escape the overhang of Thatcherism, which we did not have before?
But like I said, I cast a blank ballot.

Nothing tangible in there at all. All I can see is a desire to achieve some change, though none of it has even been contemplated at a national level. I would suggest that a socialist government in the UK would be the ideal starting point to achieve your aims.

That said, we're well on the road to escaping the overhang of Thatcherism by electing our most right-wing government since the Iron Lady herself was stalking the corridors of number 10. Way to go!

Still waiting for something tangible, by the way.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,630
Nothing tangible in there at all. All I can see is a desire to achieve some change, though none of it has even been contemplated at a national level. I would suggest that a socialist government in the UK would be the ideal starting point to achieve your aims.
So what should people in the Lexit camp have done?

Voted remain, and then get roadblocked for the next 30 years because their proposed policies are against EU rules and the establishment was never going to allow another vote on Brexit as it was "once in a generation"?


That said, we're well on the road to escaping the overhang of Thatcherism by electing our most right-wing government since the Iron Lady herself was stalking the corridors of number 10. Way to go!
Well that wasn't me.

That was caused by a badly fought election where they made the mistake of going pretty much full remain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top