advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... XII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I didn't say inward-looking, but I very much believe the mindset is insular - in the literal and figurative senses. We are an island, and islands have an insular mindset, hence the term. It's partly about independence and not wanting to be part of the herd. My point is that this is at odds with a notion of working towards the common good in a truly global sense.
Click to expand...

Neither the fact that we are an island, nor that we wish for independence, makes us 'insular'. The UK developed through global trade, and via a global outlook. Our close links to the countries of the commonwealth and anglosphere are bonded in family, shared history and culture, a system of law, and of course language. It is pure historical revisionism to claim that we are insular.

It is denialism too to suggest that the EU works towards 'the common good'. The EU ultimately works only towards the good of its own ruling oligarchy, and to the aquistion and retention of power within that narrow elite. It is an overtly mercantilist bloc replete with subsidies and protections designed, as we are seeing, to barricade those outside from the privileges afforded to those inside. It is entirely inward-looking except in in so far as it seeks to export its vast rafts of suppressive standards, controls and regulations in order to control and reduce those outside.

I repeat my assertion that 'the common good' is far better served, historically, actually and potentially, by the 193 member United Nations.
 
Hysterical. :D In every sense...

Untitled.png
 
eternumviti said:
Neither the fact that we are an island, nor that we wish for independence, makes us 'insular'. The UK developed through global trade, and via a global outlook. Our close links to the countries of the commonwealth and anglosphere are bonded in family, shared history and culture, a system of law, and of course language. It is pure historical revisionism to claim that we are insular.
Click to expand...

The Commonwealth (and the Empire before it) are very good examples of the UK moulding other parts of the world to look and behave like us. That's insuarity, right there. And the corollary to that is the disdain with which we treat parties who are different, or fail to conform.

It is denialism too to suggest that the EU works towards 'the common good'. The EU ultimately works only towards the good of its own ruling oligarchy, and to the aquistion and retention of power within that narrow elite. It is an overtly mercantilist bloc replete with subsidies and protections designed, as we are seeing, to barricade those outside from the privileges afforded to those inside. It is entirely inward-looking except in in so far as it seeks to export its vast rafts of suppressive standards, controls and regulations in order to control and reduce those outside.
Click to expand...
I tend to view the EU's 'protectionist' stance in a kinder light. I think the EU is, in many instances, trying to set the bar in global standards. So, data protection - the GDPR means that EU citizens enjoy the most rigorous protections for privacy and data security of any citizens globally. And in seeking to require other countries to adhere to that standard when doing business with the EU or its citizens, they thus elevate the other countries' standards, and therefore the protection they offer their own citizens. The principle holds good whether you're looking at data protection, animal husbandry, food standards, electrical safety, and so-on. They are a minimum standard, not a barrier to commerce.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The Commonwealth (and the Empire before it) are very good examples of the UK moulding other parts of the world to look and behave like us. That's insuarity, right there. And the corollary to that is the disdain with which we treat parties who are different, or fail to conform.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. I'll give you the empire (how long ago did that end?), but membership of the Commonwealth is entirely voluntary, includes at least two members (Rwanda and Mozambique) which never had any constitutional links to Britain, and has got nothing to do with making them 'look and behave like us'.

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I tend to view the EU's 'protectionist' stance in a kinder light. I think the EU is, in many instances, trying to set the bar in global standards. So, data protection - the GDPR means that EU citizens enjoy the most rigorous protections for privacy and data security of any citizens globally. And in seeking to require other countries to adhere to that standard when doing business with the EU or its citizens, they thus elevate the other countries' standards, and therefore the protection they offer their own citizens. The principle holds good whether you're looking at data protection, animal husbandry, food standards, electrical safety, and so-on. They are a minimum standard, not a barrier to commerce.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does sound quite seductive, but most global standards actually come down from the UN and the ISO. In the EU's legally codified and complexified form, they might be seen as a form of legislative imperialism, and can easily be imposed to control and limit the trade that third countries can conduct, thus protecting the EU's own less efficient producers from competition, effectively a non-tariff barrier. By their nature (and minimum isn't necessarily part of that nature) and the strength and prevalence of the corporate lobbyists in the genesis of those regulations, they will also favour large corporations over small, privately owned companies, effectively an extension of the barriers that have affected small UK-based exporters so disproportionately compared with the large corporations.

We can see that the EU's insistence upon UK exporters precisely complying with complex, exhaustive and unnecessary EU legislation, and denying the UK mutual recognition of standards (even though ours are either identical or higher than the EU's) is merely protectionism writ large. Compliance (level playing field) would compel UK exporters to follow EU legislation as it evolves, and would also effectively place the UK under the boot of the ECJ. This is legislative imperialism, colonialism writ not large, but long.
 
eternumviti said:
Neither the fact that we are an island, nor that we wish for independence, makes us 'insular'. The UK developed through global trade, and via a global outlook. Our close links to the countries of the commonwealth and anglosphere are bonded in family, shared history and culture, a system of law, and of course language. It is pure historical revisionism to claim that we are insular.

It is denialism too to suggest that the EU works towards 'the common good'. The EU ultimately works only towards the good of its own ruling oligarchy, and to the aquistion and retention of power within that narrow elite. It is an overtly mercantilist bloc replete with subsidies and protections designed, as we are seeing, to barricade those outside from the privileges afforded to those inside. It is entirely inward-looking except in in so far as it seeks to export its vast rafts of suppressive standards, controls and regulations in order to control and reduce those outside.

I repeat my assertion that 'the common good' is far better served, historically, actually and potentially, by the 193 member United Nations.
Click to expand...
No, the UK is very insular. Shared trading heritage? Sure, how long ago? How many brits working today have ever been beyond these shores other than for a fortnight in the sun? How many learn another language? Any language.
 
That's a bit of a wet tirade, albeit wrapped up in your usual assertive aggression. I didn't even mention 'shared trading heritage', although there certainly is, or was, one. We blew it when we joined the EEC. I think in 1972 our trade with the commonwealth was something like 4 times that of the EEC. I wouldn't much blame them if they weren't in a rush to give it back.
 
eternumviti said:
Let me have your thoughts on the Common Agricultural Policy, Colin, fill some time.
Click to expand...
Google will be taking some hammer...

stevec67 said:
No, the UK is very insular. Shared trading heritage? Sure, how long ago? How many brits working today have ever been beyond these shores other than for a fortnight in the sun? How many learn another language? Any language.
Click to expand...
Colin was looking for nonsense earlier and there it is.
 
As part of an 'Indo-Pacific tilt' Nasti Patel has arranged that Brits aged 18-30 can go to India to work for up to 2 years and possibly longer. And of course vice versa Indians may come to the UK: Indians already account for more than half the total skilled work visas (57,000 in 2019).
The number of Indian students in the UK doubled in one year 2018-2019 and in July another scheme will allow any graduate to work in the UK for at least 2 years.
Have they told the Brexit voters ? Best put it on the side of a big red bus.
Thank goodness a million Europeans have left the UK.
 
eternumviti said:
Oh, come on. I'll give you the empire (how long ago did that end?), but membership of the Commonwealth is entirely voluntary, includes at least two members (Rwanda and Mozambique) which never had any constitutional links to Britain, and has got nothing to do with making them 'look and behave like us'.
Click to expand...
The Commonwealth evolved out of the Empire though, so the original and ongoing membership was countries which either were like us (Oz, NZ, Canada) in outlook and attitudes, or had been moulded to be so during the empire years. That membership has changed over time doesn't alter the fact that historically, and currently, our insular attitudes tend to make us associate with countries which are more like us. And it'd not be anything of a surprise to learn that Raaab, and his ilk, would prefer it if the Commonwealth was confined to former colonial states and British Overseas Territories, as would the rump of Brexit voting British public. Insular, see.
 
eternumviti said:
That's a bit of a wet tirade, albeit wrapped up in your usual assertive aggression. I didn't even mention 'shared trading heritage', although there certainly is, or was, one. We blew it when we joined the EEC. I think in 1972 our trade with the commonwealth was something like 4 times that of the EEC. I wouldn't much blame them if they weren't in a rush to give it back.
Click to expand...
You think I'm being aggressive? This from the man who calls a previous poster "Mastermind" 3 posts back? Hardly. And a "wet tirade", is that the best answer you have to being called out on the insularity of the average brit?

As for not having mentioned "shared trading heritage" You say "global trade" and " shared history and culture" in adjacent sentences so if that's not the same thing I'd like to know what is.

Re trade figures 50 years ago, we hadn't get joined the EEC. Trading with them was part of the point so if the figures were modest it's hardly a surprise. And 50 years ago? Why don't we go back another 50 years to 1922? What were the figures then?
 
wacko said:
As part of an 'Indo-Pacific tilt' Nasti Patel has arranged that Brits aged 18-30 can go to India to work for up to 2 years and possibly longer. And of course vice versa Indians may come to the UK: Indians already account for more than half the total skilled work visas (57,000 in 2019).
The number of Indian students in the UK doubled in one year 2018-2019 and in July another scheme will allow any graduate to work in the UK for at least 2 years.
Have they told the Brexit voters ? Best put it on the side of a big red bus.
Thank goodness a million Europeans have left the UK.
Click to expand...

The primary thing that the racist Brexiteers (which appeared to be most of them, or at least it was in the ones - mostly in the London area - that I was unfortunate enough to cross paths with) seemed to want was a reduced number of Indian and Pakistani people coming to the UK. Why they thought Brexit might deliver that wasn't readily apparent (beyond genuine stupidity of course) so I suspect facts like those wouldn't be popular. Not that facts ever played much of a part in Brexit anyway of course.
 
wacko said:
As part of an 'Indo-Pacific tilt' Nasti Patel has arranged that Brits aged 18-30 can go to India to work for up to 2 years and possibly longer. And of course vice versa Indians may come to the UK: Indians already account for more than half the total skilled work visas (57,000 in 2019).
The number of Indian students in the UK doubled in one year 2018-2019 and in July another scheme will allow any graduate to work in the UK for at least 2 years.
Have they told the Brexit voters ? Best put it on the side of a big red bus.
Thank goodness a million Europeans have left the UK.
Click to expand...
And I thought Britain was full.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The Commonwealth evolved out of the Empire though, so the original and ongoing membership was countries which either were like us (Oz, NZ, Canada) in outlook and attitudes, or had been moulded to be so during the empire years. That membership has changed over time doesn't alter the fact that historically, and currently, our insular attitudes tend to make us associate with countries which are more like us...
Click to expand...

Um... yes, the Anglosphere, common law, family, culture, history etc...

We seem to have performed a non-too graceful full circle. The difference I guess is that you see it as a source of shame, and I don't. If any of the 54 member countries feel ashamed at the association, they have the absolute right to walk away.

I've not bothered with the last bit of the rant, it's even more out of character.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top