This is my point. I know you're only being belligerent and facetious, but your focus should have shifted to wanting what's best for your country, not for a terrible outcome just to give you some sort of personal moral victory.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
This is my point. I know you're only being belligerent and facetious, but your focus should have shifted to wanting what's best for your country, not for a terrible outcome just to give you some sort of personal moral victory.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I don't think the Brexiteers' focus ever shifted after the first referendum -- they remained intent on causing as much trouble as possible. Why should things be any different the other way round after a much closer vote? And I can't see what's wrong with looking forward to Schadenfreude in due course when things go desperately wrong for the deplorable right-wing jingoistic Brexiteer leading spokesmen like Michael Howard who seemed to be finding it very hard not to laugh whilst talking of the possibility of war over Gibraltar (and how would that work without French and American help?).
The Alistair Campbell position.
Not if you think that the only way to prevent a damaging outcome is for it to get (embarassingly) difficult before the real permanent damage is done. There is probably over a year left before we lose the option to withdraw from a position that those driving us into leaving have got us into. I think that is why there are some loopholes in the Article 50 application. There may even be an understanding between the UK and the EU negotiators as to how a climbdown could be engineered without rubbing the PM's nose in it given that she was (and may still be) thinking that remain was the better way ahead.
Patriotism has nothing to do with the electorate's support of government's policies or mistakes. It's a much-abused concept, - this time being used as a dog whistle by leave politicians as the leave position gets increasingly less secure.
There are two ways that thinking can go. If a mutually positive campaign is run by remainers and the EU then it is not impossible for the EU to offer some sort of associate, trade only membership to us which we might after a second referendum accept. Nothing unpatriotic there.
However, praying for a bad outcome in order to try to get the electorate to change its mind is not really on. I'm not saying this is something that you personally are advocating. It is also incredibly high risk. There is every chance that it will entrench views rather than change them.
We passed the 'best' junction ages ago. At this point we'll be lucky to end up on the 'least worst' highway.
I'd just like to insert "even" between "on" and "the".
KN1
Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 101
Should be doing at least 30 years, he's walking the streets apparently innocent similar to the IRA members waving their get out of jail free cards.
I can't see any common ground that would be required for a 'mutually positive' campaign. At the moment, those supposed to be in charge of negotiations are effectively shutting out all moderate views because they claim to know best. anybody who isn't 'with' them is deemed to be undemocratic, labelled remoaners and unpatriotic. So those whose views are suppressed (including by most of the mainstream media) can't engage in meaningful debate. The only course is to sit back and give them (the noisiest leavers) all the rope that they want to hang themselves. As you say, that comes with some risk to the country as a whole, but by various mechanisms, some open some furtive, there may be opportunities to broadcast a wake-up call before anything is set in concrete that will inevitably penalise those least able to afford it, irrespective of which way they voted and for what reason.
Praying is an irrelevant activity. Any non-leavers' prayers, indeed, prayers about anything have no impact outside their own mind, and are just self gratification. Observing each political faux pas from a position of impotence may have a similar sense of self-gratification, but if they are on the learning curve of what is perceived as a better outcome, then that is part of wanting the best for their country.
As far as entrenchment of views go, with the impending reality of serious economic difficulties, increasing poverty, unemployment and the parallel loss of rights gained under EU membership, only the most vindictive minority of society would doggedly refuse to accept the arguments that would be presented because the referendum was 'won by their side', especially by less than four percent of the vote.
That isn't quite what I meant. There is a risk that, with a bad deal and depending on the media treatment, people will think "why would I want to have anything to do with that organisation, which is so obviously anti-British / sneering / interfering with our territories / dogmatic / inflexible?".
Far from scaring people away from leaving, it might well confirm their suspicions about the union. I don't agree with all of that, and it's not what I meant by Blitz spirit, but I raise it as a strong possibility.
If I were a remainer, I would be trying to negotiate away the bad points of EEA membership (i.e. no say on single market issues) to arrive at a new, sustainable associate membership / EEA+ deal. This could be done in parallel with government, through think tanks, MEP networks, the media etc. Crucially, though, there would need to be a patriotic case for it. Although that word disgusts liberals, it is still a very important concept for many millions of voters. I would be trying to create a "New Deal for Britain" rather than calling people to protest at "Unite for Europe" events
Last edited:
I said he's a Jeremiah, not a war criminal. He'd rather see Brexit end badly to score a political point, than it end well and be proved wrong. A bad Brexit is the only way of removing the Tories and the left wing currently in control of the Labour Party. That's the problem with people who see everything through the prism of politics, a national disaster becomes a personal opportunity.
The war debate is an entirely different issue
Glad you agree that brexit is a national disaster. I personally know 3 people who have emmigrated since June, taking about £100k/year of income tax with them, not to mention the rest of their salaries out of the UK. Their clients are still in the UK, so that's just money flooding abroad.
Geezertronic
Established Member
That's a bit of an extreme reaction isn't it?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Gibraltar is not the United Kingdom. It is an autonomous state. It agreed to become part of the EEC in 1982, by agreement between it, Spain and the UK, an agreement which expressly states that this does not change either Spain's or the UK's attitude to the territory. Gibraltans did not have the right to vote in European elections until 2004, when it was added to the south west constituency after a European Court case forced the UK to allow it. Spain objected to this happening.
Other British dependencies such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the EEC.
Other Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch dependencies, such as the Azores, the Canary Islands and Saint Martin/Sint Maarten, are similarly only part of the EEC by agreement, and the customs union doesn't apply to most of them, which is why you can get duty free fags in Lanzarote.
Spain are quite right to point out that Gibraltar is a separate jurisdiction to the UK and that any agreement with the UK might not necessarily apply to Gibraltar.
Howard's comments about going to war with Spain were, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Other British dependencies such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the EEC.
Other Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch dependencies, such as the Azores, the Canary Islands and Saint Martin/Sint Maarten, are similarly only part of the EEC by agreement, and the customs union doesn't apply to most of them, which is why you can get duty free fags in Lanzarote.
Spain are quite right to point out that Gibraltar is a separate jurisdiction to the UK and that any agreement with the UK might not necessarily apply to Gibraltar.
Howard's comments about going to war with Spain were, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Only someone consumed by straw man politics would perceive disaster as the natural outcome of anything I wrote. The rest of your case is logically fallacious based on the inference that if you know three people who have emigrated they must represent the norm. People who leave before the negotiations have ended are likely to be heavily financially invested in and/or sponsored by the machinery of the EU, or complete ideologues. Neither are typical.
This is very true, but the flip side of that coin is how many EU nationals living and working in the UK in everyday jobs such as nursing will up sticks and leave on the basis that they dont feel welcome anymore? I rather feel that the likes of the NHS will really suffer longer term.
I think this problem should disappear when we are able to announce our plan for existing EU citizens and, hopefully, our plan for NHS resourcing in the future. Both sides now agree that rights of citizens should be top of the negotiating agenda.
EM2
Established Member
Why would the EU want to do us any favours? Their priority will be the 27, and what's best for the 27. It *might* be something that the UK also does well out of, but it will not be what is uppermost in the thoughts of the EU.
Applying " game theory " may well be of interest to all participants in this.
At this moment in time , I m wondering what the UK outlook would be in 2 years when supposedly we are actually officially out of the EU. Im not holding my breath just now.
Correct.
Happily it is in the 27's interests to have a decent free trade deal with the UK.
The only problem occurs if the EU starts to care more about itself than about the 27, and enters into a deal that is bad for both the UK and the 27, merely pour encourager les autres.
I'm sorry, you've lost me there. The EU is the 28 (soon to be 27).
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,175
Those with money - including those who voted Brexit! - can afford to leave at any time and take their cash with them.
That will make less money available for the poor to grab, who (a) can't afford to leave and (b) have lost their chance of gaining employment in the EU; so those voting Brexit because they have low incomes might be in for a very nasty shock.
With the resulting lowering of tax revenue (unless tax thresholds start at £0...) there will be more cuts, less in the way of social services, dole and other benefits would have to be cut and goodness knows what the NHS will be like.
Of course that's a worse-case senario; but how many with, let's say £500k + in the bank, will start to get itchy if inflation kicks in, pension incomes decrease and all that, when they can buy a nice apartment in the sun where costs are much less?
If doctors and teachers clear off now already for a better life, are we to see a money-drain?
I believe that a decent free trade deal would be good for the economies of every one of the 27 (and indeed a lack of a deal would be harmful for every one of the 27).
But such a deal might still not be forthcoming because the EU continuing in its present configuration might be elevated over the individual interests of each of the 27.
If only there were some way the EU council could be formed of the heads of government of EU countries. If only there was some way the EU commissioners could be chosen by the heads of government. If only the eu parliament was appointed by the population.
Or......if only there was a common market .....with no one actually in charge.
If you're saying that the 27 member states are really in control of this, you're right that they each have strong veto powers for the eventual trade deal (slightly less for the divorce deal).
But they have no power to insist on a deal, even if it is strongly in their interest or even if it is vital to their economy, and they have no power to enter into bilateral trade deals with us. So the deal is vulnerable if any one or more member states decides to protect the EU above the well-being of the other states.
The Commission's appointment mechanism is a red herring as all Commissioners owe their duty to the EU rather than to their appointing state.
That's the whole point - no one state has the power to force any other state to accept a deal that the other states don't want to accept.
Or do you support the tyranny of the powerful?
Remember Wallonia? The Canadians do!
Why is it any less tyrannical for a powerful state to prohibit another state from entering into a trade agreement?
Why should Ireland's economy or Germany's economy be seriously harmed because France wanted to make a point?
Last edited:
Because it's a union with the same trade deals for everyone.
- Status