advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian

Eating fat, staying slim
Hardly know where to start with this.

To start with, people lived in hamlets, villages, towns and cities in this country for hundreds or thousands of years and countless generations within an entity called England (and of course there were other entities called Scotland, Wales and Ireland). That entity had a progressively developing set of shared laws, religious and societal customs, rights and responsibilities, first under absolute monarchies and then progressively more constitutional monarchies. The original Act of Union took place in 1703, well over 300 years ago. The European project has existed for just 60 odd years

Comparison with the USA is disingenuous, because there really is no comparison. Europe is made up of sovereign states with very long histories and customs. There have been amalgamations, the most successful and logical being Germany and Italy, and there have been significant breakups. In both cases the process has been invariably messy, and violent.

There are a number of blocs as you put it 'agglomerating' across the globe, but they are to do with trade (and the attendant technical standards), not sovereign federation. The largest global organisations by far are the UN, which oversees a huge tranche of global technical standards, and the WTO. Neither are sovereign entities or supranational powers in the sense that the EU is. There are many FTA treaties in place, between many countries, but those countries do not impose the laws created in one parliament upon that of the other, beyond those mutually agreed to the outcome of that FTA.

I think that most people would agree that there is much to be said for the concept of the 'common market', but that they are very considerably less enamoured of the concept of centralised supranational federation, the essential distinction, if you will, between the EEC/EC and the EU into which John Major signed us, without popular consent, in 1992.

You mention the potential for reform. The consensus, steeped in long experience, might run along the lines of 'dream on'.
I asked some months ago for someone to post the advantage of the EU over the EEC. Nothing from anyone.

It can only possibly fail as nothing about the project was thought through or costed. It was rash ignorant stupidity. The simple reality is we will end up vastly poorer, with far higher unemployment, far less civil liberties and human rights, far less freedoms and very likely with our ridiculous popularist alt-right government actually in breach of international law.

This thread, all its countless thousands of posts, was an opportunity to present a positive case for Brexit. In all the server space and bandwidth I have provided not one of you on the ‘leave’ side have presented a single credible argument stating how we will end up in a better position in the global marketplace, or from an employment or civil rights perspective, let alone from a point of social cohesion. Basically we will be far worse off, far less free, and split as a nation as we know exactly who created this mess. As such forgive the millions of us who have predicted this blundering reality with uncanny accuracy right from the off for considering those on the leave side to be either a) racists/xenophobes, b) pigshit thick, or c) a handful of disaster capitalists/financial speculators more than prepared to destroy a nation’s future for a quick profit before exiting abroad (or some combination thereof).
This doesn’t answer the question put to Hugh. There is a world of difference between believing the UK will fail and wanting failure to say, “I told you so”.

As for the ‘leave side’ bit. Daring to be in any way critical of the EU obviously puts me firmly in the firing line of hard remainers. Personally, I don’t believe we will be economically better off, or better off in terms of employment and civil rights. Those 3 things will only improve by people voting to remove the conservative party from govt. Does that answer your point?

By the way, I am none of a, b or c.
 
Sue, on your first point I simply disagree, but really haven't got the energy, so we'll have to leave it there.

Your second as regards blocs federating is entirely speculative. And the EU doesn't have a good record on foreign policy.

I forgot to write in my previous post that there are 195 sovereign nations or entities on the globe today. I believe that I'm right in saying that in 1945 there were just over 100.

On the subject of representative democracy all well and good, I broadly agree. But there must be exceptions in regard of significant constitutional changes, most particularly if there is no party offering the alternative or the status quo. The Maastricht Treaty (and subsequently Lisbon) involved massive transfers of sovereignty to Brussels with no party in Parliament offering the status quo, or having stood with the status quo on their manifestos. In both instances the choice should therefore have been offered to the electorate in open referenda.
 
As for the ‘leave side’ bit. Daring to be in any way critical of the EU obviously puts me firmly in the firing line of hard remainers. Personally, I don’t believe we will be economically better off, or better off in terms of employment and civil rights. Those 3 things will only improve by people voting to remove the conservative party from govt. Does that answer your point?

The EU is a very solid and sound concept, but clearly imperfect in execution as every human institution tends to be. Constructive criticism is welcome, reckless destruction/self-immolation with zero credible alternative, far less so.

We do not live in a functional representative and accountable democracy. It is very safe to conclude that unless there is fundamental political and electoral reform, which neither archaic establishment party currently wants, that we will be governed by Conservative governments with minority vote-shares many times in the future, just as we have suffered for centuries now. The real question was do you feel safer facing that ugly reality with the clear additional protections of EU human rights legislation, EU employment law, freedom of movement etc, or without? As far as I can establish you failed that question.
 
I asked some months ago for someone to post the advantage of the EU over the EEC. Nothing from anyone.


This doesn’t answer the question put to Hugh. There is a world of difference between believing the UK will fail and wanting failure to say, “I told you so”.

As for the ‘leave side’ bit. Daring to be in any way critical of the EU obviously puts me firmly in the firing line of hard remainers. Personally, I don’t believe we will be economically better off, or better off in terms of employment and civil rights. Those 3 things will only improve by people voting to remove the conservative party from govt. Does that answer your point?

By the way, I am none of a, b or c.
To me it makes sence to stay in the club and change within. I think we can all agree change is needed. To leave with no deal really does not bare thinking about. Food prices will rise to a population who are already struggling. It just seems nuts cutting off your biggest market. This at a time good parts of the world are going into a deep depression which we dont know how deep it's going to go. When you dig deep and see the money that can not be accounted for at source. Flooded Facebook with fake Brexit propaganda. The fact it was targeted at marginal seats is a crime. Rant over :)
 
On your main thrust, that's total rubbish. Anti EU sentiment was a minority interest among the nationalist inclined until the recent anti-immigration/migration opportunism.

On your aside, I'm not sure of the relevance - other than smaller entities like Brexit Island having less influence or impact on it, as we are about to find out.
Anti EU sentiment appears to be a minority interest but that was not the case at the 2016 referendum or the DEC 19 election clearance of remainers in Westminster.
 
Anti EU sentiment appears to be a minority interest but that was not the case at the 2016 referendum or the DEC 19 election clearance of remainers in Westminster.

Sorry Colin, can’t quite see what that has to do with the point made in the context prior to 2016 - ah my mistake, that will be nothing of course.
 
Post a thread, prior to 2016, regarding the relevance of Maastricht to perceived widespread discontent with the EU to a forum which is fanatically pro-EU and the thread will quickly die.

Could that possibly be an example of stating the bleedin' obvious?

Better idea. Go into the street and ask the first Brexit voters you come across why they voted Brexit and see if how many reference Maastricht.
 
Sue, on your first point I simply disagree, but really haven't got the energy, so we'll have to leave it there.

Your second as regards blocs federating is entirely speculative. And the EU doesn't have a good record on foreign policy.

I forgot to write in my previous post that there are 195 sovereign nations or entities on the globe today. I believe that I'm right in saying that in 1945 there were just over 100.

On the subject of representative democracy all well and good, I broadly agree. But there must be exceptions in regard of significant constitutional changes, most particularly if there is no party offering the alternative or the status quo. The Maastricht Treaty (and subsequently Lisbon) involved massive transfers of sovereignty to Brussels with no party in Parliament offering the status quo, or having stood with the status quo on their manifestos. In both instances the choice should therefore have been offered to the electorate in open referenda.
You’re the Nissan salesman who manages to sell a Qashqai then a month later calls up the customer and says “have you got an hour luv, I just want to go over the disadvantages of the Audi with you again, that alright?” Also every time I see the word ‘fanatics’ in your lengthy speeches, you describe yourself. Any mention of Germany in particular and you’re triggered. The attack on the integrity of the EU comes from a very small group of states sharing the same right wing, law breaking style of populist leaders- Hungary, Poland and England. Control measures are being applied to all three by the EU and shortly the US.
 
You’re the Nissan salesman who manages to sell a Qashqai then a month later calls up the customer and says “have you got an hour luv, I just want to go over the disadvantages of the Audi with you again, that alright?” Also every time I see the word ‘fanatics’ in your lengthy speeches, you describe yourself. Any mention of Germany in particular and you’re triggered. The attack on the integrity of the EU comes from a very small group of states sharing the same right wing, law breaking style of populist leaders- Hungary, Poland and England. Control measures are being applied to all three by the EU and shortly the US.

I've read suggestions that the Czech Republic is heading in the same direction too.
 
The EU is a very solid and sound concept, but clearly imperfect in execution as every human institution tends to be. Constructive criticism is welcome, reckless destruction/self-immolation with zero credible alternative, far less so...

The EU is a utopian concept. Utopian concepts are often great on paper.

Constructive criticism is decidely not welcome. Self immolation is an inevitable by-product of utopian thinking.

You’re the Nissan salesman who manages to sell a Qashqai then a month later calls up the customer and says “have you got an hour luv, I just want to go over the disadvantages of the Audi with you again, that alright?” Also every time I see the word ‘fanatics’ in your lengthy speeches, you describe yourself. Any mention of Germany in particular and you’re triggered. The attack on the integrity of the EU comes from a very small group of states sharing the same right wing, law breaking style of populist leaders- Hungary, Poland and England. Control measures are being applied to all three by the EU and shortly the US.

You were doing ok in a typically decameronian way until you mentioned 'integrity' and 'the EU' in the same breath.

'And 'control measures'. Interesting choice of words, though not a surprising one.
 
The EU is a utopian concept. Utopian concepts are often great on paper.

Constructive criticism is decidely not welcome. Self immolation is an inevitable by-product of utopian thinking.

Let's try it with BrExit:

BrExit is a utopian concept. Utopian concepts are often great on paper.

Constructive criticism is decidely not welcome. Self immolation is an inevitable by-product of utopian thinking.

It works too! You're good.
 
Let's try it with BrExit:

BrExit is a utopian concept. Utopian concepts are often great on paper.

Constructive criticism is decidely not welcome. Self immolation is an inevitable by-product of utopian thinking.

It works too! You're good.

A Utopian concept with a dystopian outcome...
 
The EU is a utopian concept. Utopian concepts are often great on paper.

Constructive criticism is decidely not welcome. Self immolation is an inevitable by-product of utopian thinking.



You were doing ok in a typically decameronian way until you mentioned 'integrity' and 'the EU' in the same breath.

'And 'control measures'. Interesting choice of words, though not a surprising one.
We’re rather getting away from the present. Interesting though it may be, the Plantagenet succession or even more piquant for you, the German Empire (sshhh), are distractions from where your own country now puts itself. Brexit isn’t just a measurable decline, it’s actually turned out to be an implosion.

Who even a decade ago would have believed a British Prime Minister would close down Parliament unlawfully to silence debate or that every living former Prime Minister would condemn his repeated intention to break the law? That 27 of our geographically closest allies and our most powerful ally, the United States would distance themselves from Britain and announce counter actions to stop it breaking international treaty and endangering the peace in Ireland? All of this is like water off a duck’s back to you. Have you no bloody shame?
 
The EU is a very solid and sound concept, but clearly imperfect in execution as every human institution tends to be. Constructive criticism is welcome, reckless destruction/self-immolation with zero credible alternative, far less so.

We do not live in a functional representative and accountable democracy. It is very safe to conclude that unless there is fundamental political and electoral reform, which neither archaic establishment party currently wants, that we will be governed by Conservative governments with minority vote-shares many times in the future, just as we have suffered for centuries now. The real question was do you feel safer facing that ugly reality with the clear additional protections of EU human rights legislation, EU employment law, freedom of movement etc, or without? As far as I can establish you failed that question.
I actually did answer your question and very clearly. The tories will attack all of those things you mention and no, I don’t like it.

There is regularly a comment made by different members of this forum that people have blamed the EU for all our problems, stirred up by the media for decades. Well, it should be very clear I place responsibility squarely on the UK govt for our problems, yet here I am, still being questioned.

Your pov on our democracy as you describe it above is exactly why I hold the LibDems in such low regard. I’ve said many times, there was an opportunity in 2010 to force a referendum on PR and change UK politics for decades ahead, but they blew it. That would have been a fundamental reform of our system that was lost and is not likely to reappear at least in my lifetime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top