Is Brexit stuffed?

John52 · December 14, 2017

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-13 8:41 PM
Or would you like a European State where we would be regarded as a zone and not a country anymore. Where we would have to be a part of the Euro, where we would be expected to go and fight again in Europe

Actually, we don't have the Euro, which has led to many of our exporters going bust because they failed to guess the exchange rate.

And the rest of Europe was against the illegal invasion of Iraq, but that didn't stop us did it?

Neither did the EU stop us being the only country in the world to have been at war every year for over 100 years.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.

malc d · December 14, 2017

John52 - 2017-12-14 11:36 AM

Neither did the EU stop us being the only country in the world to have been at war every year for over 100 years.

.

But that's only because we haven't been in the EU for a hundred years.

;-)

December 14, 2017

John52 - 2017-12-14 11:36 AM

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-13 8:41 PM
Or would you like a European State where we would be regarded as a zone and not a country anymore. Where we would have to be a part of the Euro, where we would be expected to go and fight again in Europe

Actually, we don't have the Euro, which has led to many of our exporters going bust because they failed to guess the exchange rate.
And the rest of Europe was against the illegal invasion of Iraq, but that didn't stop us did it?
Neither did the EU stop us being the only country in the world to have been at war every year for over 100 years.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.

Cheer up its only going to get worse >:-) .........

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-peace-these-are-the-only-11-countries-in-the-world-that-are-actually-free-from-conflict-9669623.html

nowtelse2do · December 14, 2017

John52 - 2017-12-14 11:36 AM

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-13 8:41 PM
Or would you like a European State where we would be regarded as a zone and not a country anymore. Where we would have to be a part of the Euro, where we would be expected to go and fight again in Europe

Actually, we don't have the Euro, which has led to many of our exporters going bust because they failed to guess the exchange rate.
And the rest of Europe was against the illegal invasion of Iraq, but that didn't stop us did it?
Neither did the EU stop us being the only country in the world to have been at war every year for over 100 years.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.

I never said we had the Euro, but we would have to join the Euro. We are the 10th largest exporter in the world, that is down by nearly 12% in the last 5yrs so it started before Brexit. I would assume (dangerous I know) that most other countries exports are also down since the 2008 finance crisis.

Blame your Labour mate's for the Iraq war, and there were other EU countries there as well as us. have a look here.

Troops at time of MNF-I deactivation Withdrawn troops (2008 – 2011) Withdrawn troops (2003 – 2007)

Total invasion deployment

Less than 200,000 troops

Multi-National Force – Iraq units

Multi-National Force – West

Multi-National Division – Baghdad

Multinational Division Central-South

Multi-National Division – North

Multi-National Division (South-East)

Logistics Support Area Anaconda

NATO: A contingent of around 150 advisers under the separate command NATO Training Mission – Iraq (withdrawn 12/11)

United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak (withdrawn 12/11)

United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)

Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)

Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 7/09)

El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 1/09)

Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05; withdrawn 1/09)

Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03; withdrawn 12/08)

South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04; withdrawn 12/08)

Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03; withdrawn 12/08)

Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05; withdrawn 11/08)

Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 11/08)

Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03; withdrawn 11/08)

Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)

Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 10/08)

Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05; withdrawn 10/08)

Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 09/08)

Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 8/08)

Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 12/07)

Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03; withdrawn 08/07)

Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 11/06)

Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 8/06)

Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04; withdrawn 7/06)

Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 3/05)

Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 3/05)

Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03; withdrawn 2/05)

New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 9/04)

Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 8/04)

Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 7/04)

Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 5/04)

Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 5/04)

Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03; withdrawn 4/04)

Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 2/04)

Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03; withdrawal date unknown)

(Look who's not on the list....Germany) well I never. Must have saved a billion or two.

As for being at war for 100 years....well someone's got to do it.

Last but not least.....Are you saying you have no prejudices? *-) Turn the record over John.

Dave

RogerC · December 14, 2017

Barryd999 - 2017-12-12 9:55 PMI noticed Roger you left out the insults fired at remainers. We have just had a few on this page. Whingers, sore losers, Wets, Rabid remoaners, Tree hugging lefties, screaming lefties and many more. Not that Im bothered, I find most of them funny to be honest but surely we should be beyond that by now.I quite enjoy the debates, the one on FACTS has run since before the referendum and although it was heated and a bit abusive at first including one bloke posting an anti Brexit song 8-) its evolved into an interesting and civilised discussion.What I would like though is an answer to my question further up rather than us discussing Who insulted who.Faced with an option of a soft Brexit where we pretty much leave in name only or no Brexit where we stay as we are with our current deal which would you chose and why?

I agree I only posted those comments aimed at the leave camp. I did so because I feel quite strongly that the bandying about of names began because of the remain camp inability to accept the outcome of the democratic vote. All those claims of 'stolen future/lies/stupid/duped/want a second referendum etc. Had the remain camp graciously accepted the result of a democratic process and not, as I recall it, jumped right into the blame game I feel that the process might have been a lot more civil. Basically I feel one cannot start the name calling and demonstration of outrage that the remain camp has shown without anticipating some sort of gut reaction.

Too much 'certainty'(almost always doom gloom and disparaging comment towards out voters) is being delivered by the remain camp but there is little evidence of any form of admission that, in reality, they know no more or less than anyone else. A bit of acceptance of the situation and less of the 'certainty/the out voters are Little Englanders wrapped in their 'comfort flag'' type of comment is guaranteed to raise ones hackles and is totally uncalled for would go a long way towards delivering some semblance of debate again.

As for your question:

Soft exit....leave in name only? I would consider a waste of time, money and effort. Additionally I feel it would be a demonstration that Westminster is too London centric, is unwilling to act on behalf of 'the people (a great deal worse than being unable to act) and that democracy is dead.

No Brexit? As before a waste of time, money etc......

Neither option you provide would be acceptable to me as they are one as bad as the other. Besides there is insufficient detail on which to make a judgement.

If Soft exit meant no more propping up a lame duck currency, meant no more net contribution, no more judicial subservience etc then yes that would be better than nothing.

However with neither of those options looking very appealing should that scenario arise, one or the other, I truly hope those who purportedly deliver the democratic processes this country is founded on will do their duty to the populace and simply walk away and close the cheque book.

John52 · December 14, 2017

RogerC - 2017-12-14 9:14 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-12-12 9:55 PMI noticed Roger you left out the insults fired at remainers. We have just had a few on this page. Whingers, sore losers, Wets, Rabid remoaners, Tree hugging lefties, screaming lefties and many more. Not that Im bothered, I find most of them funny to be honest but surely we should be beyond that by now.I quite enjoy the debates, the one on FACTS has run since before the referendum and although it was heated and a bit abusive at first including one bloke posting an anti Brexit song 8-) its evolved into an interesting and civilised discussion.What I would like though is an answer to my question further up rather than us discussing Who insulted who.Faced with an option of a soft Brexit where we pretty much leave in name only or no Brexit where we stay as we are with our current deal which would you chose and why?
I agree I only posted those comments aimed at the leave camp. I did so because I feel quite strongly that the bandying about of names began because of the remain camp inability to accept the outcome of the democratic vote. All those claims of 'stolen future/lies/stupid/duped/want a second referendum etc. Had the remain camp graciously accepted the result of a democratic process and not, as I recall it, jumped right into the blame game I feel that the process might have been a lot more civil. Basically I feel one cannot start the name calling and demonstration of outrage that the remain camp has shown without anticipating some sort of gut reaction.
Too much 'certainty'(almost always doom gloom and disparaging comment towards out voters) is being delivered by the remain camp but there is little evidence of any form of admission that, in reality, they know no more or less than anyone else. A bit of acceptance of the situation and less of the 'certainty/the out voters are Little Englanders wrapped in their 'comfort flag'' type of comment is guaranteed to raise ones hackles and is totally uncalled for would go a long way towards delivering some semblance of debate again.
As for your question:
Soft exit....leave in name only? I would consider a waste of time, money and effort. Additionally I feel it would be a demonstration that Westminster is too London centric, is unwilling to act on behalf of 'the people (a great deal worse than being unable to act) and that democracy is dead.
No Brexit? As before a waste of time, money etc......
Neither option you provide would be acceptable to me as they are one as bad as the other. Besides there is insufficient detail on which to make a judgement.
If Soft exit meant no more propping up a lame duck currency, meant no more net contribution, no more judicial subservience etc then yes that would be better than nothing.
However with neither of those options looking very appealing should that scenario arise, one or the other, I truly hope those who purportedly deliver the democratic processes this country is founded on will do their duty to the populace and simply walk away and close the cheque book.

Remarkable how such an ardent monarchist can claim to be democratic when the result suits you (lol)

As for the lame duck currency

261 pesetas to the pound new years eve day before change over.

A euro was introduced at 166 pesetas.

Making a £1 = €1.57

Whats the lame duck currency worth now *-)

Bulletguy · December 14, 2017

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-14 7:19 PM

John52 - 2017-12-14 11:36 AM

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-13 8:41 PM
Or would you like a European State where we would be regarded as a zone and not a country anymore. Where we would have to be a part of the Euro, where we would be expected to go and fight again in Europe

Actually, we don't have the Euro, which has led to many of our exporters going bust because they failed to guess the exchange rate.
And the rest of Europe was against the illegal invasion of Iraq, but that didn't stop us did it?
Neither did the EU stop us being the only country in the world to have been at war every year for over 100 years.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.

I never said we had the Euro, but we would have to join the Euro. We are the 10th largest exporter in the world, that is down by nearly 12% in the last 5yrs so it started before Brexit. I would assume (dangerous I know) that most other countries exports are also down since the 2008 finance crisis.

Blame your Labour mate's for the Iraq war, and there were other EU countries there as well as us. have a look here.

(Look who's not on the list....Germany) well I never. Must have saved a billion or two.

Dave

The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, and New Zealand. Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that invading the country was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's 12 February 2003 report.

Turned out they were right didn't it? And people like weapons inspector David Kelly after giving evidence to the Select Committee was ridiculed and two days later ended up dead, presumed suicide though 14 years on that's still never been established.

John52 · December 14, 2017

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-14 7:19 PM
We are the 10th largest exporter in the world,
Dave

But lets not talk about our imports eh ;-)

Because our imports are so much higher than our exports, lets just talk about our exports ;-)

Much of our exports are stuff we have imported.

Thats because we are a ''flexible weorkforce' (i.e cheap labour/sweatshop/gig economy) for the Japanese/Germans etc assembling stuff from parts we import. Because we have free trade / customs free / just-in time deliveries from the EU.

John52 · December 14, 2017

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-14 7:19 PM

(Look who's not on the list....Germany) well I never. Must have saved a billion or two.
Dave

How many £billions could Britain have saved?

More to the point how many lives could we have saved if we had negotiated with Saddam instead - at the risk of being called 'Terrorist Sympathisers'

RogerC · December 14, 2017

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-13 12:35 PM
RogerC - 2017-12-12 9:06 PM...........................Brian you comment that you'd love a proper debate. So would the rest of us I believe. However these phrases you use hardly encourage a considered reply and as far as I am concerned do not reflect my feelings regarding leaving:"I want Brexit, and I don't care what it costs, or who end up paying the price". I don't recall anyone here, or in the media I have viewed, saying that.
It paraphrases a point of view, Roger, it is not a direct quote. But I definitely have read that point of view. That you haven't doesn't change that.
"If you don't like it, tough, get used to it" I believe that sort of comment is predicated on the clamour from the remain camp to some way or another stop the leave process.
And if that is true, does that elevate it to informed debate? If someone does wish to reverse Brexit, is that what they should expect? Does the concept of "informed debate" have an unwritten rule that reversing Brexit is a topic that cannot be raised, to be shouted down without reason if it is raised?
As has been said numerous times before what one writes is not necessarily what the reader takes from those words. So with that in mind and Brian wanting a proper debate with:........ "a few people capable of constructing reasoned, properly thought out, arguments, whose minds are open to alternative views, and who don't resort to ad hominem and/or straw man responses, or simply insults and name calling, when challenged." I would ask this: Reading the following does anyone really consider that the comments below, presumably aimed at those posting from the remain side of the issue, to be helpful?"Reasoned argument is futile against closed minds. It is ridiculed by closed minds precisely because it is reasoned. The reasoned arguments are thrown back as spin, or waffle, or Bremoaning, or whatever, simply because they don't take a non-negotiable, two line, stance. They are written off as boring, contradictory, and within nanoseconds it is the poster who is being attacked, and not their point of view. It descends to petty point scoring because, when confronted with more nuanced, complex, and subtle arguments, the closed mind seems only capable of marshalling such responses........They pray in their aid patriotism, and infer that anyone who thinks Brexit a bad idea is unpatriotic. They warp themselves in the flag, and then use it as a mere comfort blanket......."I'm not 100% sure what was intended by those comments but for someone looking for reasoned debate I find them to be insulting, pompous, uncalled for and quite likely to achieve the complete opposite of the desired result.
What was intended by my comments? Merely to illustrate the futility of attempting to have informed debate with people who respond as I describe. I gather you don't agree, but have rather made my overall point by the manner in which you have chosen to do so. An attack on the poster, and not on the points the poster made. In short, ad hominem. I have question. Why do you find that summary of mindsets and attitudes "insulting, pompous, uncalled for"?

Quite simply because of what you were wanting in a civilised debate..... "Debate requires understanding, give and take, good humour, engagement with each other's points of view".......
and you then deliver a whole raft of rather unnecessary epithets which are clearly going to serve only to inflame. Comments such as " They warp themselves in the flag, and then use it as a mere comfort blanket" are hardly likely to entreat anyone to want to engage in reasoned debate with someone who describes them in such a pompous and derogatory manner.
You comment such as: "They overlook that our version of democracy caters for these swings in opinion by ensuring that elections are held at five year intervals......"
No Brian that is your opinion based on what evidence I have no idea. I, like a great many others who have any, or even the slightest interest, are aware that 'elections' are (usually) five yearly. However this was not an election it was an 'in isolation' poll of the people. Interestingly after a little research and I have uncovered a rather levelling comment regarding a 'revisiting' referendum written by an Observer journalist:

'A bad one is a desperate attempt by the government of the day and its allies to negate a first referendum it did not like'.

'A good second referendum is quite different. It seeks approval for whatever deal is reached as a result of the first one. It seeks to take forward the first decision, not negate it.'

Now if the remain camp could offer it's opinions and ideas based on that premise...."to take forward not negate it" I would imagine there would be a better understanding and acceptance of the remain camp stance. In other words....accept the result, accept we are leaving, add constructively to the debate and then make your voices heard through your 'x' in the box as in a 'good' referendum as offered above. Help decide how to implement the result not hinder or press for it to be negated.

You say:
"But we first need a few people capable of constructing reasoned, properly thought out, arguments,...."

Implying what Brian?

Regarding the comments you posted and attributed to the remain camp:
"I want Brexit, and I don't care what it costs, or who end up paying the price".
Now you clarify it was 'paraphrasing'. Using such inflammatory terminology is hardly going to help encourage reasoned debate.

This next comment hardly endears one to your point of view:
".....when confronted with more nuanced, complex, and subtle arguments, the closed mind seems only capable of marshalling such responses.."

One could be forgiven, at least I could forgive anyone, when reading that comment of yours for thinking.....'Up yours you arrogant sod'. Aimed, as it looks to be, at those here who have responded to some of the Brexit thread posts it really does come across as the height of arrogance.

It certainly looks, to me at least, that you set out to add more fuel to the name calling flame instead of being the instigator of reasoned debate because so much of what you say the 'leave' side is guilty of is equally, if not more so, perpetrated by the remain side.

I would love nothing more (on this forum) to be able to hold a sensible debate. However as long as we, the leave voters, are considered to be, and called, stupid, duped, didn't know what we voted for and all the other names and derogatory phrases that have been aimed at our intelligence and intellect, as long as the remain camp delivers it's understanding of the issue as 'certain', 'definitely', 'will be' and the many other terms used for 'we know for sure' and stating, with certainty, at the leave voters 'you don't' I can't see the debate progressing in a sensible or reasoned manner.

It will require adjustments on all sides and, given the track record of debate progression on, here I have reservations as to whether that will to do so exists.

RogerC · December 14, 2017

John52 - 2017-12-14 11:01 PM
nowtelse2do - 2017-12-14 7:19 PM(Look who's not on the list....Germany) well I never. Must have saved a billion or two.Dave
How many £billions could Britain have saved?More to the point how many lives could we have saved if we had negotiated with Saddam instead - at the risk of being called 'Terrorist Sympathisers'

Are you serious?

Barryd999 · December 15, 2017

RogerC - 2017-12-14 9:14 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-12-12 9:55 PMI noticed Roger you left out the insults fired at remainers. We have just had a few on this page. Whingers, sore losers, Wets, Rabid remoaners, Tree hugging lefties, screaming lefties and many more. Not that Im bothered, I find most of them funny to be honest but surely we should be beyond that by now.I quite enjoy the debates, the one on FACTS has run since before the referendum and although it was heated and a bit abusive at first including one bloke posting an anti Brexit song 8-) its evolved into an interesting and civilised discussion.What I would like though is an answer to my question further up rather than us discussing Who insulted who.Faced with an option of a soft Brexit where we pretty much leave in name only or no Brexit where we stay as we are with our current deal which would you chose and why?
I agree I only posted those comments aimed at the leave camp. I did so because I feel quite strongly that the bandying about of names began because of the remain camp inability to accept the outcome of the democratic vote. All those claims of 'stolen future/lies/stupid/duped/want a second referendum etc. Had the remain camp graciously accepted the result of a democratic process and not, as I recall it, jumped right into the blame game I feel that the process might have been a lot more civil. Basically I feel one cannot start the name calling and demonstration of outrage that the remain camp has shown without anticipating some sort of gut reaction.
Too much 'certainty'(almost always doom gloom and disparaging comment towards out voters) is being delivered by the remain camp but there is little evidence of any form of admission that, in reality, they know no more or less than anyone else. A bit of acceptance of the situation and less of the 'certainty/the out voters are Little Englanders wrapped in their 'comfort flag'' type of comment is guaranteed to raise ones hackles and is totally uncalled for would go a long way towards delivering some semblance of debate again.
As for your question:
Soft exit....leave in name only? I would consider a waste of time, money and effort. Additionally I feel it would be a demonstration that Westminster is too London centric, is unwilling to act on behalf of 'the people (a great deal worse than being unable to act) and that democracy is dead.
No Brexit? As before a waste of time, money etc......
Neither option you provide would be acceptable to me as they are one as bad as the other. Besides there is insufficient detail on which to make a judgement.
If Soft exit meant no more propping up a lame duck currency, meant no more net contribution, no more judicial subservience etc then yes that would be better than nothing.
However with neither of those options looking very appealing should that scenario arise, one or the other, I truly hope those who purportedly deliver the democratic processes this country is founded on will do their duty to the populace and simply walk away and close the cheque book.

I dont think there is any chance of that now but who knows. It could all still end badly and we walk away with nothing but I think its fair to say that scenario is not what most people want and it looks increasingly likely we are going to end up with as soft a Brexit as possible which unless we somehow pull some big rabbits out of the hat will come with some of the things you say your against accepting. So really no point in leaving at all if thats the case as a Hard Brexit is not what the majority wants. I think that is clear.

Your last sentence though is an interesting one as I dont think we can close the cheque book no matter what. That £39 billion is just for our commitments. Its our bar bill if you like. Even if we crash out we will still owe that. Ok so we could tell the EU to get stuffed but thats not really going to do our credit rating or reputation as a country thats ready to start trading much good is it? If someone introduced a new client to me and another supplier told me they dont pay their bills I would be telling them to get lost.

I agree about the name calling etc. Some of it was funny for a while but I can see why many Brexiteers might have been offended by being called stupid. (Well the ones that can read of course.

(lol) ) Joke. Joke. :D

RogerC · December 15, 2017

Barryd999 - 2017-12-15 11:51 AM
RogerC - 2017-12-14 9:14 PM
Barryd999 - 2017-12-12 9:55 PMI noticed Roger you left out the insults fired at remainers. We have just had a few on this page. Whingers, sore losers, Wets, Rabid remoaners, Tree hugging lefties, screaming lefties and many more. Not that Im bothered, I find most of them funny to be honest but surely we should be beyond that by now.I quite enjoy the debates, the one on FACTS has run since before the referendum and although it was heated and a bit abusive at first including one bloke posting an anti Brexit song 8-) its evolved into an interesting and civilised discussion.What I would like though is an answer to my question further up rather than us discussing Who insulted who.Faced with an option of a soft Brexit where we pretty much leave in name only or no Brexit where we stay as we are with our current deal which would you chose and why?
I agree I only posted those comments aimed at the leave camp. I did so because I feel quite strongly that the bandying about of names began because of the remain camp inability to accept the outcome of the democratic vote. All those claims of 'stolen future/lies/stupid/duped/want a second referendum etc. Had the remain camp graciously accepted the result of a democratic process and not, as I recall it, jumped right into the blame game I feel that the process might have been a lot more civil. Basically I feel one cannot start the name calling and demonstration of outrage that the remain camp has shown without anticipating some sort of gut reaction.
Too much 'certainty'(almost always doom gloom and disparaging comment towards out voters) is being delivered by the remain camp but there is little evidence of any form of admission that, in reality, they know no more or less than anyone else. A bit of acceptance of the situation and less of the 'certainty/the out voters are Little Englanders wrapped in their 'comfort flag'' type of comment is guaranteed to raise ones hackles and is totally uncalled for would go a long way towards delivering some semblance of debate again.
As for your question:
Soft exit....leave in name only? I would consider a waste of time, money and effort. Additionally I feel it would be a demonstration that Westminster is too London centric, is unwilling to act on behalf of 'the people (a great deal worse than being unable to act) and that democracy is dead.
No Brexit? As before a waste of time, money etc......
Neither option you provide would be acceptable to me as they are one as bad as the other. Besides there is insufficient detail on which to make a judgement.
If Soft exit meant no more propping up a lame duck currency, meant no more net contribution, no more judicial subservience etc then yes that would be better than nothing.
However with neither of those options looking very appealing should that scenario arise, one or the other, I truly hope those who purportedly deliver the democratic processes this country is founded on will do their duty to the populace and simply walk away and close the cheque book.
I dont think there is any chance of that now but who knows. It could all still end badly and we walk away with nothing but I think its fair to say that scenario is not what most people want and it looks increasingly likely we are going to end up with as soft a Brexit as possible which unless we somehow pull some big rabbits out of the hat will come with some of the things you say your against accepting. So really no point in leaving at all if thats the case as a Hard Brexit is not what the majority wants. I think that is clear.Your last sentence though is an interesting one as I dont think we can close the cheque book no matter what. That £39 billion is just for our commitments. Its our bar bill if you like. Even if we crash out we will still owe that. Ok so we could tell the EU to get stuffed but thats not really going to do our credit rating or reputation as a country thats ready to start trading much good is it? If someone introduced a new client to me and another supplier told me they dont pay their bills I would be telling them to get lost.I agree about the name calling etc. Some of it was funny for a while but I can see why many Brexiteers might have been offended by being called stupid. (Well the ones that can read of course. (lol) ) Joke. Joke. :D
I am hopeful that an agreement can be reached that satisfies both sides. After all, irrespective of what we think of politicians, I have sufficient faith that both sides will see a 'no deal' as something to be avoided although not at 'any cost'.
My 'close the cheque book' comment obviously didn't come over as intended......sorry. I meant if there is a 'no deal' we simply pay what we owe, as in we meet our standing commitments as pertaining to the expenditure already agreed and based on our contribution. Then close the cheque book....as would be the case on a personal level 'no standing orders or direct debits'.
Oh and.......as you said:
"Some of it was funny for a while but I can see why many Brexiteers might have been offended by being called stupid. (Well the ones that can read of course........)"
Not a problem...they can ask to take a look at the remainers colouring in book. As they say "a picture's worth a thousand words".....although I doubt, despite protestations to the contrary, if the book has the 'whole picture' yet.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/smiley-face-laughing.gif

Barryd999 · December 15, 2017

RogerC - 2017-12-15 12:22 PM
Barryd999 - 2017-12-15 11:51 AM
RogerC - 2017-12-14 9:14 PM
Barryd999 - 2017-12-12 9:55 PMI noticed Roger you left out the insults fired at remainers. We have just had a few on this page. Whingers, sore losers, Wets, Rabid remoaners, Tree hugging lefties, screaming lefties and many more. Not that Im bothered, I find most of them funny to be honest but surely we should be beyond that by now.I quite enjoy the debates, the one on FACTS has run since before the referendum and although it was heated and a bit abusive at first including one bloke posting an anti Brexit song 8-) its evolved into an interesting and civilised discussion.What I would like though is an answer to my question further up rather than us discussing Who insulted who.Faced with an option of a soft Brexit where we pretty much leave in name only or no Brexit where we stay as we are with our current deal which would you chose and why?
I agree I only posted those comments aimed at the leave camp. I did so because I feel quite strongly that the bandying about of names began because of the remain camp inability to accept the outcome of the democratic vote. All those claims of 'stolen future/lies/stupid/duped/want a second referendum etc. Had the remain camp graciously accepted the result of a democratic process and not, as I recall it, jumped right into the blame game I feel that the process might have been a lot more civil. Basically I feel one cannot start the name calling and demonstration of outrage that the remain camp has shown without anticipating some sort of gut reaction.
Too much 'certainty'(almost always doom gloom and disparaging comment towards out voters) is being delivered by the remain camp but there is little evidence of any form of admission that, in reality, they know no more or less than anyone else. A bit of acceptance of the situation and less of the 'certainty/the out voters are Little Englanders wrapped in their 'comfort flag'' type of comment is guaranteed to raise ones hackles and is totally uncalled for would go a long way towards delivering some semblance of debate again.
As for your question:
Soft exit....leave in name only? I would consider a waste of time, money and effort. Additionally I feel it would be a demonstration that Westminster is too London centric, is unwilling to act on behalf of 'the people (a great deal worse than being unable to act) and that democracy is dead.
No Brexit? As before a waste of time, money etc......
Neither option you provide would be acceptable to me as they are one as bad as the other. Besides there is insufficient detail on which to make a judgement.
If Soft exit meant no more propping up a lame duck currency, meant no more net contribution, no more judicial subservience etc then yes that would be better than nothing.
However with neither of those options looking very appealing should that scenario arise, one or the other, I truly hope those who purportedly deliver the democratic processes this country is founded on will do their duty to the populace and simply walk away and close the cheque book.
I dont think there is any chance of that now but who knows. It could all still end badly and we walk away with nothing but I think its fair to say that scenario is not what most people want and it looks increasingly likely we are going to end up with as soft a Brexit as possible which unless we somehow pull some big rabbits out of the hat will come with some of the things you say your against accepting. So really no point in leaving at all if thats the case as a Hard Brexit is not what the majority wants. I think that is clear.Your last sentence though is an interesting one as I dont think we can close the cheque book no matter what. That £39 billion is just for our commitments. Its our bar bill if you like. Even if we crash out we will still owe that. Ok so we could tell the EU to get stuffed but thats not really going to do our credit rating or reputation as a country thats ready to start trading much good is it? If someone introduced a new client to me and another supplier told me they dont pay their bills I would be telling them to get lost.I agree about the name calling etc. Some of it was funny for a while but I can see why many Brexiteers might have been offended by being called stupid. (Well the ones that can read of course. (lol) ) Joke. Joke. :D
I am hopeful that an agreement can be reached that satisfies both sides. After all, irrespective of what we think of politicians, I have sufficient faith that both sides will see a 'no deal' as something to be avoided although not at 'any cost'.
My 'close the cheque book' comment obviously didn't come over as intended......sorry. I meant if there is a 'no deal' we simply pay what we owe, as in we meet our standing commitments as pertaining to the expenditure already agreed and based on our contribution. Then close the cheque book....as would be the case on a personal level 'no standing orders or direct debits'.
Oh and.......as you said:
"Some of it was funny for a while but I can see why many Brexiteers might have been offended by being called stupid. (Well the ones that can read of course........)"
Not a problem...they can ask to take a look at the remainers colouring in book. As they say "a picture's worth a thousand words".....although I doubt, despite protestations to the contrary, if the book has the 'whole picture' yet.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/smiley-face-laughing.gif

Fair comment Roger. Sounds reasonable.I genuinely do hope there is an outcome that does suit the majority. At least now with Parliament now in control of our withdrawal we have more options. Im sure many on here will think that I would have Brexit reversed no matter what the will of the people but thats not the case. I will always think its a bad idea but I am still of the belief that so will the majority of the populace given time. If not then so be it.

Brian Kirby · December 15, 2017

Barryd999 - 2017-12-15 12:57 PM............................I genuinely do hope there is an outcome that does suit the majority. At least now with Parliament now in control of our withdrawal we have more options. Im sure many on here will think that I would have Brexit reversed no matter what the will of the people but thats not the case. I will always think its a bad idea but I am still of the belief that so will the majority of the populace given time. If not then so be it.

Agreed. Though I would gently disagree that I will "always" think it a bad idea, and would prefer to say that I will think it a bad idea until I see evidence to the contrary. I too think that many of those who voted out, whether or not they constitute a majority, seem likely to be disadvantaged by the outcome. I don't see that view as undemocratic, as some have claimed, I see it as having the best interests of those I who think will lose out, as well as of my children and grandchildren, foremost in my thinking.

As I have said before, I do not see majorities as indicators of what is best, or right, merely of what was popular at a point in time. But what if the public mood changes? Shouldn't such changes be seen as evidence of democracy at work? But, having said that, I see no obligation on anyone to adopt the majority view if they don't agree with it. Why would anyone do that, or be expected to do so?

If we leave, and events prove me wrong, why would I not rejoice? My country will be prospering as it hasn't since WW2, and I shall just have to swallow my opinions. Tough! However, if the country doesn't prosper, what then? What then happens? Why is questioning the popular orthodoxy of Brexit seen as akin to an act of sabotage? If the questions are answered convincingly, that is good - it shows the idea is sound. But if they are not, those answering need to come up with better answers. If they can't, their idea is lacking. Is that not how the best is extracted?

RogerC · December 15, 2017

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-15 5:27 PM
Barryd999 - 2017-12-15 12:57 PM............................I genuinely do hope there is an outcome that does suit the majority. At least now with Parliament now in control of our withdrawal we have more options. Im sure many on here will think that I would have Brexit reversed no matter what the will of the people but thats not the case. I will always think its a bad idea but I am still of the belief that so will the majority of the populace given time. If not then so be it.
Agreed. Though I would gently disagree that I will "always" think it a bad idea, and would prefer to say that I will think it a bad idea until I see evidence to the contrary. I too think that many of those who voted out, whether or not they constitute a majority, seem likely to be disadvantaged by the outcome. I don't see that view as undemocratic, as some have claimed, I see it as having the best interests of those I who think will lose out, as well as of my children and grandchildren, foremost in my thinking.As I have said before, I do not see majorities as indicators of what is best, or right, merely of what was popular at a point in time. But what if the public mood changes? Shouldn't such changes be seen as evidence of democracy at work? But, having said that, I see no obligation on anyone to adopt the majority view if they don't agree with it. Why would anyone do that, or be expected to do so?If we leave, and events prove me wrong, why would I not rejoice? My country will be prospering as it hasn't since WW2, and I shall just have to swallow my opinions. Tough! However, if the country doesn't prosper, what then? What then happens? Why is questioning the popular orthodoxy of Brexit seen as akin to an act of sabotage? If the questions are answered convincingly, that is good - it shows the idea is sound. But if they are not, those answering need to come up with better answers. If they can't, their idea is lacking. Is that not how the best is extracted?

I have to ask why is it seen as a bad idea?

The way the EU was/is heading it is possible that it will engulf the member states before very much longer. A little research readily delivers some rather unsettling information regarding the 'ambitions' of some of the EU political elite.

I see the view that it is a bad idea to leave can just as easily be applied to remaining in the EU as it is to leave. None of us 'knows' how the EU is going to advance, we can only consider and respond to what it has already done and how it has served itself in terms of expansionism and impacted on our lives. Clearly some are prepared to accept the EU's growing dominance in national affairs whereas others like myself are not.

The point is whichever way the UK vote went it was going to be a leap of faith and I know where my faith lies.

Regarding majorities and acceding to the public mood, all I would say, from a leave voters point of view, is that no one should be expected to 'toe the line'. However from watching a number of debates, question time, PMQ etc I can honestly say that something I find quite reprehensible and it was/is (albeit less so as the negotiations progress) coming from some quite influential parties (as well as Joe Public), are the pronouncements that UK Plc is doomed by rescinding it's EU membership. Until the deal is done 'no one knows'. Some have said we should remain in and 'wait and see'. Isn't that a leap of faith in the EU getting it's act together?

Brian is asking for convincing answers. I would say that it is impossible to deliver those answers until the terms of leaving are known. Any answer not based on the current agreed negotiating position would be mere speculation and, in my opinion, a complete waste of time and effort.

The bottom line is whichever way the vote went there would be division and uncertainty. At least this way it is a damn sight more incumbent on ourselves, our industrialists, our politicians etc to get it right and not be dictated to by Brussels mandarins.

Brian Kirby · December 16, 2017

RogerC - 2017-12-15 6:15 PM..............................
1 I have to ask why is it (Brexit) seen as a bad idea?

2 The way the EU was/is heading it is possible that it will engulf the member states before very much longer. A little research readily delivers some rather unsettling information regarding the 'ambitions' of some of the EU political elite.

3 I see the view that it is a bad idea to leave can just as easily be applied to remaining in the EU as it is to leave. None of us 'knows' how the EU is going to advance, we can only consider and respond to what it has already done and how it has served itself in terms of expansionism and impacted on our lives. Clearly some are prepared to accept the EU's growing dominance in national affairs whereas others like myself are not.

4 The point is whichever way the UK vote went it was going to be a leap of faith and I know where my faith lies.

5 Regarding majorities and acceding to the public mood, all I would say, from a leave voters point of view, is that no one should be expected to 'toe the line'. However from watching a number of debates, question time, PMQ etc I can honestly say that something I find quite reprehensible and it was/is (albeit less so as the negotiations progress) coming from some quite influential parties (as well as Joe Public), are the pronouncements that UK Plc is doomed by rescinding it's EU membership. Until the deal is done 'no one knows'. Some have said we should remain in and 'wait and see'. Isn't that a leap of faith in the EU getting it's act together?

6 Brian is asking for convincing answers. I would say that it is impossible to deliver those answers until the terms of leaving are known. Any answer not based on the current agreed negotiating position would be mere speculation and, in my opinion, a complete waste of time and effort.

7 The bottom line is whichever way the vote went there would be division and uncertainty. At least this way it is a damn sight more incumbent on ourselves, our industrialists, our politicians etc to get it right and not be dictated to by Brussels mandarins.

1 I had tried to set out my reasoning here:

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-13 4:55 PM................................
There is a welter of information from the likes of Wikipedia on the relative trading positions of countries, measured gross, goods only, services only, combined, by GDP, by per capita GDP, and none of it is easy to interpret. It shows a number of interesting things; that for example China is the largest trading country in goods in the world, but is way down the scale (well below the UK) in per capita trade. It shows that Germany trades more in services than the UK, despite all the hype about our services sector, and has international trade in goods of roughly twice the UK figure. It shows that the UK is about the fifth largest economy, but is 34th in per capita trade (that productivity gap, I assume).

It does not paint a particularly encouraging picture, and it does nothing to explain why the UK performs so badly (behind almost all EU countries), and absolutely nothing to explain why/how EU membership uniquely disadvantages the UK of all EU states, and even less to explain how leaving might bring about an improvement.

To me, all it does is to reinforce my view that leaving will turn out to be a costly mistake for the majority of people in the UK, who seem to me destined to work harder and longer post Brexit for a diminishing slice of the cake. It reinforces my suspicion that a relative few will do very well indeed, while the rest are disadvantaged.

It is very puzzling how poorly we compare with the other EU countries, irrespective of when they joined. It is extremely difficult to see what, post Brexit, is going to allow us, a country that consistently imports more than it exports (and has for many years), to become a country that exports more than it imports, to the advantage of all. It is also very puzzling how other EU countries, while having the same trade tariffs with the non-EU world, manage to do better from trade.

It will need a lot more than optimistic, unsubstantiated, claims about our transformation post Brexit to convince me that they are anything more than the future as seen through permanently rose tinted specs! So yes, until someone comes up with something that convinces I agree, there is no foreseeable benefit to leaving and we would be better advised to stay in and fix our problems.

2 Yes, but the reverse seems to me equally possible, and more probable. Based on what I've seen and heard, I don't think the general populations of the other 27 states have any greater appetite for a European Superstate than we in Britain have. It is true that a minority think that way, and a few politicians catch headlines by expounding that view. But, ask a Frenchman, Italian, Spaniard, or whoever, how they view that prospect and you quickly get the picture! No way, Jose! :-) Turkeys and Christmas? IMO, this is an argument based on exaggeration and used to create apprehension about an improbable outcome. In short, project fear.

3 IMO, this view represents the EU as a malign entity in its own right. I think this view profoundly mistaken. The EU is the sum of its parts, and its parts are its member states. It has three components. Parliament, Commission, and Council. The MEPs are directly elected by the populations of its member states. The voting system is fair, the elections are properly conducted. The Commission is drawn from the member states, with the Commissioners being nominated and elected by the properly elected governments of the member states. The make up of the Council varies according to the topic under consideration, but is composed of the relevant ministers of the member states, who are appointed by the governments of the member states, whose governments are formed from the elected MPs of the member states. No one institution can dominate, all can propose measures, but the measure must be supported by two out of the three institutions before it can proceed. To me, despite the claims to the contrary, it is fundamentally democratic. I don't see where the oft claimed "democratic deficit" arises. As with any democratic process, no one view can be expected to prevail at all times, but its decisions are reached by a sophisticated democratic process which all member states influence, even if their preferred outcome is not adopted.

4 No comment.

5 Then it would assist if the allegations that people who argue against the referendum outcome were not put down a Remoaners etc, and instead had their opinions challenged with counter argument. I wasn't in UK for a lot of the referendum campaign, but don't remember seeing claims of "doom". There were a number of projections that forecast unfavourable outcomes post Brexit (often confused with the vote, and not the event), but none, IMO, amounted to prophesies of doom. That exaggeratedly apocalyptic term was adopted by the pro Brexit campaigners to discredit any projections they didn't like. Another example of "project fear".

"Remain in and wait and see" is, IMO, another loaded argument. I don't think anyone argued for that. What I heard, and agree with, is this. We, the UK, have a number of long standing unresolved structural problems. The EU also has a number of long standing unresolved structural problems. Neither is going to fix its problems in the short term. There is no immediate threat to the UK from the EU, any more than any other state is under some immediate threat. There is, therefore, no immediate reason to leave. Since a considerable amount of our trade is with the EU, on extremely beneficial terms, we are better off staying with that, while we sort out our own structural problems, and contribute to sorting out those of the EU. I see no sense in which the EU has imposed on us, or contributed to, our structural problems. These are the consequences of the actions and inactions of successive UK governments. If, at some future date, it becomes apparent that the EU is actually working to disadvantage us, then would be the time to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. But, as above, that time is not, IMO, now, or remotely close.

6 Up to a point Lord Copper! What is missing at present is the vision for the UK outside the EU. That is presumably what we are negotiating to achieve? Who knows what that vision is? I assume someone must know, or no-one can know what the negotiations are about. OTOH, looking at what seems to be happening with the negotiations, I am becoming persuaded that perhaps no-one does know what the vision is, and that the negotiations are intended merely to supply the vision, and that we shall only discover what they are about when they conclude. Otherwise, I can't understand why the government had a hissing fit over allowing a parliamentary vote on the terms that emerge.

We presently seem to be being offered a version of that children's party game where you put your hand into a closed bag, and have to guess what you can feel. No one can yet tell whether it's a fluffy toy, or a dead rat! And yet, if the government had had its way, we should have been stuck with whatever it turned out to be. We now at least have a parliamentary vote on whether the eventual terms should be accepted. But, parliament could have decided, instead of holding a referendum, to do its job, to weigh up the pros and cons of membership, and to vote on whether or not to withdraw. That would have saved a pointless referendum, but would have required the MPs to do the jobs we elect them to do. If parliament doesn't like the terms, or lacks sufficient courage to recommend them to the rest of us as the best outcome for our future prosperity, they should then vote for a further referendum on the terms as negotiated, which can then be presented with proper guidance on their probable outcomes. As I've said before, live by the referendum, die by the referendum. We can't have referendums when the politicians are too timid or undecided to do their jobs, and then revert to parliament once someone else can be blamed if the outcome is detrimental to the national good. Your fault, you wanted it!

7 Where have we been dictated to by those Brussel's Mandarins in ways that have actually harmed our national interests, or national prosperity? We have had since the end of WW2 for us, plus "our industrialists, our politicians etc." to get it right - and it hasn't happened. We didn't join the EEC until 28 years after the war ended, we have been members for 44 years, and between the lot of us we haven't "got it right" in all those 72 years. I agree that we need to get it right, but that imperative is exactly the same in or out of the EU. I see no evidence that membership has prevented us doing so, no evidence that non-membership prevented us doing so, and only evidence that we prevented ourselves doing so. How leaving is supposed to affect that I cannot understand.

It seems clear enough to me that our failure to rectify our national defects was/is unaffected by EEC/EU membership, but that that failure played a major role in the discontent/disaffection that resulted in the decision to leave. Look at where the centres of the leave and remain votes are. The wealthier the area, broadly, the more likely it was to vote remain. The more depressed the area, the more likely it was to vote leave. How did the EEC/EU, as opposed to UK government policies, impoverish some areas and enrich others? Sorry for so lengthy a post, but the question is not capable (at least be me :-)) of a two line answer.

John52 · December 16, 2017

RogerC - 2017-12-14 11:22 PM

John52 - 2017-12-14 11:01 PM
nowtelse2do - 2017-12-14 7:19 PM(Look who's not on the list....Germany) well I never. Must have saved a billion or two.Dave
How many £billions could Britain have saved?More to the point how many lives could we have saved if we had negotiated with Saddam instead - at the risk of being called 'Terrorist Sympathisers'
Are you serious?

I can see that negotiation may be beyond the capabilities of those with the warrior mentality of whatever the problem, violence is the solution. But violence hasn't left Iraq (or us) in a better state has it?

RogerC · December 16, 2017

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-16 1:28 PM
RogerC - 2017-12-15 6:15 PM.............................. 1 I have to ask why is it (Brexit) seen as a bad idea?2 The way the EU was/is heading it is possible that it will engulf the member states before very much longer. A little research readily delivers some rather unsettling information regarding the 'ambitions' of some of the EU political elite.3 I see the view that it is a bad idea to leave can just as easily be applied to remaining in the EU as it is to leave. None of us 'knows' how the EU is going to advance, we can only consider and respond to what it has already done and how it has served itself in terms of expansionism and impacted on our lives. Clearly some are prepared to accept the EU's growing dominance in national affairs whereas others like myself are not.4 The point is whichever way the UK vote went it was going to be a leap of faith and I know where my faith lies.5 Regarding majorities and acceding to the public mood, all I would say, from a leave voters point of view, is that no one should be expected to 'toe the line'. However from watching a number of debates, question time, PMQ etc I can honestly say that something I find quite reprehensible and it was/is (albeit less so as the negotiations progress) coming from some quite influential parties (as well as Joe Public), are the pronouncements that UK Plc is doomed by rescinding it's EU membership. Until the deal is done 'no one knows'. Some have said we should remain in and 'wait and see'. Isn't that a leap of faith in the EU getting it's act together? 6 Brian is asking for convincing answers. I would say that it is impossible to deliver those answers until the terms of leaving are known. Any answer not based on the current agreed negotiating position would be mere speculation and, in my opinion, a complete waste of time and effort. 7 The bottom line is whichever way the vote went there would be division and uncertainty. At least this way it is a damn sight more incumbent on ourselves, our industrialists, our politicians etc to get it right and not be dictated to by Brussels mandarins.
1 I had tried to set out my reasoning here:
Brian Kirby - 2017-12-13 4:55 PM................................There is a welter of information from the likes of Wikipedia on the relative trading positions of countries, measured gross, goods only, services only, combined, by GDP, by per capita GDP, and none of it is easy to interpret. It shows a number of interesting things; that for example China is the largest trading country in goods in the world, but is way down the scale (well below the UK) in per capita trade. It shows that Germany trades more in services than the UK, despite all the hype about our services sector, and has international trade in goods of roughly twice the UK figure. It shows that the UK is about the fifth largest economy, but is 34th in per capita trade (that productivity gap, I assume).It does not paint a particularly encouraging picture, and it does nothing to explain why the UK performs so badly (behind almost all EU countries), and absolutely nothing to explain why/how EU membership uniquely disadvantages the UK of all EU states, and even less to explain how leaving might bring about an improvement. To me, all it does is to reinforce my view that leaving will turn out to be a costly mistake for the majority of people in the UK, who seem to me destined to work harder and longer post Brexit for a diminishing slice of the cake. It reinforces my suspicion that a relative few will do very well indeed, while the rest are disadvantaged. It is very puzzling how poorly we compare with the other EU countries, irrespective of when they joined. It is extremely difficult to see what, post Brexit, is going to allow us, a country that consistently imports more than it exports (and has for many years), to become a country that exports more than it imports, to the advantage of all. It is also very puzzling how other EU countries, while having the same trade tariffs with the non-EU world, manage to do better from trade. It will need a lot more than optimistic, unsubstantiated, claims about our transformation post Brexit to convince me that they are anything more than the future as seen through permanently rose tinted specs! So yes, until someone comes up with something that convinces I agree, there is no foreseeable benefit to leaving and we would be better advised to stay in and fix our problems.
2 Yes, but the reverse seems to me equally possible, and more probable. Based on what I've seen and heard, I don't think the general populations of the other 27 states have any greater appetite for a European Superstate than we in Britain have. It is true that a minority think that way, and a few politicians catch headlines by expounding that view. But, ask a Frenchman, Italian, Spaniard, or whoever, how they view that prospect and you quickly get the picture! No way, Jose! :-) Turkeys and Christmas? IMO, this is an argument based on exaggeration and used to create apprehension about an improbable outcome. In short, project fear.3 IMO, this view represents the EU as a malign entity in its own right. I think this view profoundly mistaken. The EU is the sum of its parts, and its parts are its member states. It has three components. Parliament, Commission, and Council. The MEPs are directly elected by the populations of its member states. The voting system is fair, the elections are properly conducted. The Commission is drawn from the member states, with the Commissioners being nominated and elected by the properly elected governments of the member states. The make up of the Council varies according to the topic under consideration, but is composed of the relevant ministers of the member states, who are appointed by the governments of the member states, whose governments are formed from the elected MPs of the member states. No one institution can dominate, all can propose measures, but the measure must be supported by two out of the three institutions before it can proceed. To me, despite the claims to the contrary, it is fundamentally democratic. I don't see where the oft claimed "democratic deficit" arises. As with any democratic process, no one view can be expected to prevail at all times, but its decisions are reached by a sophisticated democratic process which all member states influence, even if their preferred outcome is not adopted.4 No comment.5 Then it would assist if the allegations that people who argue against the referendum outcome were not put down a Remoaners etc, and instead had their opinions challenged with counter argument. I wasn't in UK for a lot of the referendum campaign, but don't remember seeing claims of "doom". There were a number of projections that forecast unfavourable outcomes post Brexit (often confused with the vote, and not the event), but none, IMO, amounted to prophesies of doom. That exaggeratedly apocalyptic term was adopted by the pro Brexit campaigners to discredit any projections they didn't like. Another example of "project fear". "Remain in and wait and see" is, IMO, another loaded argument. I don't think anyone argued for that. What I heard, and agree with, is this. We, the UK, have a number of long standing unresolved structural problems. The EU also has a number of long standing unresolved structural problems. Neither is going to fix its problems in the short term. There is no immediate threat to the UK from the EU, any more than any other state is under some immediate threat. There is, therefore, no immediate reason to leave. Since a considerable amount of our trade is with the EU, on extremely beneficial terms, we are better off staying with that, while we sort out our own structural problems, and contribute to sorting out those of the EU. I see no sense in which the EU has imposed on us, or contributed to, our structural problems. These are the consequences of the actions and inactions of successive UK governments. If, at some future date, it becomes apparent that the EU is actually working to disadvantage us, then would be the time to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. But, as above, that time is not, IMO, now, or remotely close.6 Up to a point Lord Copper! What is missing at present is the vision for the UK outside the EU. That is presumably what we are negotiating to achieve? Who knows what that vision is? I assume someone must know, or no-one can know what the negotiations are about. OTOH, looking at what seems to be happening with the negotiations, I am becoming persuaded that perhaps no-one does know what the vision is, and that the negotiations are intended merely to supply the vision, and that we shall only discover what they are about when they conclude. Otherwise, I can't understand why the government had a hissing fit over allowing a parliamentary vote on the terms that emerge. We presently seem to be being offered a version of that children's party game where you put your hand into a closed bag, and have to guess what you can feel. No one can yet tell whether it's a fluffy toy, or a dead rat! And yet, if the government had had its way, we should have been stuck with whatever it turned out to be. We now at least have a parliamentary vote on whether the eventual terms should be accepted. But, parliament could have decided, instead of holding a referendum, to do its job, to weigh up the pros and cons of membership, and to vote on whether or not to withdraw. That would have saved a pointless referendum, but would have required the MPs to do the jobs we elect them to do. If parliament doesn't like the terms, or lacks sufficient courage to recommend them to the rest of us as the best outcome for our future prosperity, they should then vote for a further referendum on the terms as negotiated, which can then be presented with proper guidance on their probable outcomes. As I've said before, live by the referendum, die by the referendum. We can't have referendums when the politicians are too timid or undecided to do their jobs, and then revert to parliament once someone else can be blamed if the outcome is detrimental to the national good. Your fault, you wanted it!7 Where have we been dictated to by those Brussel's Mandarins in ways that have actually harmed our national interests, or national prosperity? We have had since the end of WW2 for us, plus "our industrialists, our politicians etc." to get it right - and it hasn't happened. We didn't join the EEC until 28 years after the war ended, we have been members for 44 years, and between the lot of us we haven't "got it right" in all those 72 years. I agree that we need to get it right, but that imperative is exactly the same in or out of the EU. I see no evidence that membership has prevented us doing so, no evidence that non-membership prevented us doing so, and only evidence that we prevented ourselves doing so. How leaving is supposed to affect that I cannot understand. It seems clear enough to me that our failure to rectify our national defects was/is unaffected by EEC/EU membership, but that that failure played a major role in the discontent/disaffection that resulted in the decision to leave. Look at where the centres of the leave and remain votes are. The wealthier the area, broadly, the more likely it was to vote remain. The more depressed the area, the more likely it was to vote leave. How did the EEC/EU, as opposed to UK government policies, impoverish some areas and enrich others? Sorry for so lengthy a post, but the question is not capable (at least be me :-)) of a two line answer.

Firstly you previously 'asked' for the opportunity for a reasoned, mature debate. I have to ask if your comment:"........ than the future as seen through permanently rose tinted specs!" is a necessary condemnation of those who think differently to you. After all you object to the leave side referring to the remain side 'sack cloth and ashes'..., 'doom and gloom' attitude so all I see here is another instance of double standards. Provocation isn't productive.

1: You introduce GDP etc and comment it paints a 'not too good a picture'. What it does not show is the restrictions placed on the UK and other member states, by the EU, with regard to who they are allowed to trade with. In essence, as I understand it, the EU runs something akin to a closed shop. Why is it that the EU has, almost immediately after Article 50 was invoked, sent delegations to a number of countries it had previously 'not' had trade deals with to secure the same as quickly as possible? Research shows that, in a nutshell, it is now very active in this area in response to Brexit and looking to 'put one over' on the UK. Behaving like a playground bully.

2+3:

I talked about expansionism yet you feel the reverse could equally be the case. There is one simple answer to that premise: Politicians are in the main egotistic power seekers and those in Brussels clearly are looking towards obtaining ever greater powers for themselves. Just look at the ramping up of the membership process for Turkey, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo.

The following makes interesting reading:

The graphite was hardly dry on the Brexit ballots when TVP Info, a Polish broadcaster, leaked a 9-page document drawn up by the German and French foreign ministers calling for an EU superstate, complete with an EU army, integrated border controls and common taxation. The German foreign minister discussed the plans — which are being described as “an ultimatum” — with his counterparts in the Visegrad Group of countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) this week.

The document, bearing the Orwellian title of “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties,” lays out the exact tyrannical plans that the EU’s critics have been warning about for years. After identifying key areas of uncertainty and concern affecting Europe — from spreading [false flag] terrorism to [manipulated] cultural tensions to [engineered] economic hardships — the document proposes three new areas for expanded EU cooperation:

A European Security Compact, including an expansion of internal “security” through a strengthened Europol, and expansion of external “security” in areas like North Africa and the Middle East through coordination with the African Union, G5 and other globalist counterparts.
A Common European asylum and migration policy, including the expansion of FRONTEX with permanent, dedicated EU-supplied staff, and the creation of a European Asylum Agency tasked with standardizing the registration of asylum seekers and hosting joint EU-controlled databases.
A Completed Economic and Monetary Union, including “convergence between member states” in strategic sectors of the economy, the development of a European Monetary Fund presided over by EU parliament, and continued moves toward “common taxation.”
“The EU will need to take action more often in order to manage crises that directly affect its own security. We therefore need stronger and more flexible crisis prevention and crisis management capabilities. The EU should be able to plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively, with the support of a permanent civil-military chain of command. The EU should be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces and provide common financing for its operations. Within the framework of the EU, member states willing to establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence or to push ahead to launch operations should be able to do so in a flexible manner. If needed, EU member states should consider establishing standing maritime forces or acquiring EU-owned capabilities in other key areas.”

Now that makes me very concerned regarding just where Germany and France want to take the EU. You appear to be incredibly trusting with regard to the EU democratic process. I am a great deal less trusting. Power wielded, in terms of 'money' alone, makes Germany and France powerful entities that have the ability to 'financially convince' the smaller, poorer states to support their ideals in return for ensuring financial assistance flows their way.

Poland has already said, in response to continued 'manipulation' by what it considers to be the EU dominant nations of Germany and France and in response to conflicting standpoints over migrant quotes, internal affairs and environmental laws. Interestingly it is quite easy to find numerous sources that offer the opinion that Poland only remains a member, for the time being at least, because it is a net beneficiary.

Add to that the fact that the Waloons have the capability to stall, even cause the abandonment of certain areas of proposed policy and I consider any faith in the democratic process, delivered by the three components, to be democratic in delivery to be wholly misguided. Fundamentally democratic in construct it might be but in practice.....not a chance.

You call it 'Project Fear' based on exaggeration. All I can say is one can discover a great deal regarding the worrying plans of the 'powerful and influential' from very little research.

4: You say 'no comment'. I ask why? Is it possible you have more faith in the EU than the UK?

5: I called it pronouncements of 'doom'. To name but one....Mark Carney has made so many downbeat announcements that clearly damage the financial standing of the UK and it's markets and then had to either retract or otherwise attempt to demonstrate his statements were misinterpreted. Now that sort of thing is what I mean when I say 'doom and gloom'. Pronouncements that the UK is not capable of conducting it's own affairs, not capable of functioning without the EU crutch......that is doom and gloom. Question Time speakers doing UK Plc down, being told their comments harm our nation. That is 'doom and gloom'.

"Remain in....wait and see"?....comments you made so if it is loaded....you loaded it.

6: Quite simply.....we had a referendum. It is in the past so irrespective of who did or didn't abrogate their responsibilities it is done. As for the present and Parliamentary oversight.....didn't Teresa May say Parliament would 'have it's day'?

7: I have neither the time or inclination to list the interferences, impositions etc that the EU has delivered on to this country.

I am quite satisfied that your comment nicely sums up why we are right in leaving:

".... we have been members for 44 years, and between the lot of us we haven't "got it right" in all those 72 years."

44 years and what influence we have had has still resulted in a widespread public dissatisfaction, distrust and desire to leave the monolith that is the EU.

Lastly, you comment:

"It seems clear enough to me that our failure to rectify our national defects was/is unaffected by EEC/EU membership, but that that failure played a major role in the discontent/disaffection that resulted in the decision to leave".

That discontent was, as I saw it at least, far less widespread, and most certainly much less inclined to precipitate a leave vote, before the EU plans to 'open the freedom of movement' floodgate came into force and the likes of Farage and 'Joe Public' who voiced concerns were shouted down as racists and bigots. People saw their communities change almost overnight and without going into the 'race/bigot' name calling side of things one has to accept that for the people living in those areas the issue was/is serious and they clearly felt/feel that no one was/is listening to them. Blair, Mandelson, Prescott and Brown, supposedly the leadership of a political party that has the interests of the working man at it's core, served to greatly exacerbate the problem and if one looks deeply enough, and accepts at least one thing the 'Prince of Darkness' says as true they consciously set out to change the face of society in an ill judged attempt to retain 'power'.

So I agree we should be inward looking if playing the blame game as we should equally look towards Brussels for having played it's part in the alienation of a great many people across Europe. It has, over the years, not listened, it appears not to have changed it's approach and it continues to be led by those who are happy to verbally threaten and bully (Juncker/Merkel for example). It clearly has expansionist plans that are very worrying and I am hopeful that we will look back on this period as one of realisation that the EU is not the be all and end all leaving was the right thing to do.

Brian Kirby · December 16, 2017

Rose tinted glasses is a common idiom for excessively optimistic. I actually said "It will need a lot more than optimistic, unsubstantiated, claims about our transformation post Brexit to convince me that they are anything more than the future as seen through permanently rose tinted specs!" Through the eyes of people I regard as excessively optimistic. I'm sorry if you take that to be offensive or provocative.

1 I don't understand. GDP can't show what didn't happen, only what did. I was contrasting Britain's per capita GDP with that of other EU countries. It compares poorly. Why so, when the other countries are also in the EU? Do they not have to work within the same constraints. Why should the UK be worse affected than the others while subject to the same rules?

2 - 3 That is what you see. It is not what I see. We have to agree to disagree.

4 You ask why I said no comment. You further ask "Is it possible you have more faith in the EU than the UK?" You originally said "The point is whichever way the UK vote went it was going to be a leap of faith and I know where my faith lies" How could I possibly comment on that. You know where your faith lies. So be it. Do I have more faith in the EU than the UK. I prefer reason to faith, and view both with equal distrust until they prove me wrong.

5 Sorry, but this seems not to answer any of my points. As I said, I disagree that the BoE (and others) forecast doom. They produced forecasts of the probably impact of leaving the EU. The forecasts were later revised. Forecasts get changed continually, as events change. They were labelled as forecasting doom, because they did not forecast joy. It is the product of representing the complex through a single word. My point regarding the UKs structural problems is not addressed. What of them? It had nothing to do with Question Time.

6 I think Theresa May said parliament would "have its say". You were saying that no answers cold be given as to the terms under which we should leave until the negotiations were complete. I explained that it was it was not the final terms I was after, but the vision for Britain post Brexit. The question of Parliamentary oversight is not relevant to that point.

7 Which is a shame, because it appears you know what they are, but decline to give examples, while I can't think of any. It is odd, but I have never read anyone who is in favour of Brexit offer examples of the kinds of things the EEC/EU have imposed on us to our disadvantage. Nor have I seen anyone set out the disadvantageous EEC/EU laws which we must repeal in order to prosper. It all leaves me with the impression that they don't exist, or that if people were told what they are, they might not be so keen on leaving.

You turn instead to immigration. That was a purely UK government own goal. Other countries all imposed time limited restrictions. The UK government encouraged them to come, so they came. Yet, this misjudgement is blamed on the EU.

I'm afraid all I can glean from your extensive reply is that you deeply distrust the EU and all its institutions, and see it as a force that inflicts disadvantage on the UK. Thus, the argument goes full circle, because I already knew that, but I still don't understand why. Why it is the UK that does badly when other members do better, how is the EU responsible for that, and how will leaving reverse it? The question remains.

RogerC · December 16, 2017

John52 - 2017-12-16 3:10 PM
RogerC - 2017-12-14 11:22 PM
John52 - 2017-12-14 11:01 PM
nowtelse2do - 2017-12-14 7:19 PM(Look who's not on the list....Germany) well I never. Must have saved a billion or two.Dave
How many £billions could Britain have saved?More to the point how many lives could we have saved if we had negotiated with Saddam instead - at the risk of being called 'Terrorist Sympathisers'
Are you serious?
I can see that negotiation may be beyond the capabilities of those with the warrior mentality of whatever the problem, violence is the solution. But violence hasn't left Iraq (or us) in a better state has it?
Some people are so maladjusted in their sense of reality that negotiation and reasoning with them is futile and it is impossible to achieve anything remotely akin to an agreeable, sane dialogue. Funny, if not so, sad you and he might have got along just fine.

RogerC · December 16, 2017

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-16 7:32 PM 2 - 3 That is what you see. It is not what I see. We have to agree to disagree.

As the issues and situations I included there (2&3 above) are mostly all directly sourced from EU documents, memorandum etc, especially this one:

Entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties”. you say "it is not what you see" so I can only conclude that this article, from Radio Poland 27 June 2016, is something you 'do not see' either:

QUOTE
The foreign ministers of France and Germany have proposed creating a “European superstate” limiting the powers of individual members following Britain’s referendum decision to leave the EU, Polish public broadcaster TVP Info has reported.
The document in which the proposals appear is to be presented to Visegrad Group countries meeting in Prague on Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, TVP Info said, adding that the document was an "ultimatum".
TVP Info said the proposals would mean members of a superstate would in practice have no right to their own army, to a separate criminal code or a separate tax system, and would not have their own currency.
In addition, TVP Info said, member states would lose control over their own borders and procedures for admitting and relocating refugees. UNQUOTE

The source 'is' an EU document. How much more credibility does a source need to have before you can 'see it'?

Seeing as you have unequivocally stated you do not 'see' that which comes from the 'horses mouth' I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides.

Point 5:

You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction. The problem, as anyone who has an interest in these things will confirm, is that, to update an old hackneyed phrase, "If Mark Carney sneezes....the City catches a cold". In other words he above all should have been more guarded and circumspect in his pronouncements.

I agree the UK has it's self inflicted problems. However having to deal with the EU diktats as well most certainly adds to the workload of sorting it all out.

Lastly, and I can not for the life of me understand why it is so difficult to grasp.....It costs the UK approximately £9 billion per year to be a member, £9billion I would rather see our leadership waste instead of letting the EU waste it for us. For over 20 years the auditors have refused to give the accounts a clean bill of health. In 2015 alone the amount termed 'error rate' by the auditors reached in excess of £6.4 billion Euro. Now as you like percentages that is approximately 4.4% of the total budget so I suspect you will consider it to be 'small' in the scheme of things and move on. As for me, it is simply another reason to get out of the 'club'.

Barryd999 · December 17, 2017

RogerC - 2017-12-16 10:17 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-16 7:32 PM 2 - 3 That is what you see. It is not what I see. We have to agree to disagree.
As the issues and situations I included there (2&3 above) are mostly all directly sourced from EU documents, memorandum etc, especially this one:
Entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties”. you say "it is not what you see" so I can only conclude that this article, from Radio Poland 27 June 2016, is something you 'do not see' either:
QUOTE
The foreign ministers of France and Germany have proposed creating a “European superstate” limiting the powers of individual members following Britain’s referendum decision to leave the EU, Polish public broadcaster TVP Info has reported.
The document in which the proposals appear is to be presented to Visegrad Group countries meeting in Prague on Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, TVP Info said, adding that the document was an "ultimatum".
TVP Info said the proposals would mean members of a superstate would in practice have no right to their own army, to a separate criminal code or a separate tax system, and would not have their own currency.
In addition, TVP Info said, member states would lose control over their own borders and procedures for admitting and relocating refugees. UNQUOTE

The source 'is' an EU document. How much more credibility does a source need to have before you can 'see it'?

Seeing as you have unequivocally stated you do not 'see' that which comes from the 'horses mouth' I can see that there is no debating with someone who is unable to accept what is shown to be the truth irrespective of which side of the fence one resides.
Point 5:
You seem to have an unfaltering love of forecasting, changing determinations like the wind changes direction. The problem, as anyone who has an interest in these things will confirm, is that, to update an old hackneyed phrase, "If Mark Carney sneezes....the City catches a cold". In other words he above all should have been more guarded and circumspect in his pronouncements.
I agree the UK has it's self inflicted problems. However having to deal with the EU diktats as well most certainly adds to the workload of sorting it all out.
Lastly, and I can not for the life of me understand why it is so difficult to grasp.....It costs the UK approximately £9 billion per year to be a member, £9billion I would rather see our leadership waste instead of letting the EU waste it for us. For over 20 years the auditors have refused to give the accounts a clean bill of health. In 2015 alone the amount termed 'error rate' by the auditors reached in excess of £6.4 billion Euro. Now as you like percentages that is approximately 4.4% of the total budget so I suspect you will consider it to be 'small' in the scheme of things and move on. As for me, it is simply another reason to get out of the 'club'.

Your as bad as the Daily Mali Roger when promoting your views. Im always suspicious when someone quotes some mysterious article without a link to the source. Conveniently clipping the bit they want without reference to the actual article. http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-causes-alarm

The views of one bloke it seems and quickly discounted by the EU and other EU leaders.

People talk about the EU like its some Darth Vader lead evil, all powerful organisation sitting in some "death star" somewhere plotting evil deeds when actually its just the administration centre for the 28 countries that are members.

Nobody wants their country to become a nameless part of some super state but lets not let that fact get in the way of a good, made up anti EU story huh?

Barryd999 · December 17, 2017

Oh dear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html

Brexit: Britons now back Remain over Leave by 10 points, exclusive poll shows

Interestingly what it also shows is that those that did not vote the first time round are hugely in favour of remaining by four to one. If its correct it settles the argument of just which way those abstainers would have voted and tells us that in fact it simply is not the will of the majority to leave the EU.

Ok so its just one poll I hear you Brexiteers say but its a long way to the finish line and if I were a betting man I would bet on that gap widening in favour of remain. We shall see.

December 17, 2017

Barryd999 - 2017-12-17 9:29 AM

Oh dear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html

Brexit: Britons now back Remain over Leave by 10 points, exclusive poll shows

Interestingly what it also shows is that those that did not vote the first time round are hugely in favour of remaining by four to one. If its correct it settles the argument of just which way those abstainers would have voted and tells us that in fact it simply is not the will of the majority to leave the EU.

Ok so its just one poll I hear you Brexiteers say but its a long way to the finish line and if I were a betting man I would bet on that gap widening in favour of remain. We shall see.

Well if you do manage to scuttle BREXIT then I'm going to vote for Corbyn 8-) ..........

I intend to spend very little time in the UK for the foreseeable future, so I reckon a few years with Corbyn at the helm will be suitable revenge, especially when viewed from afar with a vino tinto in my hand >:-) ...........

Sign In

Is Brexit stuffed?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived