Jump to content
IGNORED

Brexit...


Hafnia

Referendum  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

 

This is the key point: Britons don't want to be part of a United States of Europe, but we do want to be part of a Common Market/Economic Community: economic union not political union. This is the issue in a nutshell. If all parties could wake up to this fact, the Brexit would go a lot more smoothly and less acrimoniously.

 

So what you're saying is, given that the only thing the British want out of European cooperation is the single market, there wouldn't have been a majority for Leave if people had known that Brexit means that the UK will no longer be in the single market?

Must be pretty annoying then that leaving the single market is the one thing May has guaranteed will happen :o.

 

Here's the thing though. When the UK was finally allowed to join the EU back in the 70's the EU (then EEC) it was already more than just a economic union. So the UK knew what they were getting into (I even remember reading a copy of an old article by your then prime minister who wrote about how it won't be just about economic cooperation and how excited he is about the prospect of working together with the EU on other issues - I have the link on my computer at work and will post it tomorrow).

So, you have 27 member states that want a EU that is not just focused on common economic policy, but also on other common interests such as human rights, consumer rights, labour rights, etc. May has indicated she respects that, but doesn't want any part of it. This is fine, but it also means that to the EU, the UK is to be treated as any other third country.

 

Being a third country, the single market is out the window. Best case, trade with a third country is defined by a free trade agreement (as opposed to WTO rules). In this agreement each side will try to get what is the best possible deal. The future UK - New Zealand deal for example will force the UK to deal with the threat of Welsh lamb being priced off the shelves by cheaper Kiwi lamb so maybe they want to protect that sector with a tariff of sorts, New Zealand will then want concessions on another issue - it's give and take.

What will be the response of "Mr America First" if May calls him up and says she wants full access to the American market in exchange for full access to the UK market? He'll say it doesn't make sense for him to give complete unhindered access to the richest country in the world, home of some 300million consumers, in exchange for access to a country of just 65m. He'll want something more.

 

It's the same with the EU. Either you are a full member and get the benefits of trading in the Union without barriers; or you are out and you have to come to agreement about the level of access to each others market. The reality being that the EU is 8 times bigger than the UK.

 

I would agree with you that Brexit would go a lot smoother for the UK if the EU just agreed to a free trade agreement that is 100% similar to full access to the single market but that wouldn't really make sense for the 27 member states. Being the bigger player of the two, the EU27 should be able to negotiate a deal that would create strong incentives to get some of those banking jobs to the continent, or maybe a couple of Airbus plants, or a couple of car plants, .. who knows.

Edited by holystove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what you're saying is, given that the only thing the British want out of European cooperation is the single market, there wouldn't have been a majority for Leave if people had known that Brexit means that the UK will no longer be in the single market?

Must be pretty annoying then that leaving the single market is the one thing May has guaranteed will happen :o.

 

Here's the thing though. When the UK was finally allowed to join the EU back in the 70's the EU (then EEC) it was already more than just a economic union. So the UK knew what they were getting into (I even remember reading a copy of an old article by your then prime minister who wrote about how it won't be just about economic cooperation and how excited he is about the prospect of working together with the EU on other issues - I have the link on my computer at work and will post it tomorrow).

So, you have 27 member states that want a EU that is not just focused on common economic policy, but also on other common interests such as human rights, consumer rights, labour rights, etc. May has indicated she respects that, but doesn't want any part of it. This is fine, but it also means that to the EU, the UK is to be treated as any other third country.

 

Being a third country, the single market is out the window. Best case, trade with a third country is defined by a free trade agreement (as opposed to WTO rules). In this agreement each side will try to get what is the best possible deal. The future UK - New Zealand deal for example will force the UK to deal with the threat of Welsh lamb being priced off the shelves by cheaper Kiwi lamb so maybe they want to protect that sector with a tariff of sorts, New Zealand will then want concessions on another issue - it's give and take.

What will be the response of "Mr America First" if May calls him up and says she wants full access to the American market in exchange for full access to the UK market? He'll say it doesn't make sense for him to give complete unhindered access to the richest country in the world, home of some 300million consumers, in exchange for access to a country of just 65m. He'll want something more.

 

It's the same with the EU. Either you are a full member and get the benefits of trading in the Union without barriers; or you are out and you have to come to agreement about the level of access to each others market. The reality being that the EU is 8 times bigger than the UK.

 

I would agree with you that Brexit would go a lot smoother for the UK if the EU just agreed to a free trade agreement that is 100% similar to full access to the single market but that wouldn't really make sense for the 27 member states. Being the bigger player of the two, the EU27 should be able to negotiate a deal that would create strong incentives to get some of those banking jobs to the continent, or maybe a couple of Airbus plants, or a couple of car plants, .. who knows.

 

Here's my recollection.

 

1) Britain entered a Common Market and voted (in the only previous referendum) to remain in an Economic Union. Honestly, I recall no substantive debate at the time about anything other than economic union. Even that referendum result was in the balance for a while.

 

2) What really began to tick people off were things like the social charter. This was the first time Europe pretty much told Britain what it could and could not do with regard to labour laws. This upset a lot of people and remained a bone in the throat.

 

3) Britons were not allowed another referendum, so the unhappiness with the EU festered for decades. Of course older folks voted for Brexit; their voices were ignored for ever.

 

So, yes, I am saying, "given that the only thing the British want out of European cooperation is the single market, there wouldn't have been a majority for Leave if people had known that Brexit means that the UK will no longer be in the single market?" There are exceptions (Mike being one), and the peace premium is also important, but this is certainly my sense of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, yes, I am saying, "given that the only thing the British want out of European cooperation is the single market, there wouldn't have been a majority for Leave if people had known that Brexit means that the UK will no longer be in the single market?" There are exceptions (Mike being one), and the peace premium is also important, but this is certainly my sense of the situation.

Then someone should tell May that since she laid out her "plan" there is no longer a majority for brexit!

 

Right, where's the opposition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the law is irrelevant?!

 

In this context, yes. The referendum result wasn't intended to be decided by lawyers, it was a democratic vote by the electorate. The only reason we are in this situation is that the liberal elite didn't get the result they wanted and are trying every trick in the book to head it off. They are only delaying tactics though as it WILL happen, thank goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this context, yes. The referendum result wasn't intended to be decided by lawyers, it was a democratic vote by the electorate. The only reason we are in this situation is that the liberal elite didn't get the result they wanted and are trying every trick in the book to head it off. They are only delaying tactics though as it WILL happen, thank goodness.

sorry, John, but that's absurd. You can't pick and choose laws. They're there to protect the public and, in this case, it's essential it is followed. plus this is a British law they're reviewing, and not an EU one. Or should we just pick and choose what we like at the time? I fancy beating the shit out of Cameron and others for opening Pandora's box, should I ignore the GBH laws and just go for it?

 

It was also only partly democratic. I was NOT allowed to vote, even though I'm a British citizen and live in mainland Europe (one of the 2 million who, had they been allowed t vote, would've tipped the scale the other way (just)) - my Swiss permit is largely based on me being an EU citizen. The majority of Leave voters won't live through the repercussions and the youth who couldn't vote will. How is that democratic? 2 out of 4 countries in the British union had very clear 60/40 for remain, but have to leave. How is that democratic? We have a parliamentary democracy, but for this we'll just ignore... our actual democracy?!

Edited by Matt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and throw in the fact this is being pushed through by an unelected PM! Conservative Democracy at its finest....

That's our democracy at its finest irrelevant of the party. The last unelected PM sold our gold reserves at the bottom of the market amongst many other things.

 

Going back to the legal challenge, this should have been done before the vote. If the nation is given a vote then the result should be honoured or these lawyers etc should have kicked up a fuss before the event not after the result was known.

 

Out of interest what happens? Do Parliament get to decide? Both houses? Etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the comment about the youth that it will effect. Maybe if the young lumps had bothered to vote they could've influenced the vote instead of moaning after the fact. Lazy fucks don't even have the excuse of having to go to a polling station when they could've voted by post.

 

Whinge, whinge, boo hoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's our democracy at its finest irrelevant of the party. The last unelected PM sold our gold reserves at the bottom of the market amongst many other things.

 

Going back to the legal challenge, this should have been done before the vote. If the nation is given a vote then the result should be honoured or these lawyers etc should have kicked up a fuss before the event not after the result was known.

 

Out of interest what happens? Do Parliament get to decide? Both houses? Etc

 

That's gone to the supreme court hasn't it? Govt wanted to make agreement without putting it to a parliamentary vote, were challenged in the high court and lost but have appealed and we're waiting for the result of that; though didn't Thatcher 2.0 suggest in her speech the other day that she would go to the house? May be wrong, been a bit off planet in recent weeks :wacko:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be fairer is a snap election so the electorate could have a say on which party and leader they felt could best negotiate the exit deal that was in our best interest.

To me that is just as important as the exit or remain vote, because I for one can't remember saying I would be happy with Theresa May having the final say over our exit strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's gone to the supreme court hasn't it? Govt wanted to make agreement without putting it to a parliamentary vote, were challenged in the high court and lost but have appealed and we're waiting for the result of that; though didn't Thatcher 2.0 suggest in her speech the other day that she would go to the house? May be wrong, been a bit off planet in recent weeks :wacko:.

She did say that, problem being in her scenario is that once she implements article 50 we have only two years to try and negotiate a deal, so her team and herself spend twenty three months thrashing out a deal, she then goes to parliament with her deal parliament vote against her deal.

Where do we go from there no time left to 're-negotiate so it has to be excepted or we're out the door with no deal, that's how I see it but may be totally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the comment about the youth that it will effect. Maybe if the young lumps had bothered to vote they could've influenced the vote instead of moaning after the fact. Lazy fucks don't even have the excuse of having to go to a polling station when they could've voted by post.

 

Whinge, whinge, boo hoo.

i was referring to those under 18 and probably better educated to make a decision. Edited by Matt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, John, but that's absurd. You can't pick and choose laws. They're there to protect the public and, in this case, it's essential it is followed. plus this is a British law they're reviewing, and not an EU one. Or should we just pick and choose what we like at the time? I fancy beating the shit out of Cameron and others for opening Pandora's box, should I ignore the GBH laws and just go for it?

 

It was also only partly democratic. I was NOT allowed to vote, even though I'm a British citizen and live in mainland Europe (one of the 2 million who, had they been allowed t vote, would've tipped the scale the other way (just)) - my Swiss permit is largely based on me being an EU citizen. The majority of Leave voters won't live through the repercussions and the youth who couldn't vote will. How is that democratic? 2 out of 4 countries in the British union had very clear 60/40 for remain, but have to leave. How is that democratic? We have a parliamentary democracy, but for this we'll just ignore... our actual democracy?!

 

The view is that four of the legal eagles will vote in favour of the Government with the rest against. Presumably you will accept that 'democracy'? Your comment about sections of the UK voting against Brexit is facile. Everyone understood that the vote would be a national vote. Its like suggesting that in a General Election because Liverpool voted Labour they should have their own Labour Government. By the way, I don't object to you beating the shit out of Cameron, next to Edward Heath he was the worst Conservative Prime Minister since the war. Also, your conjecture regarding the 2 million British citizens living in mainland Europe would have tipped the scale (just) has to be taken into consideration with the view that without 'project fear' the estimate is that the 'Leave' vote would have been 60%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's gone to the supreme court hasn't it? Govt wanted to make agreement without putting it to a parliamentary vote, were challenged in the high court and lost but have appealed and we're waiting for the result of that; though didn't Thatcher 2.0 suggest in her speech the other day that she would go to the house? May be wrong, been a bit off planet in recent weeks :wacko:.

Do Parliament get to veto whether we exit or not or can they just decide how we exit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be fairer is a snap election so the electorate could have a say on which party and leader they felt could best negotiate the exit deal that was in our best interest.

To me that is just as important as the exit or remain vote, because I for one can't remember saying I would be happy with Theresa May having the final say over our exit strategy.

But then Europe see our 'hand' as it will have to be put to the nation.

 

In the vote you didn't vote for anyone to have the final say, it would always be the government at the time of the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting should be from age 16. If you're deemed responsible enough to have sex at 16 then you should be able to vote.

 

Then again, how many of them would actually bother to?

I don't agree. You are legally a child until you are 18, not just unable to vote. At 16 there is no way I would have been able to understand the complexities of making any decision like this.

 

Then again most adults don't either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the saying "Brexit means Brexit." ?

 

We are leaving the EU and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it happening now. It is really just a matter of when.

 

So (imo of course) Fuck European politicians, they could have made it possible for us to remain by giving in a little bit on some matters, but they chose to not do so. We never voted them into power. In fact NOBODY voted them into power. Now they threaten us? I day fuck them all with a barbed wire xmas tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree. You are legally a child until you are 18, not just unable to vote. At 16 there is no way I would have been able to understand the complexities of making any decision like this.

Then again most adults don't either!

But are legally allowed to bring a child into the world at 16. So you can bring a new life into the world but not make a decision about that world? Nah, that's all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are legally allowed to bring a child into the world at 16. So you can bring a new life into the world but not make a decision about that world? Nah, that's all wrong.

But at the same time you can't legally smoke, drink or drive. IMO you shouldn't legally be able to bring a child into this world at that age either but it's not like you can lock up a couple of 15 year olds for having a quickie. I think the law is probably there to protect kids against perverted adults taking advantage of children more than anything. Technically the law is also against having sex, not having children. You can have a child as soon as you are physically mature enough, doesn't mean you should be able to vote.

 

Bar the odd one or two kids here and there, at 16 you are simply not mature enough to make a decision like that. You know nothing of the world at that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion about voting age is, I must confess, rather amusing. The age limit used to be 21, and now it's 18. Honestly, at both those ages, I was very naive and largely influenced by what I heard from teachers in school and university. Looking back, I would propose not allowing anyone to vote until (i) they've worked a real job for three years; (ii) owned a house and had to make mortgage payments; (iii) are married and understand the implications of being a parent. There's a reason why a majority of cultures throughout history have demonstrated respect for elders.

 

As a parent to six (now adult) children, I can tell you that a couple of them thought they understood all there is to know when they were teens and were difficult to convince otherwise. I had to make choices affecting them they didn't like because I knew better what was in their best interests. They hated it at the time, but they thank me for it today.

 

So, if anything, I would make the argument that only the over-50s should be allowed to vote since we have the wisdom of years needed to make decisions of such import - and we make those decisions not selfishly but in the best interested of the generations that follow. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The view is that four of the legal eagles will vote in favour of the Government with the rest against. Presumably you will accept that 'democracy'? Your comment about sections of the UK voting against Brexit is facile. Everyone understood that the vote would be a national vote. Its like suggesting that in a General Election because Liverpool voted Labour they should have their own Labour Government. By the way, I don't object to you beating the shit out of Cameron, next to Edward Heath he was the worst Conservative Prime Minister since the war. Also, your conjecture regarding the 2 million British citizens living in mainland Europe would have tipped the scale (just) has to be taken into consideration with the view that without 'project fear' the estimate is that the 'Leave' vote would have been 60%.

I just want the government to follow the law and vote in Parliament. If they vote to leave, then so be it, but at least then I trust that there's a real plan that they've voted on.

 

Not sure why Leave voters are so against British law being respected - isn't this part of the reason people voted to leave? I assume it's because there's a worry the vote would be to Remain instead, based on the decision of people paid to make this kind of decision. I also wonder if Project Blame were to run against Project Fear, who would win in a second round?

 

Anyway, apologies for my rant last night. I found out that Leave has a strong chance of directly impacting my ability to find work in Switzerland, let alone mainland Europe. It's all guess work at the moment but there's a chance the life I've chosen to live will be prevented due to this. If there had been a clear explanation from both sides for advantages and disadvantages, I could stomach it. The fact it was based on "which politician gets the big job next" and lies (from both sides) makes it a really, really hard thing to take. That, and the fact I wasn't allowed a say on how my life is going to be affected.

Edited by Matt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, only allowing people to vote after they've had kids, wouldn't be the greatest thing for LGBT rights :).

 

-

 

So (imo of course) Fuck European politicians, they could have made it possible for us to remain by giving in a little bit on some matters, but they chose to not do so. We never voted them into power. In fact NOBODY voted them into power. Now they threaten us? I day fuck them all with a barbed wire xmas tree.

 

Yikes Rubes.

 

Brexit will cause the Belgian GDP to drop 2-4 percentage points. This because of a decision I had no say in... however I don't equate you deciding what you think is best for you with threatening me.., and it doesn't make me want to fuck you with a barbed wire xmas tree :).

 

Other countries will make decisions without you having had a say in them, and those decisions might adversely affect you. It's just the way things go in a globalised world and it is not EU-related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...