Bye bye Theresa

[ZedLeg]

Remain has very little appeal to someone who see's "made in somewhere else" and views that as a opportunity lost for local employment.

It's another one of the contradictions of those type of people that a lot of them will defend a companies right to make a profit over anything else and will decry any attempt at government intervention as communist authoritarianism.

It's telling that one of the suggestions for post brexit britain that the leave architects kept going back to was to basically become a tax haven.

[NotoriousREV]

Debating why anyone voted Leave on here is futile, it really is.

Sitting in the pub, over a pint, perhaps but in the point / counterpoint of an Online Message board, it just not possible.

It is if people make clear points based on logic and fact rather than empty rhetoric.

[NotoriousREV]

I used to be thoroughly protectionist, it still enrages me that the Australian Automotive industry was decimated by free trade agreements* whereby manufacturing jobs were sacrificed to enable mining, service and agriculture industries to flourish. Other people, and arguably the national economy benefitted from this policy, personally I certainly didn't, short term at least.

Now, however having the very good fortune to inherit an EU passport I've taken advantage of freedom of movement and freedom to work and I'd be a hypocrite to support such protectionism.

BUT. I can sympathise with people who don't appreciate having their life turned upside down by globalisation and want things "wound back".

Remain has very little appeal to someone who see's "made in somewhere else" and views that as a opportunity lost for local employment.

Governments have been sleepwalking into public discontent with what were previous expected local opportunities going "elsewhere", Leave did a good job exploiting that. Remain did a rubbish job of countering it IMHO.

I can imagine (although correct me please) a hardliner No-Deal person views crashing out of the EU as a short term sacrifice to enable better opportunities for the future, perhaps not even in their lifetime but for their children or their children's children.

Are they wrong? I don't know.



*and sundry other policy decisions, but that's another topic.

I think it's a fair point that people see globalisation as a bad thing, but disengaging with it won't stop it, or curb its damage. Work will always move to where labour is the cheapest, and in doing so money flows into poorer economies until they're no longer the cheapest and the cycle begins again. It's like air pressure equalising.

You have Rees-Mogg talking about dropping all import tariffs the moment we leave with No Deal. What will that do for local producers?

The problem we have is the Government and Parliament abdicating its responsibility to the country by reducing a vastly complex socio-economic system to a simple binary question that is impossible to resolve even to a majority satisfaction because there is a vast spectrum of opinions across the whole scale.

Our Government should be dealing with the underlying issues that people face, not this balls up. We've spent half a century being in the EU but keeping it at arms length and then complaining it hasn't bent to our will. Who would have predicted that?

[scotta]

Remain has very little appeal to someone who see's "made in somewhere else" and views that as a opportunity lost for local employment.

It's another one of the contradictions of those type of people that a lot of them will defend a companies right to make a profit over anything else and will decry any attempt at government intervention as communist authoritarianism.

It's telling that one of the suggestions for post brexit britain that the leave architects kept going back to was to basically become a tax haven.

That would involve the government not taxing the shit out of everything and everyone though. Dont see that happening.

[Foz]

The whole lot are bunch of fucking charlatans, exposed as a bunch of middle management pencil pushers incapable of making tough decisions, fuck the lot of them!

[Swervin_Mervin]

Out of interest, did anyone who voted leave expect anything other than what’s happened so far?

Or did you intentionally vote for exactly this - to try and fuck things up? (I heard that justification plenty of times in the run up).

I've never heard that justification from anyone I know that voted Leave. Did you hear it from people you actually know or just what was reported in the media?

I expected a shitshow, yes, because our politicians are so utterly inept - I'll admit I probably overestimated them a bit there though. But I didn't vote to achieve a shitshow.

do you ever go delving into the comments on provocative posts you see on Facebook? I do, they’re hilarious (and sometimes interesting to hear opposing opinions). I don’t know the people in them but I read plenty of “I want to shake it up” or “to fuck the conservatives” etc....

Good god no! I rarely ever go on it at all these days tbh, largely because of all the turgid shite that's on it.

[Swervin_Mervin]

The list is long.
Just as it might be for those that voted Remain.

I imagine the remainers voted remain because they liked the staus quo - a fairly short reason.

And just as deluded as some of the reasons given by the Bexiteers

[Swervin_Mervin]

Valid point. Can someone who voted leave please explain what they were trying to prevent/avoid? Genuinely curious.

Being in the EU.

Reasons - many and varied. Some nonsense, some emotional, some historical, some logical, some for economic purposes, some for moral purposes, some for humanitarian purposes. The list is long.

Just as it might be for those that voted Remain.

Can you expand on some of your reasons? Humanitarian, economic, moral?
I'm really not trying to be a cunt here, I'm genuinely interested in why you think that the country will be in a better place after leaving.
I get that some of it may well be just gut feeling, but you're obviously not one of the mouthy breathers shouting Nazi at anyone who puts up an alternative viewpoint to your own. So what made you vote the way you did?

Put simply I don't like the EU and the way that it operates and never have. I'm actually all for a trade block, but the political and economic union, certainly as it currently is, no ta. Plus it's headed up by some of the biggest shit-weazels in world politics.

For some of the current shit-weazels go have a read about Selmayr, Schauble, Schultz, Tusk and Juncker. And Lagarde.

As I've also said on here before, I find myself agreeing with a lot that Varoufakis has to say about the EU and Europe in general. The difference is he's pro-union, but believes it can be wholly reformed. I think that's wishful thinking.

Read back through this thread and you'll see I've lightly touched on some of the issues I have. But you'll also see my reluctance to engage, as I believe it to be an utterly fruitless waste of time.

[Broccers]

Boris Johnson speaking at JCB today is worth a listen / watch if you are confused about Brexiteers views.

[NotoriousREV]

You certainly can't reform the EU from the outside. People think that the EU is intransigent because Cameron failed to get a better deal for the UK, but that's not how you transform the EU and has long been our problem. We don't seek to transform the EU for the benefit of all the members, we just go asking for exemptions for ourselves constantly. Members at arms length.

[NotoriousREV]

Boris Johnson speaking at JCB today is worth a listen / watch if you are confused about an individual Brexiteers views.

EFA

[Broccers]

Boris Johnson speaking at JCB today is worth a listen / watch if you are confused about an individual Brexiteers views.

EFA

If you say so - thats the problem here shouty people who think they are right

[dinny_g]

You certainly can't reform the EU from the outside. People think that the EU is intransigent because Cameron failed to get a better deal for the UK, but that's not how you transform the EU and has long been our problem. We don't seek to transform the EU for the benefit of all the members, we just go asking for exemptions for ourselves constantly. Members at arms length.

At the risk of poking the bear with a pointy stick ( ), the assertion that the UK only seeks to transform the EU for our benefit and not for the benefit of all members is not factual but rather empty rhetoric

Also, "People think that the EU is intransigent because Cameron failed to get a better deal for the UK" isn't factual but an opinion

Right - I'm going to hide somewhere...

[Swervin_Mervin]

You certainly can't reform the EU from the outside. People think that the EU is intransigent because Cameron failed to get a better deal for the UK, but that's not how you transform the EU and has long been our problem. We don't seek to transform the EU for the benefit of all the members, we just go asking for exemptions for ourselves constantly. Members at arms length.

I'm not convinced it ever will reform at all, perhaps unless faced with complete collapse. It could well be that our decision (if it's ever actually carried through) might well have been the spark for that reform process to begin. Not that I agree with doing it for altruistic reasons, even though I hope a ground-up reform does happen for the sake of its citizens.

Anyway, stepping away from that, it was quite interesting last night on the Politics Live special seeing the interview with Nick Boles, who's seeking to thwart a no-deal by grasping power from the Government. Article in the Spectator here which is an interesting read on Parliamentary process.

He was suggesting trying to grab a Norway arrangement, something that should satisfy both sides for now, and give us the breathing room and stability to think about where we go from that, be that further out, staying with a Norway model or going back in in some way.

[ZedLeg]

I said this earlier in the thread but it's kind of amazing that people voted to send a bunch of Kipper MEPs to Europe then complain that we don't have enough of a say in the EU. We would've had a say if we'd sent people who turned up for work.

[NotoriousREV]

You certainly can't reform the EU from the outside. People think that the EU is intransigent because Cameron failed to get a better deal for the UK, but that's not how you transform the EU and has long been our problem. We don't seek to transform the EU for the benefit of all the members, we just go asking for exemptions for ourselves constantly. Members at arms length.

At the risk of poking the bear with a pointy stick ( ), the assertion that the UK only seeks to transform the EU for our benefit and not for the benefit of all members is not factual but rather empty rhetoric

Also, "People think that the EU is intransigent because Cameron failed to get a better deal for the UK" isn't factual but an opinion

Right - I'm going to hide somewhere...

Both statements are based on fact. The first based on the way various UK governments have engaged at every major EU milestone, the second based on arguments I've seen people use.

[Richard]

I wonder why more (and more extreme) right wing political views are becoming more visibly popular these days?

[GG.]

I said this earlier in the thread but it's kind of amazing that people voted to send a bunch of Kipper MEPs to Europe then complain that we don't have enough of a say in the EU. We would've had a say if we'd sent people who turned up for work.

I expect you may not be fully comprehending the way legislation is promulgated in the EU (I'm sure we've been through this before...) and the importance of MEPs. European law is formulated and developed by the Commission (commissioners are proposed by member states but selected by the president of the Commission (hence why there was so much opposition to arch federalist Junker getting the job given he holds a lot of power within the commission). So far so not dissimilar to the UK in that an 'executive' body proposes much draft legislation (though of course without the UK concept of private members bills).

MEPs, however, have a much more subsidiary role in lawmaking compared to MPs the UK. They may propose amendments to legislation and the Commission may not pass EU law without having consulted them but the commission does NOT have to pay heed to those suggested amendments. In the UK amendments are voted on and if the house accepts such amendment, it is incorporated into the bill. As a result, you are overstating the difference that MEPs can actually make - it is much more of a negative, blocking role.

If you then consider the efficacy of such blocking role, we have 73 MEPs out of 751 so if something is adverse (or disproportionately adverse) to the UK but not other countries (or not enough other countries) you're not in effect going to have very much chance of blocking it as you're such a small minority. One ironic development of Brexit is Varadkar taking a stauch position on the Irish border and the EU may yet repay him by moving to majority decision making on harmonisation of tax laws and abolishing the member state veto - clearly a disaster for the Irish given a significant chunk of their economy works on luring international companies to set up subsidiaries there as a result of low corporate taxation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/eco ... -1.3220094

[duncs500]

I can't understand why some MPs believe another referendum is undemocratic. It's no different in my mind to having a GE. You voted for something, stuff happened, you get another vote and can change it if it's not working or not what you expected. If the will of the people is still to leave, leave will win the next vote.

[Orange Cola]

I can't understand why some MPs believe another referendum is undemocratic. It's no different in my mind to having a GE. You voted for something, stuff happened, you get another vote and can change it if it's not working or not what you expected. If the will of the people is still to leave, leave will win the next vote.

Exactly that. Even the twatstand that is Rees-Mogg said at the outset three years ago there should be a second vote when we finally know what the deal looks like.