EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Enthusiast]

How are those specific tariffs affecting you?

Every time I buy oranges, rice, clothing or unicycles.

I was being deliberately obtuse with the unicycles and umbrellas. But you miss my point. It isn't what the EU does. In fact some things they do I quite agree with. It's the fact that they can do it. No country should allow a foreign institution to determine its affairs. As I'm sure you understand but continue to ask "how does this or that affect you?"; "What don't you agree with?"; "What don't you like?". I didn't, by the way, get my info from the Express.

The essence is I do not like the UK's trade policies determined by foreign officials. The idea that because we have 10% of the members in the EU "Parliament" means that it is somehow all jolly and democratic is simply laughable. 90% of the MEPs are not from the UK and may not act necessarily in the UK's best interests.

Which 'unelected' Eurocrats are you referring to?

All bar the MEPs, (of which the UK has just 10%) who have no power to initiate or revise legislation. A few of the others may be appointees from the UK but they were not elected to their positions by the UK electorate (or anybody else). They were appointed.

Anyway, all water under the bridge. You like the EU, I don't. Every response you receive when you ask why (not only from me) is dismissed. But we're still leaving next Friday.

 

[Esker-pades]

All bar the MEPs, (of which the UK has just 10%) who have no power to initiate or revise legislation. A few of the others may be appointees from the UK but they were not elected to their positions by the UK electorate (or anybody else). They were appointed.

I address the appointed bits (IE: by democratically elected governments).That doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Anyway, all water under the bridge. You like the EU, I don't. Every response you receive when you ask why (not only from me) is dismissed. But we're still leaving next Friday.

I just don't think it's bad, and that leaving will be far worse. We are leaving on Friday. I hope things aren't as bad as every government report suggests they will be.

 

[najaB]

No country should allow a foreign institution to determine its affairs.

Well, that's us out of the Geneva Convention, Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and Universal Declaration on Human Rights then...

 

[Grimsby town]

Every time I buy oranges, rice, clothing or unicycles.

I was being deliberately obtuse with the unicycles and umbrellas. But you miss my point. It isn't what the EU does. In fact some things they do I quite agree with. It's the fact that they can do it. No country should allow a foreign institution to determine its affairs. As I'm sure you understand but continue to ask "how does this or that affect you?"; "What don't you agree with?"; "What don't you like?". I didn't, by the way, get my info from the Express.

The essence is I do not like the UK's trade policies determined by foreign officials. The idea that because we have 10% of the members in the EU "Parliament" means that it is somehow all jolly and democratic is simply laughable. 90% of the MEPs are not from the UK and may not act necessarily in the UK's best interests.

All bar the MEPs, (of which the UK has just 10%) who have no power to initiate or revise legislation. A few of the others may be appointees from the UK but they were not elected to their positions by the UK electorate (or anybody else). They were appointed.

Anyway, all water under the bridge. You like the EU, I don't. Every response you receive when you ask why (not only from me) is dismissed. But we're still leaving next Friday.

I assume based upon this that you'd be all for the break up of the United Kingdom. After all its stupid for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to let the UK parliament decide trade policy when they have around 10% or less MPs.

I think a lot brexiters are massive hypocrites and can't really argue against Scotish Independence when they themselves didn't see the benefits of a union. Its arbitrary really. Where do you draw the line and say this union is fine and that one isn't. The UKhas a long intergrated history but it also has a history of war. The UK and Western Europe at least have long intergrated histories too.

 

[najaB]

I assume based upon this that you'd be all for the break up of the United Kingdom. After all its stupid for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to let the UK parliament decide trade policy when they have around 10% or less MPs.

At the very least anyone who is in favour of Brexit cannot also be opposed to referenda on Scottish independence and Irish unification.

 

[transmanche]

If you are referring to the interview on Channel 4 News then no, he didn't say that.

(Context: He was being pushed to answer whether he would resign (from what?) if the economy 'took a hit' in year 1)

It was a long interview - approx. 45 mins. But this is the salient part, so you can judge for yourself:

 

[Peter Kelford]

Sovereignty, unelected eurocrats, fishing rights and free trade

Sovereignty is not the choice of becoming the vassal state of one world power or another.
'Unelected' eurocrats are approved by a parliament more representative than our own (in the UK, parliament has no powers to approve/refuse cabinet appointments, whilst the EU parliament does).
Fishing rights go both ways. British fishermen raid the Baie de Somme every year for lucrative scallops while the tighter French fishing restrictions stop the French from fishing. The fishermen haven't been arrested, fined or otherwise punished thanks to the EU.
Free trade benefits all parties, as part of the EU we have leverage that we don't have on our own.

 

[Peter Kelford]

foreign institution to determine its affairs

Scotland shouldn't allow Westminster to determine its affairs.
NI shouldn't allow Westminster to determine its affairs.
Wales shouldn't allow Westminster to determine its affairs.
California shouldn't allow Washington to determine its affairs.
Washington shouldn't allow Washington to determine its affairs.
Corsica shouldn't allow Paris to determine its affairs.
Catalonia shouldn't allow Madrid to determine its affairs.
Hong Kong shouldn't allow Beijing to determine its affairs.
Tibet shouldn't allow Beijing to determine its affairs.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Well, that's us out of the Geneva Convention, Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and Universal Declaration on Human Rights then...

Or out of the UN in general.

 

[nidave]

If you are referring to the interview on Channel 4 News then no, he didn't say that.

(Context: He was being pushed to answer whether he would resign (from what?) if the economy 'took a hit' in year 1)

Yes he did

Rees-Mogg: “We will know at some point, of course we will. But it’s a question of timescale.”

Guru-Murthy: “So how long have you got?”
Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.”
Guru-Murthy: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”
Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...lfHUU7ouoNsGk8xBa4wxuNUgNR_5nVpXVmm5bNxARtuQ7

So its going to take approx 50 years to get back all the opportunities we had while a member of the EU

 

[ainsworth74]

So its going to take approx 50 years to get back all the opportunities we had while a member of the EU

Yes but in the mean time at least the chaps will make some really dosh. You've got to think of the important people here.

 

[nidave]

@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.

@Enthusiast
Also, how many UK civil servants are elected, how many people who are in positions of power and influence in the UK government are elected?

Dominic Rab (Edit: Cummings) seems to have a lot of influence but was not elected. Are you championing for his removal

 

[RichT54]

Dominic Rab seems to have a lot of influence but was not elected. Are you championing for his removal

Dominic Raab has been the elected MP for Esher and Walton since 2010. Did you mean Cummings?

 

[SteveP29]

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

Why didn't you mention David Cameron in that paragraph?
He was the de facto 'leader' of Remain, why is it Corbyn and Labour's fault?

 

[nidave]

Dominic Raab has been the elected MP for Esher and Walton since 2010. Did you mean Cummings?

yea sorry, that's who I meant.

 

[TrafficEng]

Yes he did

Without wishing to be argumentative, no he didn't.

You've actually quoted what he said in your post. By simple inspection it is easy to see what he said isn't what you are claiming.

“The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”
=/=
"it would take approx 50 years to get back to where we vwere while an EU member"

To illustrate the point, if you said "The overwhelming opportunity for HS2 contractors is over the next 10 years" you wouldn't mean HS2 contractors won't break even before 2030.

You'd mean that the contractors have the opportunity to make profits and loss over a 10 year period and only towards the end of that timeframe does it make sense to judge the outcome.

Or to put it another way - anyone who suggests the directors of HS2 contractors should resign if they haven't made a profit by the end of the first month is being a bit of a plank. Which Mogg is far too polite to say on camera.

So its going to take approx 50 years to get back all the opportunities we had while a member of the EU

It might do. It might not. Nobody knows.

Which is why Mogg was telling Guru-Murthy to stop being a plank for suggesting he should resign in year 1 if Brexit isn't going well. The question was idiotic.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Without wishing to be argumentative, no he didn't.

You've actually quoted what he said in your post. By simple inspection it is easy to see what he said isn't what you are claiming.

“The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”
=/=
"it would take approx 50 years to get back to where we vwere while an EU member"

To illustrate the point, if you said "The overwhelming opportunity for HS2 contractors is over the next 10 years" you wouldn't mean HS2 contractors won't break even before 2030.

You'd mean that the contractors have the opportunity to make profits and loss over a 10 year period and only towards the end of that timeframe does it make sense to judge the outcome.

Or to put it another way - anyone who suggests the directors of HS2 contractors should resign if they haven't made a profit by the end of the first month is being a bit of a plank. Which Mogg is far too polite to say on camera.

It might do. It might not. Nobody knows.

Which is why Mogg was telling Guru-Murthy to stop being a plank for suggesting he should resign in year 1 if Brexit isn't going well. The question was idiotic.

If I understand you correctly, we've opted out of a stable system with a known growth plan for a gamble ("It might do. It might not. Nobody knows.") which will not payback for over 50 years?

And you're OK with that?

Still waiting for the tangible benefit, by the way......

 

[TrafficEng]

If I understand you correctly, we've opted out of a stable system with a known growth plan for a gamble ("It might do. It might not. Nobody knows.") which will not payback for over 50 years?

And you're OK with that?

Still waiting for the tangible benefit, by the way......

What is this "known growth plan"? Could you tell me where I could find a copy please?

Also, did we have one of these mysterious plans in 2007 when this "stable system" rapidly went t**s-up?

 

[najaB]

Also, did we have one of these mysterious plans in 2007 when this "stable system" rapidly went t**s-up?

The bank liquidity crisis of 2008 would have happened regardless of being in the EU or out.

 

[Esker-pades]

Self-inflicted economic sanctions for the possibility that things might be a bit better, but it will result in "the near destruction of our manufacturing and agricultural sectors".

 

[nidave]

It might do. It mig
ht not. Nobody knows.

Oh good - that makes it all worthwhile now, I am a changed Dinosaur. /s

Joking aside do you think this is a good situation to be in and are ok with it?

 

[TrafficEng]

The bank liquidity crisis of 2008 would have happened regardless of being in the EU or out.

Completely agree. As could all the other unknown events that might take place in the next 50 years or so.

Hence it is illusory to believe EU membership represents a "stable system with a known growth plan".

It could be argued that membership of a large trading bloc with internal economic levers provides a level of protection against external financial shock. Conversely, political and economic integration reduces an individual member state's ability to be agile and ties it to a 'one size fits all' economic policy.

My own view of what the World might look like over the next 50 years suggests to me that agility is going to be a valuable commodity. More valuable than being tethered to a political union with highly complex political and economic interdependancies with the rest of the world, both at the union and the individual state level.

The value I place on agility is partly based on my perception of how the UK economy reacted to the events of 2007/08 and that not being part of the Euro was beneficial to us. (although next time it might not be, whether in the EU or not)

If we are never going to join the Euro (at least not within a generation or two) then it is valid to question the whole of the UK's commitment and rationale for participation in European integration. (Remainers always remind us of our ability to opt out, but what is the point of being in a club you are always trying to find a way of avoiding getting involved in?)

If the UK had a small population and small economy then the argument to Remain would be stronger. I might have been a Remainer myself.

But the response Cameron got to his "renegotiation" and talk of a "two-speed Europe" is what sealed my vote. The choice needed to be "all in" or "all out".

The Remain campaign was flawed because it was based on "status quo" and not "all in". It desperately clung to that position on issues (e.g. Turkey) that would have been far better handled by demonstrating the positives of expanding the EU to include additional members. Denials that Turkey might join the EU (one day) were ludicrous in the face of facts (it has been a long-term ambition of both parties) and frankly insulting to the people of Turkey that somehow their country couldn't join the EU.

The reason the Remain campaign stuck so closely to "status quo" is because if it talked about the real opportunities EU membership offers through "all in" it would turn more people to Leave and so lose the vote.

The real "status quo" of the Remain campaign was to perpetuate the tactic in use from the 1970's of not being candid with the British public about what European integration really means. It started with the "Common Market" and continues with "we have a veto".

And it is for that reason when someone says "give me a benefit of leaving the EU" that I'd probably respond with "give me a benefit of having a single defence policy". Having read "But there isn't an EU army" many hundreds of times it's got to the point I don't bother responding. Which you wrongly chose to interpret as "Doesn't have an answer".

Finally, a question to you. What exactly is the subtle difference between "decline" and "refuse"?

 

[TrafficEng]

Oh good - that makes it all worthwhile now, I am a changed Dinosaur. /s

Joking aside do you think this is a good situation to be in and are ok with it?

No, I think it is a bad situation to be in. But I'm ok with it because in the real world it is the situation we are constantly in and there is nothing we can do about it.

The idea EU membership can prevent bad things happening and always make us financially better off is illusory. More details in my previous post.

 

[Puffing Devil]

What is this "known growth plan"? Could you tell me where I could find a copy please?

Also, did we have one of these mysterious plans in 2007 when this "stable system" rapidly went t**s-up?

OK - I'll rephrase:

If I understand you correctly, we've opted out of a stable system of established trading and regional alignment for a gamble ("It might do. It might not. Nobody knows.") which will not payback for over 50 years?

And you're OK with that?

Still waiting for the tangible benefit, by the way......

 

[AY1975]

People travelled, studied, worked and lived in Europe before the EU. Maybe you are too young to remember that?

Well the pre-EU era was before my time, but I knew that UK citizens could and did travel, study, work and live in mainland Europe (and people from the rest of Europe visited and lived in the UK) before we joined the EU (and indeed before the EU existed), but they would have faced more bureaucracy than they have done up until now (and probably will do again in future as we will become third country nationals).

I believe that in the 1950s and '60s there were strict limits on how much currency we could take with us when travelling abroad. Also, there is no guarantee that the European health insurance card (EHIC) will still be valid. See https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...ill-still-be-valid/ar-BBZ9g2F?ocid=spartanntp

 

[AY1975]

Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver, was the EU something that you ever thought about much before David Cameron decided to call an in/out referendum?

Are there any Leavers on here who will admit that they probably wouldn't have given a damn about the EU if Cameron hadn't decided to call the referendum?

Let us not forget that the ref was called primarily to appease the Tory Eurosceptics and because Cameron realised that the Tories were losing a lot of votes from Eurosceptic voters to UKIP, thereby handing many key marginal seats to Labour or the Lib Dems by default. Surveys showed that the EU wasn't the most pressing issue for most voters in the run-up to the 2015 election: most people were most concerned about the issues that really matter like jobs, the economy, education, housing and the NHS.

If the EU genuinely had been most people's most pressing concern, then the Tories would have won a much bigger majority in 2015. As it was, they only just managed to convince enough Eurosceptic voters to vote for them to secure a slender majority of just 12.

 

[edwin_m]

An economy that trades less widely is putting all its eggs in one basket and is more vulnerable to financial shocks. Leaving the EU is likely to reduce our trade with them, with little to no compensatory benefit from trading elsewhere, and will almost certainly damage several sectors of our economy. Therefore in all probability it will make it harder to survive the next economic crisis.

The EU has been able to accommodate the various UK opt-outs, indicating that it isn't totally inflexible and can take account of differences between national economies. There might have been an avenue for reform in that direction if the UK had pushed for it instead of flouncing off.

The argument that we should leave the EU to be better prepared for some future event doesn't stand up. It's possible to foresee future events where being part of a big trading bloc is a benefit, such as the possible consequences of Trump's efforts to promote trade wars and dismantle the WTO. That's a real foreseeable risk and seems more likely than a repeat of 2008 where for some reason we couldn't have exploited again the advantageous position of being in the EU but not in the Euro. Why would you stop using your favourite pub because you think it might turn into a wine bar? Surely the best way is to stay in and argue for what you want, and the time to leave is if you don't get what you want and you decide that's important enough to forgo the other benefits?

I'm sorry, this type of argument just strikes me as inventing "facts" to suit your belief.

 

[najaB]

The value I place on agility is partly based on my perception of how the UK economy reacted to the events of 2007/08 and that not being part of the Euro was beneficial to us.

I don't believe that the case is made that it was. If you look at the numbers we were more strongly affected than the other EU nations with similar economies (France and Germany). The decline was sharper and our recovery was slower. Hopefully this link will work: https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/germany/uk?sector=Deficit+Percentage+of+GDP&sc=XE04#tbl

It could be argued that membership of a large trading bloc with internal economic levers provides a level of protection against external financial shock.

It's hard to argue against that position.

If we are never going to join the Euro (at least not within a generation or two) then it is valid to question the whole of the UK's commitment and rationale for participation in European integration.

While I personally would have been in favour of joining the Euro, I can see beyond the merely economic benefits of being part of the EU.

Finally, a question to you. What exactly is the subtle difference between "decline" and "refuse"?

When someone declines to answer the question, they don't reject the validity of the question but they don't answer it either. For example "Sorry, but I can't answer that at the moment." or "I don't think I can give a simple answer to that." or similar.

Refusing the question is when someone objects to the question itself or the questioner "I'm not going to answer a question phrased that way." or "You don't have the right to ask me that."

 

[nidave]

No, I think it is a bad situation to be in. But I'm ok with it because in the real world it is the situation we are constantly in and there is nothing we can do about it.

The idea EU membership can prevent bad things happening and always make us financially better off is illusory. More details in my previous post.

How about stay in the EU where we are part of the largest trading bloc in the world. A bloc which stands up to the USA.

We have Only 6 days to go until NHS funding increases by £350 million a week.

 

[TrafficEng]

OK - I'll rephrase:

If I understand you correctly, we've opted out of a stable system of established trading and regional alignment for a gamble ("It might do. It might not. Nobody knows.") which will not payback for over 50 years?

On what basis do you say it "will not payback for over 50 years"?

Where is the evidence and facts to support that statement? And I don't count as evidence someone misquoting what one politician has said.