advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
So, you admit that you made up the story about the Brussels Building being replaced, but now you seem to be deflecting to the Strasbourg one. What you seem to be swaying is:

"Whoops, busted on Brussels, but it's bound to happen in Strasbourg, innit".

That's about the level of intellectual argument we've come to expect, I suppose, but it does show that Brexit supporters are entirely comfortable with fake news, provided it gets a job done. That's a very dangerous mindset, IMO.
Click to expand...

Not so much made up as the expectation that a new state of the art Strasbourg will be built in the future. If the EU were serious about climate change they would make a symbolic repair to the present building and scrap one of the present parliaments.
 
Colin Barron said:
Not so much made up as the expectation that a new state of the art Strasbourg will be built in the future. If the EU were serious about climate change they would make a symbolic repair to the present building and scrap one of the present parliaments.
Click to expand...
You. Made. The. Brussels. Story. Up.

You admitted it.
 
Colin Barron said:
No i made up the Strasbourg story. Pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Ah, I thought my question in post #1559 was clear, but no matter. So to return to my question, then, do you have a link for the Brussels story, because I haven't been able to find anything about it? Serious request. If you have anything I'd be interested to read it for myself.
 
Colin Barron said:
The positive is the UK has limited liability for the brewing magic money tree storm.
Click to expand...

The UK has just wasted as much money preparing for and negotiating BrExit as it put into the EEC/EU during it's 47 year membership (£100/person/year?)...
Either the UK has a magic money tree or the "move" wasn't particularly intelligent from an economical perspective.
And I am not counting the economic benefits that the UK reaped during that period.
Since the UK cannot have the cake and eat it there won't be a free trade agreement. That means more costs/less profit than being a member. And to trade the UK will have to comply with the rules and regs and still be subject to the/a court, with the drawback of not being able to participate in either (the UK becomes a de facto vassal state).

Your first positive is a negative.

Colin Barron said:
I don't think Federalism will work but the big brains of the EU believe it is the way forward. Good luck with that one.
Click to expand...

You are speculating, twice.
First, you don't know if the EU will become a Federal State.
Second, if it does, you don't know if/whether it won't work. The US and Russia are Federal States, you could even say that about China, India or Brasil. And they're mighty, whilst the UK...

Your second positive is not even related to the UK. But it might impact the UK's future, negatively.
 
Colin Barron said:
Your man Phil Hogan did not get many kind comments. Cick on 'youtube' for comments
Click to expand...

Fabulous stuff. One quote from a punter sums up a lot of the folks posting on this.

"Our forefathers fought Two WW to keep what we had and FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF SPEACH. The Eu crap hole started to pillage and takeaway just like China are doing to Hong Kong THATS WHY!!"
 
Colin Barron said:
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/european-parliament’s-iconic-paul-henri-spaak-building-may-be-demolished
https://www.politico.eu/article/parliament-looks-to-build-new-brussels-home/
Click to expand...
Thank you. One of those reports feels a bit over-excited, but the gist seems to be that the original developer didn’t build a great structure and in any event, building codes have moved on. Seems it wasn’t designed as the home for the EU Parliament, but was repurposed, so the story is rather more nuanced than you have suggested. One reasonable alternative reading would be:

Parliament grasps nettle of refurb for dodgy building to modern standards and designed for the purpose.

But that wouldn’t fit the agenda.

It’s a shame though. I’ve worked in that building and I really like it.
 
SteveS1 said:
That's the sort of inaccurate emotive description that has got us where we are.

Abdicating our influence by flouncing out (the UK had much to do with formation and a shared oversight of the SM). Still wanting to parcipitate, while resenting the reduced influence. The UK has to reconcile itself to this. In short, if we didn't think we had enough 'control' inside the EU, we sure as Hell can't expect much from outside of it. The choice to retain some participation has to be viewed in that context.

If we were in Barnier's position, the bile and venom from our tabloids and the like, to a country that was trying to leave and retain access would be far more hostile. It would all be "how dare they, make 'em pay, who do they think they are" and so on.

The idea that the UK could belong to the EU and retain some sort of veto or casting vote on everything is just the type of UK exceptionalism that had dogged us for decades. It's almost as if part of the post-imperial legacy by way of culture is that there is only working for people and not with them.
Click to expand...
Steve, It wasn't an inaccurate, emotive description. One sided negotiation is not a negotiation at all. It is a problem how people on the remain side nod their head in instant agreement with whatever comes out of the EU, yet everything the UK might want to negotiate is immediately met with the instant dismisssal of cake and eat it. Now that is an example of emotive nonsense. See below for yet another example.

tuga said:
The UK has just wasted as much money preparing for and negotiating BrExit as it put into the EEC/EU during it's 47 year membership (£100/person/year?)...
Either the UK has a magic money tree or the "move" wasn't particularly intelligent from an economical perspective.
And I am not counting the economic benefits that the UK reaped during that period.
Since the UK cannot have the cake and eat it there won't be a free trade agreement. That means more costs/less profit than being a member. And to trade the UK will have to comply with the rules and regs and still be subject to the/a court, with the drawback of not being able to participate in either (the UK becomes a de facto vassal state).

Your first positive is a negative.

You are speculating, twice.
First, you don't know if the EU will become a Federal State.
Second, if it does, you don't know if/whether it won't work. The US and Russia are Federal States, you could even say that about China, India or Brasil. And they're mighty, whilst the UK...

Your second positive is not even related to the UK. But it might impact the UK's future, negatively.
Click to expand...
First of all, speculating about federalism when it is the clear aim and direction the EU is heading is fair and a good thing. Speculating about a total unknown, as the remain campaign did about the disaster of leaving, is a bad thing.

I will repeat. There is nothing a hard remainer will see as a benefit to the UK of leaving the EU. Absolutely nothing. Colin has just given you something he believes is a benefit, ET has done similar but both meeting with immediate rejection. You already know you will never accept anything put forward as a benefit. Why do you keep on with the sealioning?

By the way, you need to accept that even though you are in favour of federalism, there are many who are not.
 
Brian said:
Steve, It wasn't an inaccurate, emotive description. One sided negotiation is not a negotiation at all. It is a problem how people on the remain side nod their head in instant agreement with whatever comes out of the EU, yet everything the UK might want to negotiate is immediately met with the instant dismisssal of cake and eat it. Now that is an example of emotive nonsense. See below for yet another example.
Click to expand...

Brian, it's not a case of nodding on agreement. Access to the SM works on some very sensible and basic conditions that the UK was instrumental in putting together. The most benefit is gained, unsurprsingly, when you commit to those entirely. The Brexiteer's position on this continues to be that it's churlish of the EU to not allow it pretty much full access without half the commitments, a couple of which seem pretty much key to it.

If someone was trying to negotiate with the UK on that basis, we would hopefully tell them they were not on. Why do you expect the EU to behave differently? It's called being the stronger partner in a negotiation, the Brexit myth that we held all the cards was never true.

This ridiculously divisive and ludicrously expensive self harm was never made as an economic case for good reason, be happy that you've taken back control. Us hard remainers simply resent our country being reduced for no good reason. The proof of which being the utter paucity of the positives that are supposed to be the subject of the thread. All we've seen since is a lot of whataboutery regarding the EU and how nasty they are for being annoyed that May walked back on the WA having had it rejected by the DUP and Johnson's first steps have been to renege on matters they thought were agreed via the PD.

The problems, as ever, are closer to home.
 
SteveS1 said:
Brian, it's not a case of nodding on agreement. Access to the SM works on some very sensible and basic conditions that the UK was instrumental in putting together. The most benefit is gained, unsurprsingly, when you commit to those entirely. The Brexiteer's position on this continues to be that it's churlish of the EU to not allow it pretty much full access without half the commitments, a couple of which seem pretty much key to it.

If someone was trying to negotiate with the UK on that basis, we would hopefully tell them they were not on. Why do you expect the EU to behave differently? It's called being the stronger partner in a negotiation, the Brexit myth that we held all the cards was never true.

This was never made as an economic case for good reason, be happy that you've taken back control. Us hard remainers simply resent our country being reduced for no good reason. The proof of which being the utter paucity of the positives that are supposed to be the subject here. All we've seen since is a lot of whataboutery regarding the EU and how nasty they are for being annoyed that Johnson's first steps have been renege on matters they thought were agreed.
Click to expand...

When we look at the EU negotiating and tut, let's not forget that was us until recently. We were part of it, doing exactly the same thing. It was in our interest to do so and it is powerful.

Where has our power and influence gone now? Our leverage seems to consist of desperately hoping the German car industry comes to our rescue. I wouldn't put my money on that happening but time will tell.
 
Brian said:
First of all, speculating about federalism when it is the clear aim and direction the EU is heading is fair and a good thing. Speculating about a total unknown, as the remain campaign did about the disaster of leaving, is a bad thing.

I will repeat. There is nothing a hard remainer will see as a benefit to the UK of leaving the EU. Absolutely nothing. Colin has just given you something he believes is a benefit, ET has done similar but both meeting with immediate rejection. You already know you will never accept anything put forward as a benefit. Why do you keep on with the sealioning?

By the way, you need to accept that even though you are in favour of federalism, there are many who are not.
Click to expand...

We are still waiting for those benefits to be presented.
I don't care about Colin's beliefs - I'm an atheist myself -, and so far absolutely nothing has been presented (except for taking back control, but with our current Goverment that is not a good thing).

I'm not sure I'm in favour of Federalism.
The case for it has yet to be presented, and then it'll be put to a vote, probably in the shape of a Referendum which will take place in each of the EU member countries.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Thank you. One of those reports feels a bit over-excited, but the gist seems to be that the original developer didn’t build a great structure and in any event, building codes have moved on. Seems it wasn’t designed as the home for the EU Parliament, but was repurposed, so the story is rather more nuanced than you have suggested. One reasonable alternative reading would be:

Parliament grasps nettle of refurb for dodgy building to modern standards and designed for the purpose.

But that wouldn’t fit the agenda.

It’s a shame though. I’ve worked in that building and I really like it.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
It appears that the first roof collapse was in 2007/8 when the extension was first built, nobody was killed, they were on holiday.
 
tuga said:
We are still waiting for those benefits to be presented.
I don't care about Colin's beliefs - I'm an atheist myself -, and so far absolutely nothing has been presented (except for taking back control, but with our current Goverment that is not a good thing).

I'm not sure I'm in favour of Federalism.
The case for it has yet to be presented, and then it'll be put to a vote, probably in the shape of a Referendum which will take place in each of the EU member countries.
Click to expand...
Are we really? This is a bit like "boris" needing the ignorant hordes at his back to help him at PMQs.

Anyway, did you miss the bit where I said there is nothing anybody can put forward that you will accept as a benefit?
 
The German car manufacturers will still be able to sell cars in the UK, with a 10% tariff, which will be passed on to the consumer. They might sell a few less but what will people buy instead? Their target market will not really be impacted by the 4% drop in GDP that even the Brexiteers have accepted the UK will have after we leave with No Deal at the end of December. Personally, I feel sorry for the bottom half of society who are already struggling because Brexit is going to be a shitstorm for them. But at least they will have a blue passport, if they can afford one.
 
SteveS1 said:
Brian, it's not a case of nodding on agreement. Access to the SM works on some very sensible and basic conditions that the UK was instrumental in putting together. The most benefit is gained, unsurprsingly, when you commit to those entirely. The Brexiteer's position on this continues to be that it's churlish of the EU to not allow it pretty much full access without half the commitments, a couple of which seem pretty much key to it.

If someone was trying to negotiate with the UK on that basis, we would hopefully tell them they were not on. Why do you expect the EU to behave differently? It's called being the stronger partner in a negotiation, the Brexit myth that we held all the cards was never true.

This ridiculously divisive and ludicrously expensive self harm was never made as an economic case for good reason, be happy that you've taken back control. Us hard remainers simply resent our country being reduced for no good reason. The proof of which being the utter paucity of the positives that are supposed to be the subject of the thread. All we've seen since is a lot of whataboutery regarding the EU and how nasty they are for being annoyed that May walked back on the WA having had it rejected by the DUP and Johnson's first steps have been to renege on matters they thought were agreed via the PD.

The problems, as ever, are closer to home.
Click to expand...
Steve, When anything supposedly put forward by the UK is automatically rubbished as "cake and eat it" by the same people who are prepared to accept no movement on the part of the EU, it certainly looks how I described. Both sides have to move position, that is negotiation. If one side stubbornly refuses to move on anything, there is no negotiation going on and that's where it appears to be.

I believe the real myth is the one that says significant numbers believed we held all the cards. At the time of the vote, I don't believe significant numbers were thinking about that, they were thinking more about the UK trading and doing deals with any country prepared to deal with us, including the EU bloc, but in no way limited to the EU bloc.

Edit: I somehow lost a few words from a sentence. No idea how but I've tried to clarify what I said.
 
Last edited:
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
So, you admit that you made up the story about the Brussels Building being replaced, but now you seem to be deflecting to the Strasbourg one. What you seem to be swaying is:

"Whoops, busted on Brussels, but it's bound to happen in Strasbourg, innit".

That's about the level of intellectual argument we've come to expect, I suppose, but it does show that Brexit supporters are entirely comfortable with fake news, provided it gets a job done. That's a very dangerous mindset, IMO.
Click to expand...
It’s all there is- the purported disadvantages of something you’ve stopped buying. Ask about what it is they like about the replacement product they bought and you get the gentle rustling sound if tumbleweed, a pause then another recitation if the drawbacks of the product they stopped buying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top