CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › What the fuck!? The thread formally known as "I haven't heard a single compelling reason for Britain to leave the EU."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What the fuck!? The thread formally known as "I haven't heard a single compelling reason for Britain to leave the EU."

post #1 of 1423
Thread Starter 
Not one.

The likes of Donald Trump, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, that cunt Hamilton and Jim fucking Davidson seem to think it's a good idea.

I was listening to the radio and an old dear was passionately stating why we should leave Europe and her primary reason was because she "lost four relatives to two World Wars." Nothing from the 'Leave' camp has been any more illuminating.

What am I missing?

Full disclosure: I'm an idiot, politically speaking... among other topics.
post #2 of 1423
Well, Trump didn't know what Brexit was. Why anyone thinks it's a good idea to ask this twat who wants to build a wall and let someone else pay for matters such as these is a mystery.

Apart from not having to pay money to the EU i'm not sure what exactly it's gaining by basically excluding itself from the rest of Europe.
post #3 of 1423
I can understand concerns about unwieldy beurocracy but Leave pretty much seems like backwards-looking little Englander nationalist nonsense to me, I'm hoping sanity prevails.
post #4 of 1423
Thread Starter 
Yes. One old chap boldy claimed he was "English, not German."

Honesty isn't typically the defining trait of a politician but the Leave campaign seem to be outright lying in their attempts to bend people's fear toward their agenda. Boris' bullshit "£350 million a week" nonsense is a wonderful example.

And it's close. It's not dissimilar to the circus happening in America. The loudest guy in the room drowns everyone and everything out.
post #5 of 1423

Well the UK has always been standoffish about integrating into the EU. And now, with the Syrian Refugee Crisis (which is really a wholesale movement of people south of the Equator moving north), and the EU's seeming helplessness to deal with the situation, plus the bureaucratic red tape from Brussels, plus Mario Dragi's crazy strategy of trying to scare the economy into a recovery, I understand why people might want to go their own way. 

 

Trouble is, if they do so, right off the bat there are a couple hundred trade agreements that will need to be re-done from scratch, the UK's place as a major Finance center (or centre as they say in the UK) will be seriously threatened, and the benefits of immigration will diminish as the UK is perceived to be a bad place to be (sort of how net immigration along the US/Mexico border has actually reversed. Yes, more Mexicans are leaving the US to go back to Mexico vs. the other way around). 

 

I think Cameron screwed himself with this vote: when he orginally called for it years ago, I'm sure he thought it would placate the hard liners in his party while not resulting in anything. Now it looks like it could go against, or be a close vote. Either result would show a loss of confidence in his leadership and he'd probably step down. 


Edited by Cylon Baby - 6/5/16 at 7:04pm
post #6 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Pants View Post

What am I missing?
 

 

Having control of our borders again would certainly be nice.

post #7 of 1423
It's essentially an attempt at a synthetic coup. There are no good reasons because right now there is no good reason, no real motivation, no actual threat. The whole thing is manufactured to placate a nationalist and populist minority whose only real threat was to one party.

Let's look at the arguments.

We already retain sovereignty in the sense we have referendum locks on treaty changes, EU law is incorporated into our legal system through ordinary legislation capable of repeal through simple majority in Parliament, we can activate article 50 TEU through exercise of Crown prerogative entirely within the hands of the sitting government (I think, and even if not, again it's a question of simple majority in Parliament). The sovereignty argument is specious and there are no, none, zero existential or material threats to the UK arising from Europe that require us to activate that sovereignty.

We've benefited from the single market as a nation. The only laws we're subject to that we don't have total control over are those that ensure the existence of the single market. All of them help reduce cost as much as they increase it. They are pretty much cost neutral but the access to the single market is the benefit we wouldn't otherwise have ; unless you buy the argument we'll just skip into a brand new deal of equal balance. About which I have zero confidence.

I hesitate to give immigration arguments the time of day because they absolutely are rooted in xenophobia, racism and nationalism, three political cancers that the founders of the EU and all the other multilateral organisations that sprung up post WW2 knew better than to believe they could cure but knew well enough they had to be neutralised. People complaining about threats to jobs, housing, healthcare and education are victims of domestic policy failures, not the marginal differences made by a relatively small number of immigrants who on average pay their taxes and don't use social or health services.

Plus, you know what, there is no sound logical reason why you should pay more for services because one bidder is of the same nationality as you. It's inefficient, wasteful and nonsensical. Those who have been impacted, and I mean only those affected through no fault of their own, should have been subjected to investment and help, not just left to rot and then had their situation manipulated and their misplaced anger pandered to. Oh, and that's not even taking into account the fact that most socially beneficial law introduced in the UK over the last 40 years has come from Europe. Equal pay? Protection against unfair dismissal? Consumer rights? Safer products? Greater transparency and protection for investments? Fairer procurement for government contracts? Abolition of unfair national industrial and commercial discrimination? Yep, all from Europe.

I've eavesdropped on early discussions among cornerstone investors in the UKIP/Brexit project and their only interest is rolling back the social and labour progress Britain has been rightly strongarmed into accepting over the last 40 years. Everything else is dogwhistling and button-pressing aimed at the ignorant, the underprivileged, the poorly served and the bigoted. My fear is that, in a country where education policy could almost be said to have been designed to create the narrowest minds and the smallest horizons possible and nearly a third are prepared to acknowledge their racism explicitly, that is a dangerous and powerful coalition.

Ultimately what riles me the most is that our allies, our trading partners and our friends are grappling with existential issues such as migration, economic crisis, and terrorist threat, cooked up and fomented with a cupful of populism less interested in long term thinking than short term revenge. And what are we planning to do? Shaft them even more by giving them an existential headache to deal with, taking up time, effort and resources from solving the real problems Europe currently faces and could overcome with concerted effort if only its constituent members weren't so threatened with and distracted.

And we're expecting constructive dialogue from people we've not only let down but pushed further into the muck. Yeah right. We're expecting others to do long term trade deals with us after we've just torn one up? Yeah right. We're expecting investors to treat us as a safe harbour, political risk neutral nation and a bridge to Europe? Yeah right.

It pisses me off on a moral level and a practical one.
We may stay in and I will breathe a sigh of relief. I've never felt such existential panic about a political decision before though. I understand completely what it might feel like being a US citizen and thinking that Trump stands a decent chance of becoming President.
post #8 of 1423
I think they should do it so they can go back to having confusing currency that no foreigner understands. It's a quintessential part of the British national identity.
post #9 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Having control of our borders again would certainly be nice.

Why?
post #10 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

I think they should do it so they can go back to having confusing currency that no foreigner understands. It's a quintessential part of the British national identity.

Thankfully, so far, the Leave campaign isn't advocating the return of the shilling, the tanner and the ha'penny.
post #11 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post


Why?

 

I have no idea if you're joking.

post #12 of 1423

jhp1608 is my new favourite person.

 

Saxon, borders go both ways. As soon as my French is good enough to work with I'll be living in France. Maybe I'll pop over the border to drink amazing Belgian beers on the weekend. Or neck Rioja by the bucketful down south. Border control is about fear. Bollocks to that.

post #13 of 1423
What the EU did to exploit Greece's economic woes was naked piracy. No sovereign country should be saddled with a currency whose value the government can't control. That's why the US abandoned the gold dollar and adopted fiat currency during the Depression of the 1930's.
post #14 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

I have no idea if you're joking.

No, I'm not. Do you really feel under threat? From whom?

I'm more worried about wannabe gangstas from Bradford.
post #15 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

What the EU did to exploit Greece's economic woes was naked piracy. No sovereign country should be saddled with a currency whose value the government can't control. That's why the US abandoned the gold dollar and adopted fiat currency during the Depression of the 1930's.

No-one arguing the remain case is saying the EU is perfect. We just don't think it's reason enough to leave. Unless you're arguing for secession for your state given how brutal the Washington regime can be?
post #16 of 1423
Voters in my state have lawful means to hold my national government accountable. Unless British voters have more say in Angela Merkel's next reelection bid than I'm aware of, it's apples and oranges.
post #17 of 1423
Difficult for me to be worried about immigrants, seeing as I'm the son of one. Main worry in life at the moment are the cunts threatening redundancies at work, sure that kind of thing will get a little more interesting if we leave...
post #18 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Voters in my state have lawful means to hold my national government accountable. Unless British voters have more say in Angela Merkel's next reelection bid than I'm aware of, it's apples and oranges.

 

 

Do you get to vote for the leaders of neighbouring states?

post #19 of 1423
European electorates elect members of the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, as well as their national governments that exercise more than residual sovereignty, so I'm not buying it's quite so unaccountable. Besides we're not members of the Eurozone. What the managers of the single currency feel like they have to do to keep it whole is a matter for which their populations can make them accountable, a matter for which we have only indielrect attachment and a matter which we won't have influence over if we leave. Frankly, to move it on a bit, the Eurozone would a lot better if we achieved proper political and fiscal union, and that won't happen whilst recalcitrant nationalists keep driving their stakes into the ground and stringing their arrows. No-one hamstrung the Eurozone more than British refusal to press ahead with integration.

I might have overstretched on the constitional analogy, but the point remains. Displeasure about how the EU has conducted itself isn't a material argument in the debate and not a good enough or important enough reason to leave when weighed against the benefits of staying involved and the risks of leaving.
post #20 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Voters in my state have lawful means to hold my national government accountable. Unless British voters have more say in Angela Merkel's next reelection bid than I'm aware of, it's apples and oranges.

Or to put my response another way, I'd much rather be in the position voters in your state are in, in as direct a fashion as they are. I'd love to have the same currency as my French neighbours, as part of a union of political, economic and fiscal nature, and in return I'd love to have a direct say in all aspects of how the EU is run. It will be a better place to live, love and prosper. My point is that I want to be part of that and that is materially less likely to happen if the country I am a citizen of leaves.

Of course, had I paid more attention in Mod. Lang. at school perhaps I'd be able to set sail to Europe and wish my nationalist, xenophobic, narrow minded fellow citizens goodbye, whilst being welcomed by the tens, if not hundreds of millions I feel more kinship with on mainland Europe.

The scariest thing? The benefits of being part of Europe, open from Brussels in theory to all since I was a welfare-raised kid with a brain and a work ethic; grants, bursaries, work opportunities, and educational chances; have been restricted as a matter of national economic and social policy in exercise of those sovereign rights Brits seem so proud to claim as their own. Bad education, health, housing and social policy mean as a nation Britain hasn't made the most of Europe for the benefit of all. Hardly likely to improve on that if we can't be bothered to be involved any more, let alone the fact that those failings are now being trotted out as a reason to leave.
post #21 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

I hesitate to give immigration arguments the time of day because they absolutely are rooted in xenophobia, racism and nationalism, three political cancers that the founders of the EU and all the other multilateral organisations that sprung up post WW2 knew better than to believe they could cure but knew well enough they had to be neutralised. People complaining about threats to jobs, housing, healthcare and education are victims of domestic policy failures, not the marginal differences made by a relatively small number of immigrants who on average pay their taxes and don't use social or health services.



 

 

 

It's very easy to hand wave the issue of immigration away. Especially with the rise of Nativists/Racists all over Europe taking the lead on the issue.

 

But there's a fundamental issue of thousands of refugees arriving in a very short amount of time: they have no prospects to integrate into the host society (be it the UK, France etc) or even get any means to provide for themselves or their families. And in that situation what do you think is likely to happen?

 

(this is actually more acute on the Continent where county's like France simply isolate immigrants in Suburbs while in Germany Angela Merkle openly crowed about the influx of slave cheap labor.  And when you consider small countries like Denmark, the influx of immigrants means the society itself is going to change dramatically) 

 

I don't think slamming a wall around Great Britain Escape from New York style is any kind of rational answer, but I do think there are concerns about this Great Migration that aren't being addressed (or being addressed in the most ham fisted way on both sides).

post #22 of 1423
Wow. Canada shitting their pants over 25000 refugees is why we're considered small-time, isn't it?
post #23 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

 

It's very easy to hand wave the issue of immigration away. Especially with the rise of Nativists/Racists all over Europe taking the lead on the issue.

 

But there's a fundamental issue of thousands of refugees arriving in a very short amount of time: they have no prospects to integrate into the host society (be it the UK, France etc) or even get any means to provide for themselves or their families. And in that situation what do you think is likely to happen?

 

(this is actually more acute on the Continent where county's like France simply isolate immigrants in Suburbs while in Germany Angela Merkle openly crowed about the influx of slave cheap labor.  And when you consider small countries like Denmark, the influx of immigrants means the society itself is going to change dramatically) 

 

I don't think slamming a wall around Great Britain Escape from New York style is any kind of rational answer, but I do think there are concerns about this Great Migration that aren't being addressed (or being addressed in the most ham fisted way on both sides).

 

Denmark's actually become quite strict towards immigration, they're controlling their boundaries and do not follow the Dublin regulation. There's also a new law in vote which would give the Danish government the right to confiscate the refugees' property. 

 

Sweden's a better example of this, they've been very open to immigrants for a decade, but not really put enough effort or assets to their integration. And now they've built themselves similar slums suburbs you find in Belgium. 

post #24 of 1423
I'm not hand waving the issue of immigration. Quite the opposite. I'm furious about the response to it.

I've had personal experience of being a white guy growing up in an area transformed from white working class to multi-racial. I grew up in a mostly immigrant community fed by the wave of immigration from the Indian sub-continent in the 70s. Pretty much entirely nice people just trying to make their way or raise themselves out of the shit, who only ever became antagonistic in response to local aggression from those who never even bothered to give them a chance, and weren't encouraged to. Immigration problems only exist as a product of the response from local communities. When it's positive, intelligent and funded, you don't get a problem. Even when it'd not funded it's a hell of lot less of an issue if locals stop thinking nationalistically or assuming they have a God given right to exclusively occupy territory or a right to uninterrupted employment.

It is also worth mentioning that much of the debate is not focused on Syrian immigration, something to its shame the UK government has already imposed inequitable restrictions on within the EU (5000 a year, Cylon, 5000 a fucking year. It's a disgrace), but EU economic immigration. You know, immigrants who come to the UK to work, who work hard, reducing the cost to business and consumers and (as far as I am aware) have a tendency to pay taxes and on average use fewer publicly funded resources. If there is pressure on housing it is no more than marginally amplifying a fundamental of low cost residential property development which has been not only a long standing social issue unrelated to immigration but actually one of the pillars of government policy since the 1980s to entrench support among the aspirational working and lower middle classes, and more lately the ageing property rich, by maintaining property values.

Besides, immigration really is a drop in the ocean when it comes to real effects. Yes, as far as I am aware, net migration represents something like 50% of the UK's population growth, outstripping endogenous increases in population, but we're talking in terms of a 0.6% total growth rate. Plus the numbers of non-EU migrants outstrips the numbers coming in from the EU, has done historically and continues to do so and is determined by entirely UK border policy and has sweet FA to do with the EU. Look, even taking that into account, I just don't buy that a 0.3% increase in the population on an annual basis is capable of having the substantive adverse effects it is being linked to, nor that a sensible pro-active policy of increasing spending on housing couldn't quite easily solve. It's small potatoes in the round. There really isn't anything to control, but what I would agree with is that there is something to be addressed in terms of domestic policy agendas in response to it.

What it is is a hot button emotional topic which can be easily stoked in people who, for utterly unrelated reasons, aren't getting a fair crack of the whip. For reasons that are entirely due to policies followed by the government of which a large chunk of visible Brexiteers have been willing and enthusiastic members. It's a canard exploited by people who are upset that the UK, in exercising the sovereignty we apparently lack, signed the Maastricht Treaty 20 plus years ago, because try as they might they cannot point to any material deleterious effect on the UK flowing from that decision or the existence of the EU. Fucking straight bananas and a constantly and deliberately misleading quote on EU budget contributions are about the long and the short of it. As a consequence it is getting far greater play than it merits either in terms of number of migrants or the effect it has on the economy and the majority of peoples' lives. For those of us who believe political economies should be run through reason and not manipulation of people's emotion that is a frustrating thing.

I'm not handwaving immigration. I'm just treating it with the disdain it deserves as a substantive factor in deciding whether or not to remain within the EU.
post #25 of 1423
Yeah, the unfortunate thing about the whole debate is that the pros & cons of being in the EU have absolutely nothing to do with the crippling austerity put in place by the current governnent which has led to the Red Cross now providing food aid to the 5th richest country in the world. The EU is being used as a scapegoat, and leaving will achieve nothing except giving the double-bluffing government an excuse to say "well, we tried to get you to vote stay, but we're out now so we're going to have to make more cuts... "

My least favourite thing about the whole debate is how it's seemingly given everybody free reign to unleash their racist vitriol with no restraint. My facebook feed now looks like it could be a lead-in for a deluxe edition of V For Vendetta. Terrifying.
post #26 of 1423

According to the latest polls, Brexit is taking a material lead. I wish I could find some outlet for the anger and frustration I'm feeling but right now I feel like I just want to go and drink myself to death.

 

I'm out canvassing to remain on Saturday. Hope I don't get into a fist fight. 

post #27 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Pants View Post

Not one.

The likes of Donald Trump, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, that cunt Hamilton and Jim fucking Davidson seem to think it's a good idea.

I was listening to the radio and an old dear was passionately stating why we should leave Europe and her primary reason was because she "lost four relatives to two World Wars." Nothing from the 'Leave' camp has been any more illuminating.

What am I missing?

Full disclosure: I'm an idiot, politically speaking... among other topics.

Mr Pants, you might find this site useful if you haven't seen it already.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/

post #28 of 1423
Thread Starter 
Thank you very much indeed. You know more about this than I know about anything.
post #29 of 1423

I very much doubt that, Mr Pants. It's just something I am very passionate about for all kinds of reasons. Some of them are even rational!

post #30 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glisten View Post
 

 

 

Do you get to vote for the leaders of neighbouring states?

 

Vote? No.  Can actively campaign for?  Yes.

post #31 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

I've eavesdropped on early discussions among cornerstone investors in the UKIP/Brexit project and their only interest is rolling back the social and labour progress Britain has been rightly strongarmed into accepting over the last 40 years.

 

This.

 

Look, I'm pissed off with all sorts of crap the EU has thrown at me, examples:

 

Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 - This piece of shit limits the amount of e-liquid I can buy for my vaporizer in one go and how big the tank can get. It's blatantly targetting small independent e-cig shops and manufactors whilst benefitting all those companies who invested in the all in one pen solutions... (see: big tobacco companies).

 

The update to Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation, which was supposed to stop websites tracking me and storing my data. Instead, what happens? Every fucking European webpage has a popup at the bottom saying "We use cookies, deal with it". Annoying and pointless.

 

And the proposed Freedom of Panorama laws scare the fricking beejesus out of me.

 

I HATE the fact that the EU Commission is staffed by scumbags like Kinnock and Mandelson that have no talent or use whatsoever and got their jobs by cronyism.

 

But... this is the point. Any independent UK government would probably sign those same dumb regulations after being pressured by the same corporate lobbyists. The House of Lords is 800 unelected, in for life wankers who know the right people. None of that is going to change.

 

What regulation is it that pisses off the UK business types pressing for this change? It's stuff like Health and Safety regulations that mean my company can't behave dangerously around me, it's the fact I'm ensured 25 days holiday a year, that when I visited Greece a few weeks back I wasn't being charged £2 a MB for my data anymore.

 

That's the stuff Boris Johnson is itching to sort out. Red Tape that upsets business and benefits me. And fuck that.

post #32 of 1423
Less than 2 weeks to go. I'm a committed remainer. It's true that the powers that be made a mess of the Euro currency - and the Greeks, Portuguese and Spanish are still suffering because of it - but if we leave then they will probably implement even crazier policies.

If you are in any doubt then watch err John Major, yes John Major destroy the leave campaign:

https://youtu.be/zyn9Lq5IX9E
post #33 of 1423
I'm also a committed remainer, and it's not doing my blood pressure any good. I'm out campaigning over the next two weeks, and might just switch off the news until the referendum. I think both sides have their mature arguments out now, so it's just going to turn into swapping punches.

We had a bit of a discussion/I went off on one in this thread.

http://www.chud.com/community/t/155548/i-havent-heard-a-single-compelling-reason-for-britain-to-leave-the-eu
post #34 of 1423

If anyone thinks that leaving the EU will solve a single problem they're kidding themselves. Unless their problem is that the consumer, labor and legal protections aren't quite enough like the ones the US has. Which is non existent, for the sarcasm deficient. 

post #35 of 1423
Now this is interesting. Schauble has categorically stated Britain won't have access to the Single Market if we leave:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/eu-referendum-labour-takes-centre-stage-as-andy-burnham-says-ver/

I'm no fan of his constrictive, hysterically anti-inflationary policies which have contributed to mass unemployment in Southern Europe, but he has a point.
post #36 of 1423

What's coming out for anyone paying attention is that this is and always has been about the festering anger among certain Tories and ex-Tories that we ratified the Maastricht Treaty (never mind the fact that the extent to which we actually signed up for the things it brought in was very limited, and pretty much only the co-operation stuff on foreign policy and crime). They're dressing it up with appeals to people who they themselves have spent forty years screwing over, and with this weird delusion that our sovereignty is actually under threat (spoiler - it really isn't hence the fact we can exercise it if we choose to leave).

 

I can understand hard left-wingers being engaged with the fact that despite the social and labour benefits, the EU and its forerunners have always been about promoting trade and capitalism, and I can understand why people left behind after structural change would be looking for someone to blame. That they're being manipulated into thinking it's all about immigration and somehow it will all be changed for the better if we leave is disgraceful, though. 

post #37 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

Now this is interesting. Schauble has categorically stated Britain won't have access to the Single Market if we leave:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/eu-referendum-labour-takes-centre-stage-as-andy-burnham-says-ver/

I'm no fan of his constrictive, hysterically anti-inflationary policies which have contributed to mass unemployment in Southern Europe, but he has a point.

 

Depsite the rhetoric I honestly don't think the Brexit leaders, at least on the Troy side, really want to completely detach but instead want to roll back to pre-1992. The problem with Schauble's intervention is that while it would be a factor for anyone politically and historically savvy enough to realise that was the underlying game plan, anyone thinking of voting to leave entirely for sovereignty or immigration reasons is just going to see a foreigner being aggressive and their views will be further entrenched. Especially when it gets spun that way by the pro-Brexit press.

 

I don't blame him for saying it, though. The idea we would be welcomed to the table with open arms by people we have turned our backs on just when they could really do without the hassle is extraordinarily disingenuous.

post #38 of 1423

My instinct is that, regardless of the polls at the moment, we'll scrape through with a Bremain. Much like the Scottish Referendum, people generally chicken out for the status quo once they get into the polling booth.

 

It's unlikely to be conclusive enough to neuter UKIP or Farage though, which is a shame.

post #39 of 1423

No, and it won't stop the arguments rolling on elsewhere, either.

 

The one thing it might do...maybe...is spur better focus in Westminster on those left behind over the last forty years (who am I kidding?) and incentivise Brussels to start thinking more about it's broader based appeal. When I was growing up, the interaction with the EEC/EC was about increasing rights, protections and fairness, and funding opportunity. Now, I know it has a firefight on its hands, but they need to start finding more time to emphasise those qualities again.

 

ETA: That the campaigns have singularly failed to create basic accurate perceptions is a real indictment of this whole process, and of education in this country in general. I am not a fan of referenda and this last few months hasn't changed my mind on that one little bit.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-a7074311.html


Edited by jhp1608 - 6/10/16 at 5:33am
post #40 of 1423

The Union isn't an a la carte proposal. If everyone gets to pick and choose which rules apply to them it will end up an even more difficult effort. And it's already epically hard.

 

It's all or nothing. 

post #41 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

The Union isn't an a la carte proposal. If everyone gets to pick and choose which rules apply to them it will end up an even more difficult effort. And it's already epically hard.

It's all or nothing.
Sure. But if "all" gets to the point where it's spurring member states to leave, maybe they might want to take that into consideration.
post #42 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
 

The Union isn't an a la carte proposal. If everyone gets to pick and choose which rules apply to them it will end up an even more difficult effort. And it's already epically hard.

 

It's all or nothing. 

 

Oh, I agree. I was more commenting on what the motivation is behind a lot of this, and that Schauble's intervention won't necessarily make much of a dent. I wish he hadn't said anything about coming back later if Britain wants to. One of my main logical arguments is that Britain can leave whenever it wants to (sort of, article 50, ordinary legislation and all that), but once it is out, it is out forever.

post #43 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Sure. But if "all" gets to the point where it's spurring member states to leave, maybe they might want to take that into consideration.

 

You might think that, but that would basically defeat the point of a common market. Plus, the long game remains co-operation leading to convergence leading to political union (please). it might seem pragmatic to try to box and cox for a while, and perhaps it seems attractive to do so when the mood music across the continent is not towards integration but there will be a lot of resistance, quite rightly, to stepping back, even if you don't currently move forwards.

 

There is an argument to say the EU would be better off without Britain (politically at least), but since I live in Britain, I'm not going to be saying that out in public.

 

In some respects it is worth remembering what the EU is.

 

There is the EC - this is the common market, same rules for doing business, free movement, no customs duties or similar, labour laws etc

There is the EU - this is the overarching entity which defines citizenship, includes the EC, but also has institutional involvement in stuff around justice, home affairs and foregin policy, purely on a best efforts, co-operative basis

There is the Eurozone - this is the bit with the common currency and all the monetary and lackof fiscal unity that entails.

 

Immigration aside, which is as I have argued before, taking up time utterly disproportionate to its actual effect on the country, as well as being a fig leaf for domestic policy failings, the political/economic stuff Brexiteers most commonly get stressed about it (a) getting pulled into the Eurozone and (b) the introduction of the EU leading to replacing co-operation on those non-EC issues with actual dominion over them. The irony of course is that no-one has suggested that the exception from the Eurozone, nor the limited involvement on justice or foregin affairs, should be altered.

 

It's all fear for the future. Which is bollocks, because any such changes would trigger the need for a referendum under UK law, and even if the Tories hadn't crowbarred that into our constitution, would precipitate a national debate on whether to pull out anyway. 

post #44 of 1423

Schauble's comments seem quite reasonable actually, even though the headline talking point of "You won't be allowed to adopt the Norwegian model" is the key talking point.

 

He has stressed that further political integration is impossible with the brexit looming and expressed worries about the Netherlands for example reacting in a similar fashion. That the politicians would appear out of touch if they didn't respond by realizing there is potential dissatisfaction with the way things are being handled in Europe anyway.

 

And yes, we can come back. Probably humiliatingly cap in hand, and he has said quite happily he'll take us. Because whatever deal we have to take in thirty years time will not involve half the concessions we have now.

 

Frankly, the Iceland/Norwegian model is a non-starter anyway. The concessions required to make that work are essentially the key points that Brexit are talking down. We're just going to have to be an external country, tariffs and all and work it out from there.

post #45 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

Schauble's comments seem quite reasonable actually, even though the headline talking point of "You won't be allowed to adopt the Norwegian model" is the key talking point.

 

He has stressed that further political integration is impossible with the brexit looming and expressed worries about the Netherlands for example reacting in a similar fashion. That the politicians would appear out of touch if they didn't respond by realizing there is potential dissatisfaction with the way things are being handled in Europe anyway.

 

And yes, we can come back. Probably humiliatingly cap in hand, and he has said quite happily he'll take us. Because whatever deal we have to take in thirty years time will not involve half the concessions we have now.

 

Frankly, the Iceland/Norwegian model is a non-starter anyway. The concessions required to make that work are essentially the key points that Brexit are talking down. We're just going to have to be an external country, tariffs and all and work it out from there.

 

All fair points. On reflection the Brexit official position seem to have hardened around the idea that we will simply trade with Europe as an outside party. Which seems like an odd position to put yourself in for the sake of not taking some domestic steps to alleviate the pain for people affected by competitive forces.

post #46 of 1423
Join us, Britain! Become the 51st state.
post #47 of 1423
I believe our official designation is Airstrip One in that case.
post #48 of 1423
We'll call you "Old England!"
post #49 of 1423
Ye Olde England, please.
post #50 of 1423

EDIT: Sorry, meant this for the Political thread.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › What the fuck!? The thread formally known as "I haven't heard a single compelling reason for Britain to leave the EU."